stupid laws/codes

[RipplecutBuddha]

Okay, so I'm at my brother's house to work on my car, only I can't because I have to help him cut up several 6-foot lengths of wood. Why cut the wood? Here's why;

He collected about a cord of wood in six foot lengths and stacked it on his property. It was near a neighbor's fence, but didn't touch it anywhere. In fact the neighbor was able to paint the fence without moving the wood at all. It's entirely on his property and about five feet from the alley itself. He was storing it for emergency use should the power fail.

Then comes the lovely city government. Apparently someone saw the wood and complained about it for some reason. So the city sent him a letter of code violation and that the wood had to be removed or he would face fines up to and including jail time.

Seriously....jail time....for having a cord of wood in six foot lengths on your own property. I told him just to move the wood into his backyard where nobody can see it, but no, the city even sent a uniformed police officer in a patrol car to tell my 6-month pregnant sister in law that it had to either be cut up into firewood or removed to avoid the fines/jail time. She was near hysterics.

My brother was more than willing to go to jail for it (he was eager for the article in the paper he was going to write himself once he got out), but his wife said to cut it up and just get it overwith, so that's why I was cutting lumber rather than fixing my car.

I'm not irritated about not getting my car fixed, it's the notion that a city can tell you what you can and cannot store on your property, how it must be stored, and even threaten you with jail time (criminal record). I mean if it were guns or even ammunition, I would be far more agreeable, but this is just wood...logs. Sometimes I think the second coming can't get here soon enough.

[annewandering]

In many places you can not even change the oil in your car let alone repair it. Did you hear about the woman who was fined for having a nice green garden in her front yard? there was a huge stink about it for months till the city finally semi recanted. Vegetable Garden Brings Criminal Charges in Oak Park, Michigan - ABC News

[Misshalfway]

I went to Oregon. They yelled at me for pumping my own gas.

[Sicily510]

I'm not suprised with all this city code mambo jumbo, my mom was getting fined for having her Nova parked on her drive way for 6 months, she had to pay her property tax, mortgage, and bills aside from not being able to fix her vehicle. This is the work of the State governments, California is the worse of all the states as far as city codes etc. Good luck on fixing your vehicle though. :)

[Anddenex]

Oh my goodness, do not get me started, on city codes which are ridiculous!

I'm about to write in all caps....I will refrain though.

Some people it seems get into political leadership and then they think they can make up whatever law they like.

I can understand some city codes, however this one you are talking about, and the one Annewandering mentioned, are, well, to put it bluntly... pathetic.

Especially, if they threaten jail time for this type of code violation.

I agree, the second coming needs to come quicker.

[Wingnut]

Where I live, we are not allowed to take certain types of wood across county lines -- the state is trying to control an insect blight, and containing hardwoods is a way of containing the offending bugs. It's not always arbitrary...there is sometimes a reason behind the idiocy.

If this be madness, yet there is method in't.

[Traveler]

Where I live, we are not allowed to take certain types of wood across county lines -- the state is trying to control an insect blight, and containing hardwoods is a way of containing the offending bugs. It's not always arbitrary...there is sometimes a reason behind the idiocy.

If this be madness, yet there is method in't.

A few years back we had an dog that became quite old and was suffering needlessly. I determined to put the poor animal down and out of his misery. A lawyer friend advised me against it. State ordinance prohibit pet owners from putting down their own animals - with 5 years in prison for animal abuse???

And we could not bury the animal in our yard and you cannot put larger pets in the garbage. And it cost over $300 dollars for the vet to perform these services. We got the dog from an animal shelter for $25 - I seriously considered taking the dog back to the animal shelter.

The Traveler

[Guest]

And here I'm bummed that we can't have a pet chicken... my kids fell in love with this really fancy chicken with super silky feathers (can't remember what it is called) and wanted to raise him for a pet. Zoning laws prohibit it.

Oh, and in the State of Florida - you cannot put a pregnant pig in a pen. State law.

[annewandering]

These are good examples of stupid laws but the one going around facebook right now takes the cake. 31 states allow rapists visitation and custody rights to a child born of rape. Perhaps this is more about laws being too vague. The laws have not been rewritten in those 31 states to exclude rapists from having parental rights over a child of rape.

[Anddenex]

These are good examples of stupid laws but the one going around facebook right now takes the cake. 31 states allow rapists visitation and custody rights to a child born of rape. Perhaps this is more about laws being too vague. The laws have not been rewritten in those 31 states to exclude rapists from having parental rights over a child of rape.

What?

How in the world would any law maker justify this type of code. Talk about stabbing a knife into the victim and then turning it.

[Guest]

Maybe this has something do with those states considering the possibility of legitimate versus illegitimate rape.

Just kidding.

[Vort]

What?

How in the world would any law maker justify this type of code. Talk about stabbing a knife into the victim and then turning it.

