Utopia Talk / Politics / Cali left is the new religious right

Habebe Member	Sat Sep 11 19:01:04 So I guess its the religious left? http://www...moval/ar-AAOkTZy?ocid=BingNews It could soon be a crime to take off a condom during sex.Likw for real for real, the government needs to get out of Americans bedrooms, it used to be the uber Christians, now the uber woke fanatics are at it.
Borthas Member	Sat Sep 11 19:26:39 Sounds like they are making rape illegal?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Sep 11 19:32:12 I am amazed it already isn't. Do you know why people use condoms? Then should see why taking it off and not telling the other person, should be criminal.
Habebe Member	Sat Sep 11 19:32:27 No, rape has been illegal since likw forever. "Golden State legislators moved closer to making California the first to outlaw the act of removing a condom without permission during sex." This is getting to chappelle show levels of wierd sex contracts.
Habebe Member	Sat Sep 11 19:35:24 Im curious how enforceable this is.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Sep 11 19:40:52 Well zero without a law, greater than zero with a law. Again, I am amazed it is legal to remove a condom without permission and impregnate and/or spread STDs.
Habebe Member	Sat Sep 11 21:02:02 Without permission and against ones will are different. I know times Ive started with one on the bed and by the time I'm in the hallway closet Ive said fuck it I want it raw dog.No malicious intent. Tricking someone into pregnancy or an std in any form should be illegal. But should we make it illegal to not get permission to switch positions? Like who the fuck does that?
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Sep 11 21:10:00 you only face lawsuit by the woman, not jail so it only applies when the woman has a problem with it, suggesting against their will although I imagine women would always want to know if you are removing it... especially Texans
Habebe Member	Sat Sep 11 21:29:45 TW, When being the operative word. I mean should they agree ahead of time that no matter what the condom stays on? Or situation depending? This all sounds absurd. Is it still a crime if she takes off the condom? Or how about I had a girl pleading for me to cum inside her, only to panic afterwards realizing she skipped her pill, so I bought her the morning after pill, no big deal.
Habebe Member	Sat Sep 11 21:30:36 I definitely yadda yadda yadda ed the sex to the pharmacist.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Sep 11 21:31:16 Plenty of things are illegal without permission and even when accompanied with the best of intentions. The distinctions you make are without a difference for the issue.
Habebe Member	Sat Sep 11 21:36:15 And let's be frank on what the real world use will be, angry exes and regretfull morning afters. And TW hit the nail on the head, assuming rightfully this will only be against men. Again, different positions increase the likelihood of pregnancy, so should all positions be agreed upon ahead of time? You realize how silly that sounds, yes?
Habebe Member	Sat Sep 11 21:38:58 Actually it encourages not wearing condoms at all.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Sep 11 21:47:34 "Is it still a crime if she takes off the condom? " no... she's the only one that can sue so she's the one who has to be unhappy & a woman can already sue for child support if she has a baby so the only 'danger' of this law is a woman faking you out to try to get pregnant, have an abortion & try to screw you on the emotional damages... seems unlikely to be a big draw... (& obviously they also have to win the lawsuit to work) from what i understand, women don't tend to enjoy their visits to abortion clinics... seems like there would be better ways to try to scam money out there
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Sep 11 21:49:21 If someone doesn’t want to do a certain position, what are going to do? Time to let this thread die.
Habebe Member	Sat Sep 11 22:02:45 "If someone doesn’t want to do a certain position, what are going to do?" Then don't, but in real life does anyone stop mid fuck and ask permission? It's a creepy step into the government, no different from the religious right banning blowjobs and anal.
Habebe Member	Sat Sep 11 22:04:20 Tw, I think the scammers would be motivated by emotions rather than cash primarily.
Habebe Member	Sat Sep 11 22:04:52 Creepy step into the bedroom by the government*
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Sep 11 23:41:05 the government isn't stepping in if you cause harm to a woman through sneaky behavior she can sue you, not that crazy & if they're willing to lie to sue you on this, they could already lie & sue on something else
Habebe Member	Sat Sep 11 23:59:05 It's one thing of you have some soet of contract ahead of time, bit who does that? If different sexual positions lead to different likleehoods of conception , would/should it also be illegal to switch sexual positions without first asking permission?
