Ryan Lochte scandal megathread

parts with "...." I had to remove due to 10k limitations onposting

yerm said:

I'll start looking. In the meantime:

NJ Extortion Lawyer | New Jersey Extortion Attorney

"Extortion can also involve the “abuse of authority of office.” Examples include a government official or a police officer demanding money, services, or property in order to avoid a threat of some consequence."

If I do find something apparently I should refer them to a lawyer because they can sue because you are NOT allowed to do this crap where I live. Go figure.

Click to expand...

That is not a case, also it seems to apply only to governmental officers

Cad said:

Do you even fucking read these cases, I'm guessing not

Click to expand...

Sentence vacated( the extortion claim). Keep reading.

Been right for the wrong reasons is still been right!!

but here is in less legalize

"In order to be liable, the person must act with criminal intent. The victim of an extortion acts from fear, whether of violence or exposure and there should be a specific intent on the part of the perpetrator to induce such fear in the victim. The elements of extortion are a wrongful use of force or fear, with the specific intent of inducing the victim to consent to the defendant’s obtaining his property, which does not in fact induce such consent and results in the defendant’s obtaining property from the victim[ix]. Courts will find the specific intent by using an objective analysis of the entire surrounding circumstances and facts[x]. "

The court found that a citizens arrest is not a wrongful use of force.

The main point is that context and actions prior to the use of force matters, and the courts agree with me.

I could remember you were making the opposite argument against Tanoomba, that the jury was incorrectly instructed in what consent was.

Don't make me search for it!!

Except that's not even the case dude.

He conviction reversed in this case does not mean he wasn't guilty of the crime just that the court failed at lawyering and thus had to reverse the conviction.

TJT said:

He conviction reversed in this case does not mean he wasn't guilty of the crime just that the court failed at lawyering and thus had to reverse the conviction.

Click to expand...

I think that if the court fails at convicting you, because of a technicality, or a nonguilty verdict, or an appeal, the outcome is the same. You are not guilty.

Are you referring to him or did I misunderstand your summary there?

EDIT: Except that's retarded because in another case in the same situation. If the court didn't have a technicality with the jury then the conviction wouldn't be reversed.

You couldn't use that in an another case as precedence. That was just a technicality of that particular case. In absolute terms he was totally guilty. In which the legality of such a situation is what you've been arguing. So in the context of your own reasoning you're wrong.

The point was to find a case where someone was committed a crime held, and money was extorted from them. The best i could find was a guy who impersonated a police officer and got a blowjob, for holding a prostitute under citizens arrest, and then requesting a blowjob.

Granted it is not the exact same, but it is the same idea. It can be argued that is worse, the intent of the guy holding the prostitute hostage was premeditated, while the guards in Ryan's case acted in the heat of the moment. I can't argue that the intent of the guy holding the prostitute hostage was none other than to get a blowjob out of it, or money.
In that event I would find it that heat of the moment, "you pay for this shit yo broke or else" is less harmful than what the guy did to the prostitute.

TJT said:

Are you referring to him or did I misunderstand your summary there?

EDIT: Except that's retarded because in another case in the same situation. If the court didn't have a technicality with the jury then the conviction wouldn't be reversed.

You couldn't use that in an another case as precedence. That was just a technicality of that particular case. In absolute terms he was totally guilty. In which the legality of such a situation is what you've been arguing. So in the context of your own reasoning you're wrong.

Click to expand...

Are those feelings terms? Because in legal terms he was found not guilty of extorting a bj. ("We conclude the conviction for extortion must be reversed.")

On this case the guy was found guilty of impersonating a police officer. So he went to jail for that, not extorting.

You're still wrong because that guy got off on a technicality that had nothing to do with what was actually committed... That doesn't create precedent at all because the same case where the jury was properly instructed wouldn't have had an overturned conviction.

You aren't even making a point.

The point is that extortion, requires the wrongful use of force or fear. A citizens arrest, or holding someone who has just committed a crime, is not a wrongful use of force or fear.

Fine, i edited my post and added commas.