It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by burdman30ott6
I'm not seeing it. Of course I didn't see what the big deal was over Heidi Fleis, either and she looks (and apparently acts) similarly.
Originally posted by Violater1
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I read about her having sex, but where does it say she was naked?
Oh the joys of being literate.
Did you try to read the story in both of the links?
Originally posted by burdman30ott6
Originally posted by truthseeker1984
She was 41 and her "lover" was 27. Although, she's still hot for a 41 year old....
The definition of "hot" must have changed since I got married.
I'm not seeing it. Of course I didn't see what the big deal was over Heidi Fleis, either and she looks (and apparently acts) similarly.
She later told a news conference it was a private matter between her and her husband.
The press conference revealed few new details but the woman offered more information to television and radio reporters during the day Monday, claiming that no one at the park could see her.
Corona told a Rochester television reporter that "no sex occurred" and that she was sorry it happened.
Police reports note that both Corona and Amend denied they were having sex, but according to court documents, Corona later admitted to police that they were.
Originally posted by chaosinorder
She should be made an example of.
She must be given tough sentence mainly for doing it around children's play area.
Originally posted by defcon5
The more charges they stack, the harder it is for a jury to dismiss all the individual charges.
Originally posted by tezzajw
Why should a jury have to listen to these charges of adultery, when many other people commit the same 'offence' on a daily basis - without ever being charged?
Originally posted by tezzajw
I wonder how many judges, lawyers, police officers, politicians and common jury members have also committed adultery without ever being charged?
Originally posted by defcon5Its just something that police do because they want to see people who commit crimes taken off the street rather then always pled down to probation. Make sense?
Originally posted by burdman30ott6
Well... I look at it this way, the same law says that it is illegal for her husband to track the other guy down, tie him to a tree, and cut his weavers off before crushing his head with a meat mallet.
Considering that, adultery should be against the law and criminal charges should be available to the prosecution over it.
The woman should just be thankfull she doesn't live in an Arabic country where such an act would result in being pelted with stones until she was dead by order of the courts.
Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
reply to post by Violater1
YAY !!!! I am so Happy They are enforcing the LAW.. Since adultery is ILLEGAL !
Every person in the USA who commits this crime should be charged with it.
This is Wonderful! I hope the judge throws the book at this woman.. as well as the guy and whatever they were able to charge him with.
Originally posted by chaosinorder
She should be made an example of. Not because she committed adultery, she committed it in a children's play area while the children and parents were around. It shows a charecteristic of animal behaviour like a dog doing it in public. Then let her be treated harshly. As for her husband i cant imagine how he was holding her hand after knowing where it was just before a while.
She must be given tough sentence mainly for doing it around children's play area.
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
I do not understand why anyone would want to harm the other guy.
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Then obviously the punishment for sex in public is not as harsh as it should be then?
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Why do we need extra laws in order to punish people for one crime?
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Basically what you are saying is that what she did by having sex in that park was bad but it would not have been as bad had she been single. How does that make sense?
Originally posted by burdman30ott6
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
I do not understand why anyone would want to harm the other guy.
It's Old School, my friend.
That's pretty much the only way I can describe it.
Not saying I myself am an old guy, because I am not.
However, I do lean away from the modern "enlightened" views of mankind... I'd rather drag my knuckles, let my set swing freely, and carry myself with what I consider a large amount of pride that conform to the popular modern stance of humanity.
There are a lot of things in the world I do not understand... possessive jealous rage simply doesn't happen to be one of them, if you catch my drift.
I'd surmise that it is no coincidence that divorce rates as well as sexually transmitted disease among other things have skyrocketed as this more open, nonviolent way of dealing with infidelity has gained traction.
Men more often made certain that the woman they were with were not already spoken for decades ago because they valued their own lives and knew there would be harsh consequences if they laid with the wrong gal. [/quote
Really? When was that?
Originally posted by defcon5
It depends on the state, here in Florida we have numerous extremely strict laws about such things, since we are obviously a heavily trafficked vacation destination. IE think spring break, etc…
Because people make plea deals, and first offenders normally only get probation.
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
I am not saying that, I am explaining why the police charged her with it, I did not charge her with anything so don’t go blaming me.
However, I guarantee that is why the police charged her the way they did, and if they could have nailed them on any other charges they would have stacked those on as well.
Here, in my state, those two would be charged as registered sexual offenders for the rest of their lives for what they did, obviously where they are the laws are not as strict, so the police had to use what laws they could apply to the situation.