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Sep 12 00:03:44 i doubt any position change is remotely comparable to condom vs no condom plus the woman knows you're changing positions so not comparable already
Habebe Member	Sun Sep 12 00:04:11 Mabey I'm crazy, making me wear a mask during a pandemic to go out in public? Yeah, ok I get it. Monitoring my sexual positions and requiring contracts for bedroom acts? Creepy big brother.
Habebe Member	Sun Sep 12 00:06:37 "plus the woman knows you're changing positions so not comparable already" She doesn't know until after you have done it though, if you lack pre approval you have committed sexual battery by california logic.
Habebe Member	Sun Sep 12 00:08:57 Even the economics sound dumb. If this is really to help pay for abortions and such, how much money are they spending on these civil trials? Probably cheaper to just have the state pay for the abortion.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Sep 12 01:10:32 a condom probably matters quite a lot to a woman if she thought you had one then learns you secretly removed, she’s now going to worry -if- pregnant (or diseased) even if it never occurs, so you’re causing harm basically always so don’t be a dick
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Sep 12 06:26:16 Habebe Right then don’t, but positions (which you brought up) is not normally something you decide before hand unlike the use if protection. So if before fucking you have agreed to use protection and you remove that protection without informing the other person, you have changed the agreed uppbg conditions to engage in the activity to begin with. This is really really stupid and I think you know that, but have decided to keep digging.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Sep 12 06:32:43 This government overreach is not an argument, this is a clarification of the law, you can’t remove the protection without informing the other person. You should derive from that, laws that will protect a man from being snared by a woman who lies about being on the pill or inseminating herself with the contents of a condom. Highly problematic things that should be against the law if it isn’t already. You think that would be government interfering with your sex life? You have two choices, this futile fight against the zeitgeist or working towards securing equality for yourself and your brothers.
Habebe Member	Sun Sep 12 09:11:48 Nimatzo, I really and truly think this insane. Intentionally misleading someone about contraception should be a crime.Thats not what this is. This is a push by california to try and punish men and literally makes sex contracts a thing. This is way more an invasion into private lives than a vaccine or a mask, which Im fine with. How often does "stealthing" happen? I cant imagine too many men want to sneakily impregnate chicks, like it happens but what? 3 times a year? so now we need extra controls over how we conduct our sex lives? That's crazy.
Habebe Member	Sun Sep 12 09:21:17 Honestly in Cali, Id rather just not use condoms at all. The last thing is stressing over if I decide to pull the condom off, which in the past I have done, lets face it, they don't feel as good. Now in my experience I was generally the one who would insist on wearing them when I deemed it necessary. I get that IF someone actually planned and intended malicious intent, that's a horrible thing and honestly it probably happens in the reverse WAY more with women claiming they are on the pill or whatever and are not to trap a man with a kid, more common with celebrities and the wealthy Is imagine.
Habebe Member	Sun Sep 12 09:22:23 Honestly in Cali, Id rather just not use condoms at all. The last thing is stressing over if I decide to pull the condom off, which in the past I have done, lets face it, they don't feel as good. Now in my experience I was generally the one who would insist on wearing them when I deemed it necessary. I get that IF someone actually planned and intended malicious intent, that's a horrible thing and honestly it probably happens in the reverse WAY more with women claiming they are on the pill or whatever and are not to trap a man with a kid, more common with celebrities and the wealthy Is imagine.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Sep 12 10:07:32 If the other person has already agreed to unprotected sex, it is a complete non starter, a non issue all together. You are too wrapped up in the whose who of policy making and not what is being said. It is the exact same thing is lying about being on the pill. It is very strange you don’t see this and keep making even worse arguments. Like how often this happens, well often enough that you do it yourself and completely irrelevant. You don’t get to decide on your own that you want to have protected sex suddenly without informing the other party and getting the ok. Common sense, I thought, but apparently it needs to be legislated. Have I been there myself not digging the condome sensation, yes. One time I got the ok, another time I didn’t. The end.
