Km411

I agree that good manners don’t require a response to unsolicited texts on apps; no reply is the reply. I feel differently when someone texts me, I take the trouble to respond, and they don’t reply. But, I never take it personally because what do they have to judge me on—six words in a profile? There’s nothing to take personally.

No joke, today I get a message on Grindr from a 64 yr old dude asking if I knew what a sugar daddy was and, after explaining it to me, asked if I’d be interested in the arrangement. He’d pay my bills and I’d allow him to “vent.” My age (mid-50s) is clearly stated in my profile, which I pointed out to him. I also mentioned I’m financially independent and don’t need anyone to pay my bills, and that my bills were likely more than he could handle. But he persisted. So, hell yeah I want a sugar daddy!

I don’t know that a direct connection is needed; if the defense team successfully plays the PR game, he’s Robinhood. The manifesto supports this. But it’s not a legal defense; the defense team will also develop and present legal, procedural, and evidentiary defenses as you mention.

I’ll PM my gym’s address 😆

My comments above were meant to be facetious. But we already have a moral outrage defense in the US legal system in the form of jury nullification. It’s not a defense recognized by law, and defense counsel is prohibited from advocating it at trial, but a jury’s sense of moral justice can and often does result in nullification, and that outcome is not appealable. This is what the defense will be going for in this case.

Interesting; how do you find them and how do you make the offer?

A jury would know it when they see it.

UnitedHealthcare slammed for denying cancer patient while in surgery Maybe moral outrage should be a defense to murder?

So sorry to learn of your experience.

This case will be used as justification for a sweeping ban on gay adoptions in GA.

I don’t support capital punishment generally, but in this case am willing to suspend my beliefs.