Daily Archives: December 20, 2007

Because she’s hot

image1110931g.jpg

Jami Floyd over at Court TV calls the media and politicians out on why female sex offenders are not made into monsters: because they’re hot, because they’re women and because women like them were the objects of the fantasies of the men that now control our legislatures and media. She’s got a point.

Debra Lafave, the FL teacher who was spared prison time after having sex with a teen, is back in court facing a probation violation because she spoke to a 17 year old female co-worker. The first time around, her lawyer seemingly argued that she shouldn’t go to jail because she was too attractive. Something about meat and lions. WTF.

The state of the – *yawn*

It seems like every month or so, one of these posts makes the rounds [that's five already; six if you count this. There's room for two more in my phrase. Who wants to step up?] of the blogosphere. Can the blogosphere survive yet another year?

So, really. Is the blogosphere stagnant? Can there be new blogs? Will there be new blogs? Who gives a rat’s ass?  Oops, how did that get in there?

I mean, besides someone like Kevin O’Keefe of lexblog – who, you know, runs a business off of blogs – why do other bloggers care? Shouldn’t the question be: has readership stagnated? By all accounts: no. Readership has increased and will continue to do so as blogs become more “mainstream”. But why should I get all in a tizzy about whether the rate of new blogs has leveled out.

FTW.

Update (not a real one): This beast grows faster than I can keep up! More here, here and here! I need a new sentence up there. I’m not even going to try and send trackbacks to all of them.

A man jumps off a building…

This is the classic first year criminal law exercise. Who is liable? What is the extent of their culpability? For those who don’t know, the story goes like this:

A man, intending to commit suicide, jumps off a building. As he free falls, he passes a window on the seventh floor. Just as he passes that window, a shot rings out and a bullet strikes him, killing him. Neither he nor the shooter was aware that there was a safety net constructed just below the sixth floor, which would have prevented him from dying had there been no fatal shot.

Turns out, the shooter was this man’s father, who was in the habit of waving his unloaded rifle at his wife. In another one of their arguments, he had waved the gun at her, this time it was loaded (unbeknown to either one) and went off, going through the window and striking his son.

It is further revealed that the gun, which was usually unloaded, was loaded by the son weeks prior, because he wanted his father to kill his mother.

The urban legend has this concluding as a case of suicide. Does the law support this? What would any of the participants be charged with in your jurisdiction?

The son, obviously, could be charged with some form of attempted homicide. It would be pointless, however, since he is dead. The father, on the other hand, could normally have been charged with recklessness, but it is unforseeable that a man jumping out a window would get shot by him. Or would it suffice that he attempted to shoot his wife, even though he always kept the gun unloaded?

I think this might have been on my crim law final.