Habebe Member	Sun Sep 12 10:41:08 Nimatzo, I dont think your getting where Im coming from. I think your looking at what its claimed to bw for and not what it really is. You said it happens so frequently even I did it, NO, that's a misunderstanding of what I said. I was saying how often does someone sneakily try to get a chick prego? *If this is really about paying for the abortion/clinic stuff, then mandate both parties regardless of intention split medical expenses, O feel like that makes more sense without a judge 2nd guessing how I get down.*
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Sep 12 11:50:24 "Intentionally misleading someone about contraception should be a crime. Thats not what this is. " no, it's exactly, & the only thing, that this is ---------------------- "How often does "stealthing" happen?" apparently, often enough it has a term, & there's a claim in article about online communities supporting it (which i don't doubt) ------------- "how often does someone sneakily try to get a chick prego? " i imagine it's not always about trying to cause pregnancy, might be just for selfish (pleasure) reasons
Habebe Member	Sun Sep 12 12:02:56 "apparently, often enough it has a term, & there's a claim in article about online communities supporting it (which i don't doubt)" And there are crazy femnazis who intentionally have abortions if it's a male, they actually have online communities. If a man gets charged to pay child support can he claim she said she was on the pill and then sue her for harassment? Why would mandating all parents equally split medical bills bot solve this if that's what this is about?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Sep 12 12:34:12 "Nimatzo, I dont think your getting where Im coming from." I don't think you understand where you are coming from! "You said it happens so frequently even I did it" You brought of frequency, as some how relevant for something in the law being clarified. I don't know how frequent or infrequent it is, nor do I think it is relevant. I didn't need a law to tell me that this was a fucked up behavior to engage in, in the first place. "I was saying how often does someone sneakily try to get a chick prego?" You are adding intention, I don't have to intend to kill you for my actions to be illegal. You intentionally remove the condom and intentionally do not seek consent for this significant change of the initial agreement. And clearly you do not understand that it _is_ a significant change and this is why you compared it to "different sex positions". This is why I gave you the straightest analogous thing, lying about the pill. You understand why that is problematic, you should understand why this is problematic. This isn't really rocket surgery habebe.
Habebe Member	Sun Sep 12 12:49:00 "You brought of frequency, as some how relevant for something in the law being clarified. " My point in that instance was that stealthing is something that is so infrequent that this law will help very few people, but it has the potential to cuase a lot of harm. And I do understand where I'm coming from, I dont want the government regulating how I have sex. Plus this will what, help 3 women and be used nefariously many more times, like protections from abuse laws which like 80%+ are made up. If she decides to keep the stealth Child, he has to pay child support anyway or stay with her. If she aborts it he should pay his share, period. I dont need a judge asking me about my sex life. Which is actually a.crime
Habebe Member	Sun Sep 12 12:50:18 "You brought of frequency, as some how relevant for something in the law being clarified. " My point in that instance was that stealthing is something that is so infrequent that this law will help very few people, but it has the potential to cuase a lot of harm. And I do understand where I'm coming from, I dont want the government regulating how I have sex. Plus this will what, help 3 women and be used nefariously many more times, like protections from abuse laws which like 80%+ are made up. If she decides to keep the stealth Child, he has to pay child support anyway or stay with her. If she aborts it he should pay his share, period. I dont need a judge asking me about my sex life. Which is actually a crime to ask females such questions generally called rape shield. Basically if a women accusers rape, you cant ask her about her sex life.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Sep 12 13:11:04 "government regulating how I have sex." You can have whatever kind of sex you want, as long as you find someone who is willing. In this case they are regulating what you can do to another person without their consent. It isn't your personal business, even the way you keep talking about this, "how I have sex", seems to disregard the fact that you are not fucking blow up dolls, but another human being. This "my sex life" is coming of as narcissisticly out of touch with common human decency. We are not talking about some asinine idea to write a contract detailing every aspect of the act, but the removal of the agreed upon protection towards STDs and pregnancy. It's like I sell you a car and then when you drive away, you notice the breaks do not work. Oh yea I took away the breaks after you signed the deal.
jergul large member	Sun Sep 12 13:16:42 In habebe's defence, at least he did not try to argue in favour of spousal rape exemptions that the bill is also targetting.
Habebe Member	Sun Sep 12 13:26:07 "You can have whatever kind of sex you want, as long as you find someone who is willing." Rape is illegal and should be.No need for the condom law. Im all for human decency, I'm not in favor of it being judged by the government. The problem is in case they getn pregos or a disease, right? I mean that is the supposed reason for this.The simple fix is that if you give someone an STD or or force them to either have an abortion or give birth you should be financially responsible, period. You claim this isnt asking for a formal sex contract, but it is, its exactly that.