I would be much more sympathetic to this point of view if not for the ever-widening definition of "rape".

We think of rape as meaning that a man pushes a woman into the bushes, forces off her underwear, and forcibly penetrates her as she screams for help and suffers in agony. In actual fact, most "rapes" are nothing of the sort. An adult woman who freely agrees to sex but whose blood alcohol level is 0.08% has by definition been raped. A fifteen-year-old, well-developed, sexually experienced girl who seduces her virginal and naive 18-year-old boyfriend is also a rape "victim", poor thing, while her nasty evil boyfriend is a rapist. In the definition of feminist academicians, any woman who has sex when she doesn't really want to, even if she freely agrees to it, is being raped.

Under such circumstances, with "rape" so ill-defined and used as little more than a political bludgeon, it is only reasonable that so-called "rapists" have parental visitation rights.

[annewandering]

I would be much more sympathetic to this point of view if not for the ever-widening definition of "rape".

We think of rape as meaning that a man pushes a woman into the bushes, forces off her underwear, and forcibly penetrates her as she screams for help and suffers in agony. In actual fact, most "rapes" are nothing of the sort. An adult woman who freely agrees to sex but whose blood alcohol level is 0.08% has by definition been raped. A fifteen-year-old, well-developed, sexually experienced girl who seduces her virginal and naive 18-year-old boyfriend is also a rape "victim", poor thing, while her nasty evil boyfriend is a rapist. In the definition of feminist academicians, any woman who has sex when she doesn't really want to, even if she freely agrees to it, is being raped.

Under such circumstances, with "rape" so ill-defined and used as little more than a political bludgeon, it is only reasonable that so-called "rapists" have parental visitation rights.

So because you dislike feminists you believe its ok for rapists to have parental rights? Ok how about the Florida judge who decided it was the murderers right to see his kids when he murdered their mother in front of them?

Rape is very well defined. A person who is not in control of their faculties can not consent to sex legally. It doesnt matter how well developed a girl is. If she is underage she is under age. You might ask yourself who was the person who introduced her to sex in the first place and his excuse. Well she looked older. Right? If she says no whatever the circumstances then it is rape.

So if you are looking for sex outside of marriage you better know what jail bait means. You better make sure the person is competent and you better back off if she says no. I dont see how that is hard to understand.

ALL raped people are victims. Even feminists and women who are strong enough to stand up for themselves. Even women you dont like or approve of.

No child deserves to be saddled with a rapist as a parent they have to see by law.Even if you disapprove of the rape victim at least consider the child.

[Vort]

So because you dislike feminists you believe its ok for rapists to have parental rights?

No.

Now go back and reread my post more carefully.

[kartvines]

Well to be honest with you I have a professional pert control license and belong to the National Plant Diagnostics Network, and have been a landscaper for over 40 years and there is very good reason for this sort of ban and that is to protect native wood lands, many pest such as the oak borer can survive in cured season fire wood and get transported to an area that has not had this pest introduction, and because this imported firewood the pest escape to destroy more trees, that is just one small example I get notices almost every week of invading pest that have and can cripple a state not only for the efforts and cost of trying to control it but also because of lost of native forests.

Where I live, we are not allowed to take certain types of wood across county lines -- the state is trying to control an insect blight, and containing hardwoods is a way of containing the offending bugs. It's not always arbitrary...there is sometimes a reason behind the idiocy.

If this be madness, yet there is method in't.

[annewandering]

No.

Now go back and reread my post more carefully.

I read your post, Vort and I disagree with almost everything you said. You have said in the past your views on feminism and it is very clear in your post that your views have not changed on iota.

[Vort]

I read your post, Vort and I disagree with almost everything you said.

Really? Let's test that hypothesis. You must disagree with "almost everything" I wrote before, which I will reproduce in its entirety below. By my count, I made (depending on how you want to parse things) between seven and ten claims. With how many do you actually disagree? If you agree with more than one or perhaps two, you are clearly wrong -- you do not in fact disagree with "almost everything" I wrote. So, let's find out:

I would be much more sympathetic to this point of view if not for the ever-widening definition of "rape".

Do you think that I wouldn't be much more sympathetic to this point of view if not for the ever-widening definition of "rape"? Or is it that you disagree that the definition of "rape" has widened?

We think of rape as meaning that a man pushes a woman into the bushes, forces off her underwear, and forcibly penetrates her as she screams for help and suffers in agony.

Do you disagree that this is the common view of the meaning of "rape"?

In actual fact, most "rapes" are nothing of the sort.

Do you disagree that most of what is reported as "rape" does not in fact involve forcible penetration as described above?

An adult woman who freely agrees to sex but whose blood alcohol level is 0.08% has by definition been raped.

Do you disagree that this by definition constitutes rape?

