posted on April 8, 2003 02:04:09 PM new
You're good at starting topics for us to debate. Might you just have a court case [I always enjoy your 'legal' takes on those] or any other subject that doesn't involve the war. please....please...pretty please
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 8, 2003 02:40:02 PM new
Hi Cheryl - Sure...that sounds good. There just might be some super sluths around here. I'm not one myself, but I always enjoy reading the posts of those her are.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 8, 2003 03:04:31 PM new
How about a quick giggle?
PINE BLUFF, Ark. - Police say they aren't sure what charge is appropriate for a man arrested after tellers laughed him out of a bank he apparently tried to rob.
The man entered a branch of the Bank of America about 10 a.m. Monday, with a trash bag, authorities said.
"Put the money in the bag," he demanded.
Instead, one of the two tellers told him the bank was out of money, and the other teller laughed and offered the man deposit slips. She told police that made the intruder angry, and he left without any money in his bag.
Minutes after tellers alerted authorities, a Jefferson County sheriff's deputy picked up Julius Kearney, 23, of Little Rock, as he walked nearby. Kearney was arrested after witnesses in the bank identified him as the man with the trash bag, police said.
No weapon was found, and the man at the bank never threatened anybody, so police are unsure how the case will be handled.
"Technically, it could be robbery, and since it is in a bank, the FBI might also have some regulations about what we can charge him with," said police spokesman Robert Rawlinson.
"Either he'll be (in jail) or we will put him in for mental evaluation," Rawlinson said. "He's not just going to be released."
posted on April 8, 2003 03:29:16 PM new
Here's one for ya:
Customer Help Number Is Really Sex Line
Saturday, 22-Mar-2003 7:16AM Story from AP
Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press (via ClariNet)
ATLANTA (AP) -- They may expect Southern charm, but some BellSouth Internet customers found the service was a little too friendly when they called a toll-free number listed in the phone book.
The number for a phone sex operation was mistakenly printed in most of the 50 million residential phone books the company sent out in the past year.
In previous years, BellSouth's White Pages listed the number for its Internet services line as 1-800-4DOTNET. In the 2002 books, the company decided to put the corresponding numerals, but botched one number.
The mistake was caught Feb. 13 when a customer complained, BellSouth spokesman David Rogers said this week. Residential phone books sent out since then have been corrected.
The wrong number was listed in the front customer guide section of the White Pages, Rogers said. However, the correct number was still under the appropriate heading in the business listings, he said.
BellSouth had considered buying the phone sex operation's number to avoid confusion with its customers, but abandoned that idea, Rogers said.
posted on April 8, 2003 04:09:32 PM new
The most interesting case lately has been whether the government can force a person to take drugs to make them "sane", and if so how broad can this be applied.
There has already been a ruling to force a death row inmate to take drugs so he could be executed, the present case is to force drugs on a defendant so he can stand trial.
But if the state has this power, how broad should it be ?
posted on April 8, 2003 04:41:54 PM new
Wow, wouldn't that leave a lot of attorneys in the dust? While I don't believe in government interference in most cases, I think I can make an exception in this one. I work in an alternative therapy clinic and several of our clients need to take meds to stay stable. We can tell right away when they've decided not to. They become erratic and potentially dangerous. Still, taking those meds is left up to their discretion. I think that "not fit to stand trial" is becoming an excuse as good as "not guilty by reason of insanity." When people become a danger to others and meds are the only thing that will keep us safe from them, then yes, it should be forced if need be. But let me ask you this, who would administer these drugs and how would these people be monitored? And, once they are deemed "sane" and stand trial, what happens if they are found innocent? Must they continue the drugs? There are certainly a lot of questions I have. Maybe someone out there has more of the answers.
Our solution has been to refuse to see any client that has not taken their meds on a regular basis. Believe it or not, under the threat of no massage, they start taking their meds regularly. LOL.
Cheryl
[ edited by CBlev65252 on Apr 8, 2003 04:44 PM ]
posted on April 8, 2003 07:16:53 PM new
Well I think that if it is demonstrated that they are a danger to themselves and to others, then the situation is somewhat more acceptable, but still flies in the face of bodily integrity and consent to intervention.
What about a teenager that is acting anti-social and is ruining their prospects for an education and a productive existence ?
What about "homeless" street people that can not function because they refuse to take their meds ? What if they took their drugs they would hold down a job and be self sufficient, should the government be able to force them to take drugs ?
Can "normal" mental behavior be enforced by the government ?
Cheryl