Habebe Member	Sun Sep 12 13:34:31 Nim, You point out yourself, that intent doesn't makw hwr not pregnant or infected.So why not have then responsible regardless of his intent with a condom.
Habebe Member	Sun Sep 12 13:49:48 But I'm ready to agree to disagree that this is crazy intrusive. ----- Which im going off topic a bit here. Certain states in the US have deer populations that have something called CWD (chronic wasting disease) where the deer grow scrawny and snot alot. So its now illegal to hunt with deer tribes, presumably as the CWD can spread through bodily fluids. No problem. Also its standard you must wear x amount of neon orange while hunting, no problems. Why? Safety, clear and simple.Ask these same people to wear a mask and people go nuts...just seems odd.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Sep 12 15:07:07 ”Im all for human decency, I'm not in favor of it being judged by the government.” I am not in favor of lawlessness, I insist that people who violate laws be held to that standard and judged accordingly. Your bedroom isn’t a sovereign nation and people you have sex with, have rights. These are things we have come to take for granted as the foundations of modern western civilization and are non negotiable.
Habebe Member	Sun Sep 12 15:30:15 Tribes is supposed to be urine. I guess I mistyped and autocorrect made it wierd. Nimatzo, But doesn't holding both parties accountable for the expense regardless solve that issue without forcing people to answer a judge "So after you slipped out you intentionally slipped it off and just spit on it?" It doesnt matter if the condom fell off or was taken off, it happened and the consequences of pregnancy or disease should be handled. Accordingly regardless. If she isnt pregnant or diseased, then there is no problem. Obviously this law isn't non negotiable as , so far it ismt law anywhere in the US.We are an overly litigious society as it is.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Sep 12 16:54:37 "Seb Member Fri May 14 12:10:16 Nhill: A technical but meaningless distinction that lacks relevance to the point I was making. Nim raised them in rebuttal to my point in the original thread (data before your return) where I said that a proof of work based system could not scale out to achieve his stated desire of a fully decentralised monetary and financial system replacing existing ones so as to limit the power of state and large financial institutions." This is a lie, here is a reference to the original thread, where I EXPLICITLY mention Lightning network and the layer 2 technology for BTC as the potential thing to replace Visa/mastercard. I NEVER raised the binace visa card in that thread, since I was not even aware of it. see for yourself: http://www...hread=87979&time=1618997840541 "nhill Member Fri May 14 12:27:57 Also, you may have interpreted Nim's statement wrong again. Or perhaps I did, he'll have to clarify. But his story about the Uncle came off to me as an indication of further adoption & acceptance of our new financial ecosystem (doesn't matter that his Uncle may not fully understand the implications)." "Nimatzo iChihuaha Fri May 14 13:31:44 Yeah. Pretty obvious given the context, if your name isn’t seb. **The point is, a year ago there was no Binance visa card, now there is. In another 6 months things will develop and seb will still be here talking about PoW doesn’t scale (because seb doesn’t understand that networks can scale in layers), and the kicker is that PoW isn’t even the only consensus method**. Oh seb..." In my defense that was 5 months ago and while I don't think BTC is going anywhere because boomers have a lot of fiat, I don't really care even less about BTC today, sentiments I conveyed in the original thread: "I am not married to bitcoin, but I am married to my vision for the future and that future needs something like Bitcoin or Monero or Dogecoin. " This I can not defend though, that I mentioned Doge and Monero. These are arguably the worst instantiations. Shame on me. However this was ages ago in crypto years and I know better now, in context while the examples are poor, I am talking about the principle ideas and technology. You NEVER ackowledge instead double down: "So, your stunning argument for the success of crypto ecosystem is how a firm creates an interface that requires you to give over your crypto coins to them, and have a conventional debit card linked to an amount of fiat currency based on a notional unregulated debt they owe to you denominated in cryptocoins." Which I have addressed again in this thread. I don't give a shit to present any "stunning" argument about crypto to you or anyone. *I* believe in it. And even this response oozes the inability to look beyond the current instantiations. Anyway, enough time has been wasted!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Sep 12 16:55:17 Wrong thread please delete.