A fifteen-year-old, well-developed, sexually experienced girl who seduces her virginal and naive 18-year-old boyfriend is also a rape "victim", poor thing, while her nasty evil boyfriend is a rapist.

Do you disagree that the promiscuous fifteen-year-old girl described above would be classified as a "rape victim"?

Do you disagree that her naive boyfriend would be classified as a "rapist"?

In the definition of feminist academicians, any woman who has sex when she doesn't really want to, even if she freely agrees to it, is being raped.

Do you disagree that feminist academicians teach exactly this?

Under such circumstances, with "rape" so ill-defined and used as little more than a political bludgeon, it is only reasonable that so-called "rapists" have parental visitation rights.

Do you disagree that a man who might be classified by some as a "rapist" based on the outrageous definitions above should reasonably have parental visitation rights?

You have said in the past your views on feminism and it is very clear in your post that your views have not changed on iota.

In this, at least, you are correct.

[annewandering]

Yup thats pretty much accurate, Vort. I am not so naive that I dont realize some people accused of rape did not commit any rape. That is what courts are for isnt it?

To me the sad thing is that many of the victims of rape will not report it and insist on prosecution, which leaves them even more vulnerable to rapists demands to enjoy their biological children with the added bonus of emotionally raping the victim over and over.

[Vort]

Yup thats pretty much accurate, Vort.

What's pretty much accurate? That you do not in fact disagree with almost all of what I wrote?

[annewandering]

What's pretty much accurate? That you do not in fact disagree with almost all of what I wrote?

What is accurate is that I do disagree with almost everything. Perhaps not in the emotional laden terms you have used occasionally but yep. Pretty much all.

[Vort]

What is accurate is that I do disagree with almost everything. Perhaps not in the emotional laden terms you have used occasionally but yep. Pretty much all.

Then please respond to my very thorough post and specify which parts you agree with. I think you are wrong.

This need not be a matter of mere opinion. You can actually respond to the post I made and we can find out if you're right or wrong.

[annewandering]

I agree the 18 year old boy is not necessarily a rapist, although he is old enough for it to be statutory. I do not agree with the idea that a promiscuous 15 year old girl is not a victim. How did she get her 'experience'?

Yes I went through every one.

[Guest]

Yup thats pretty much accurate, Vort. I am not so naive that I dont realize some people accused of rape did not commit any rape. That is what courts are for isnt it?

To me the sad thing is that many of the victims of rape will not report it and insist on prosecution, which leaves them even more vulnerable to rapists demands to enjoy their biological children with the added bonus of emotionally raping the victim over and over.

Anne, the law is not black and white. Just because the law allows for those who have been charged with rape to have regular parenting rights over their children does not mean that ALL rapists get this privilege.

My neighbor from a while back was 18 when he got his 16-year-old girlfriend pregnant. They've been dating for over a year. He loves this girl and, of course, loves this child. He tried to gain custody of the child due to the fact that she was planning on getting the baby aborted so that her parents will not find out about their "sexual activity". He promised to take the child if she carries the baby to term. He is devout Catholic.

Her father got informed of the pregnancy and he immediately sued the boy for statutory rape. It was ugly. If you do a neighborhood criminal search online, his house pops up on the map with a label - rape. Yes, he did not get custody of the child - the parents of his girlfriend now has custody of the child. No, even the boy's parents (the paternal grandparents of the child) are not allowed visitation rights. It is a terrible tragedy. And... THIS IS IN FLORIDA. One of the 31 states listed as one of those States that Allow rapists visitation rights! So what happened? The Florida law on custody hearings is geared towards the "best interest of the child". It doesn't care if you're a rapist or not. If it's not in the best interest of the child for you to have visitation rights, you're not gonna get one. For this case, the ugliness of the court hearing and all the restraining orders that the girl's father put on the boy and his family caused the court to declare that continuing contact between the two is not in the best interest of the child.

So yeah, that idiot 31 States rapists thing that is going around the internet because of the recent Republican goopla? Plain mis-information compounded by people who don't bother to go beyond the sound bite.

Edited August 23, 2012 by anatess

[annewandering]

Think what you will, Anatess. The decision may be up to the judge but it shouldnt be an option at all. In the situation you mention the question was if he had the right to force the ex-gf to carry the baby to term. It was not about rapists rights.

He did get his way in that. Since he took it to court it should have been obvious to his lawyer that he was open to a statutory rape charge.

I am not in favor of abortion. He was 18 and boys do know that at that age it is statutory rape. He was legally in the wrong.

What exactly is goopla? Things you dont agree with?

[Vort]

I agree the 18 year old boy is not necessarily a rapist, although he is old enough for it to be statutory. I do not agree with the idea that a promiscuous 15 year old girl is not a victim. How did she get her 'experience'?

By having consensual sex with same-aged and younger boys.

Yes I went through every one.

No, you didn't, at least not anywhere that anyone can read your responses. But I welcome you to do so.