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Sep 12 17:06:54 "Nimatzo, But doesn't holding both parties accountable for the expense regardless solve that issue without forcing people to answer a judge" You are barking up the wrong tree here. I don't think men should be held financially accountable, especially when women have the right to kill the fetus. Btw I want to take the honor, I expressed this sentiment befor Chappelle did that bit :) "Obviously this law" But I was not responding to this specific law, but your words about not wanting the government to judge you. In this abstract form, that is advocating for lawlessness. It is the government (technically the judiciary) job to judge people according to laws. In addition I said, your bedroom or wherever you choose to have sex is not a sovereign nation and the people you have sex with have rights and their integrity is protected by laws. If you violate them, you can rightly be judged. These are the pillars of all civilizations and certainly modern western countries. They can not be negotiated and have nothing to do with wokism.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Sep 12 17:17:39 Now, the fact that there is a inherent asymmetri and men basically have zero say when it comes to the issue of abortion and a cultural and legally codified asymmetri with child support, is problematic. None of that is going to change if men don't secure their rights, that is the only way to fight the intrusion and stupid wokism. There is a fairly straight legal line here from this law to what I am imploring you to do. Derive from it the laws to secure rights for yourself and your brothers. If it is illegal to pull off a condom without consent, which I think should be, that it is FUCKING illegal to lie about the pill or using your sperm without consent.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Sep 12 17:53:32 "Why would mandating all parents equally split medical bills bot solve this if that's what this is about?" because the guy is the one intentionally deceiving causing the problem (it being by 'stealth' the whole target of law)
Rugian Member	Sun Sep 12 19:58:47 I'm just curious as to how this would actually work. Woman: "He took off his condom during sex!" Man: "No I didn't." ??????
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Sep 12 20:03:47 Woman: He raped me. Man: No I didn't. The difficulty convicting people, is not a reason for it to be legal is it? I am curious what your point is.
Rugian Member	Sun Sep 12 20:06:37 nim Unless the guy is dumb enough to actually admit to having done it, how can any court find that he's liable? That is, unless the presumption of guilt is on the man (because Believe Women!), in which case, this law goes from just being inane to being actively problematic.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Sep 12 20:13:09 well, plenty of people to confess and I am still not sure I understand your point. Notwithstanding our inability to imagine the "how", every law starts with a principle of some sort. Do you think it should be legal to behave like this?
Pillz Member	Sun Sep 12 20:17:54 Considering that's exactly how rape trials/arbitrations/investigations/complaints work in the civil sphere of things, why are you confused rugian? I met a dude who got demoted and transferred because a subordinate claimed he encouraged his son to hit on her. His son doesn't work for the company and they met through one of her coworkers but still worked. All cause she was mad he hit if off with someone else in the group instead. He's now an absolutely insufferable cunt to work with because he's paranoid and trying to get promoted again (which won't happen because how could you promote a literal rapist???). Anyways. Glad I don't work with him and he can be a brown nosing cunt somewhere else. Also I'm not sure how this is different from laws in europe?
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Sep 12 21:09:42 lawsuits only require 51% belief of ‘guilt’ (so would be much easier than rape) then jury decides the $ amount by weighing what you claim are the damages (like medical bills and what treatment the plaintiff experts testify you will need in future vs what smaller amount defense experts claim) and if it’s like car accidents, the jury can say the person was X% responsible so must pay just X% of the damages (so not necessarily all)
Rugian Member	Sun Sep 12 21:23:47 Tumbleweed Thanks, it's rare that we agree on something. This is a "Believe Women" law, designed to be another way for men to be screwed over by the legal system. Nim I am taking context into account. This law is in the same vein as other stuff like campus rape tribunals and MeToo witchhunts. In theory, I don't have a problem with punishing anyone stupid enough to dump a condom without their partner's consent. In practice, I consider this to be another avenue for screwing over men in the legal system by making it easier for a jilted ex-partner to shake them down for money based on unproveable allegations.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 13 01:34:23 habebe The irony of finding legislation incredibly instrusive, but being fine with stealthing. Maybe this is just a failure of imagination on your part. Ok, Imagine you have agreed to anal penetration with a condom. Would you be upset of Jerome changed his mind and decided to go bareback after all?
jergul large member	Mon Sep 13 01:34:55 if jerome*
Habebe Member	Mon Sep 13 04:11:36 Jergul, Where did I say I was fine with stealthing? As a matter of fact several times I state the opposite.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 13 04:27:46 "In practice, I consider this to be another avenue for screwing over men in the legal system by making it easier for a jilted ex-partner to shake them down for money based on unproveable allegations." Then the criticism is that this was put under the civilian code and not the criminal code. I would be inclined to agree. But it does not change my general advice to men, especially the younger generation. Claim your rights and protect your sperm and wallets. The sooner men understand this the better. Women as a group are not your friends, they are just as vile and opportunistic as men. Real fucking cunts some of them. Keep that in mind when you are about to put your dick into one of them. Remember that manhood, excels in challenging and risky environments. The truth is we got complacent when we conquered the world. Naturally the woman saw their opportunity and swooped in to take our marbles. Nicely played women, you sneaky cunts! No time for whining and bitching, adapt and move on to new highs. And that is only 5% comedy, dead serious with the central thrust.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 13 04:48:38 And FYI, this falls under the criminal code in Sweden. There is nothing specific about removing condoms, but this would be sexual harassment since you are violating the sexual integrity of another person. If an STD was transmitted it could be assault. It is unclear what happens if it results in pregnancy, I read some speculation off a legal advice site, it could possibly fall under the new definition of rape (consent based) if it results in an abortion. If not and a baby is born, then there likely is no recourse other than those that governing the legal responsibility of a child. Swedish laws around equality are gender neutral, which is a good thing.
Habebe Member	Mon Sep 13 05:22:10 Nimatzo, I think sweden is a less litigious society than the US in general as well, could be wrong though but some nice things we just cant have cause we act a fool over here.
Paramount Member	Mon Sep 13 05:47:18 ” There is nothing specific about removing condoms, but this would be sexual harassment since you are violating the sexual integrity of another person” I think it is rape if you remove the condom. Because this is what Assange did and he is wanted for rape.
murder Member	Mon Sep 13 05:50:54 Don't think of the law as overly intrusive ... think of it as the government giving it to you without your consent.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 13 06:18:12 Sorry I misread the site, an abortion could fall under "assault". Paramount Read here, it is written before the law has been implemented. http://www...ar-motsatsen-ar-overenskommet/ Assange was suspected for both rape and sexual harassment (ofredande). The rape was allegedly a penetration while she was sleeping. I think that is correct, the removal of condom was sexual harassment.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 13 06:34:45 Habebe That is true, suing people isn't a huge thing here and the settlements are not the kind where you can retire. On the other hand suing the state for wrongful convictions is really easy, you barely have to sue them, it follows a process. From my understanding it is a bit sketchy in the US and varies from state to state. I remember some story about this black guy that was in prison for I don't remember the details but he was a teeanger when he went in and and old man when his sentence was overturned. I remember the details being that, he could only get a really measly compensation from the state (like 20-30 years in prison) in the order hundred or thousands of dollar. Rough. There was a highly publicized case like that in Sweden, this guy was put in prison sentenced for killing an old lady. He was in prison for 8 years, the state paid him over 1 million USD in reparations after he was found not guilty in the supreme court. That was the largest such reparation that state has paid.
Habebe Member	Mon Sep 13 07:03:53 Nimatzo, The confusing part is the US legal system can vary drastically from county to county. The same shit in Montgomery County PA can get you 6 years will earn you a verbal warning across the street in philladelhia. Does Sweden have it where if you lose a civil case you have to pay for the other persons expenses? Ive heard its more common in Europe, which may help lessen the lawsuit culture. Coincidentally Colorado city just paid a lady 3 million for breaking her arm during the arrest. Now the cops were overzealous assholes who luaghed at tackling a 73 year old lady with dementia, but the 3 million was a reference for the size of even a small police department.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 13 07:53:53 "Does Sweden have it where if you lose a civil case you have to pay for the other persons expenses?" Yes, if you lose a civil law suit, you will ordinarily have to pay the legal expenses of the other party. And that applies even if you are the one being sued and lose. It's a bit nuances though, you may be ordered to only pay some of the other parties costs. But that is the general rule and it is there precisely to disincentives frivolous lawsuits.
murder Member	Mon Sep 13 07:55:39 "Does Sweden have it where if you lose a civil case you have to pay for the other persons expenses? Ive heard its more common in Europe, which may help lessen the lawsuit culture." That heavily favors the wealthy.
Habebe Member	Mon Sep 13 08:07:32 Murder, Both systems have pros and cons
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 13 08:55:33 Not really no. You can't get a lot of money suing people and wealth is the primary factor that favors wealth regardless. At least if the rich person tries to bully someone and loses in Sweden, they have to pay for everything.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: