I didn't do it

[scoot]

WTF!
http://www2.morganton.com/news/2012/jul/09/5/hickory-woman-turns-down-plea-deal-second-degree-m-ar-2419085/?referer=http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmorganton.com%2Far%2F2419085%2F&h=gAQEDqERG&shorturl=http://bit.ly/MdBkA8

[Fritz The Cat]

I think 40 years in the pen would be appropriate.

[Rams]

MORGANTON, N.C. – A Hickory woman charged with two counts of second degree murder refused the state’s plea offer Monday in court, nine months after she allegedly killed a father and his son while she was driving drunk outside of Long View.

Amie Jo Skeens, 37, was charged with driving under the influence and felony hit-and-run in Oct. 25, 2011, following a head-on collision with a motorcycle that led to the deaths of the two men.

According to reports issued at the time, the crash occurred just after 6 p.m. along Airport Rhodhiss Road near Long View. Steven Moody, 42, and his 19-year-old son, Kevin, both of Connelly Springs, died as a result of injuries sustained in the crash.

Two other motorcyclists traveling behind the Moodys were taken to Valdese General Hospital for minor injuries. The deaths of father and son marked the first murder charges in Burke County in 2011.

Skeens, who was arrested by N.C. Highway Patrol troopers in nearby woods, later admitted she was incredibly high on drugs, police said. She initially shirked responsibility, according to court documents, claiming that "crackhead zombies" were driving the van. “I couldn’t have been driving,” Skeens said in 2011. “I was too high.”

In court Monday, shackled and sober, Skeens appeared more docile, almost jovial. Laughing and smiling as she entered the courtroom, Skeens acknowledged companions in the gallery and spoke openly during the court’s proceedings.

When Judge Robert C. Ervin asked Skeens if she had considered what he called the state’s “generous” plea bargain, Skeens responded with melodramatic airs, “Not that offer. I want to decline that generous offer and go to trial.”

The defendant’s trial, originally set for Oct. 1, was moved to Nov. 13 at the behest of defense attorney Charles Bostian. Skeens, who left court Monday still smiling, could face 40 years in prison if convicted.

Skeens’ driving has run afoul of the law before, according to Catawba County court records. She was convicted on three counts of driving without a license, one count of failure to stop at a red light or stop sign and one count of driving with a revoked license. She’s had four other traffic charges dismissed, including a prior hit-and-run charge. She’s also been convicted of robbery with a dangerous weapon, possession of a schedule II controlled substance and crimes against nature. 



OK, I gotta ask (even though I'm not sure I want to know the answer), what the heck is a crime against nature?

[lifguardct]

I think 40 years in the pen would be appropriate.

   Or the CHAIR!!!

[..]

I previously posted that a friend of mine who lives in Rhodiss, near Hickory, came upon the accident seconds after it happened. He saw her van with a bust in windshield coming towards his car and then the scene.

He turned, followed her and continued to follow her after she turned into a rough driveway into a wooded area.

He told me that she was completely confused and talking gibberish. He called the police and managed to keep her away from her vehicle so she couldn't drive away.

[Titan]

Crimes Against Nature


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_nature

[Jess from VA]

What a piece of work.

OK, I gotta ask (even though I'm not sure I want to know the answer), what the heck is a crime against nature?

There's dog lovers, and then there's dog lovers. (I could be wrong) 

[Rams]

Yeah.  I don't know specifically what crime against nature she committed but I googled the NC defintion.  That's all I'm gonna say. 

[3fan4life]

What a piece of work.

OK, I gotta ask (even though I'm not sure I want to know the answer), what the heck is a crime against nature?

There's dog lovers, and then there's dog lovers. (I could be wrong) 

Shoot Jess by the VA definition:

§ 18.2-361. Crimes against nature; penalty.

A. If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony, except as provided in subsection B.

B. Any person who performs or causes to be performed cunnilingus, fellatio, anilingus or anal intercourse upon or by his daughter or granddaughter, son or grandson, brother or sister, or father or mother is guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if a parent or grandparent commits any such act with his child or grandchild and such child or grandchild is at least 13 but less than 18 years of age at the time of the offense, such parent or grandparent is guilty of a Class 3 felony.

C. For the purposes of this section, parent includes step-parent, grandparent includes step-grandparent, child includes step-child and grandchild includes step-grandchild.

(Code 1950, § 18.1-212; 1960, c. 358; 1968, c. 427; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1977, c. 285; 1981, c. 397; 1993, c. 450; 2005, c. 185.)

I'd venture to say that almost everyone living in VA is guilty of "Crimes Against Nature".


I found this by following the Google link in the above post.

I can't believe some of the laws that are on the books in VA.



This is just one example:

§ 18.2-345. Lewd and lascivious cohabitation.

If any persons, not married to each other, lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together, or, whether married or not, be guilty of open and gross lewdness and lasciviousness, each of them shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor; and upon a repetition of the offense, and conviction thereof, each of them shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

(Code 1950, § 18.1-193; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15.)

I would venture to say that many states still have such outdated and non-sensible laws still on their books.

[Jess Tolbirt]

look up blue laws

[Jess from VA]

Yeah these laws are likely still on the books in many States, and the UCMJ.  They are mostly not used.  Sodomy is generally thought of as a cornhole offense, but actually includes most sex other than by man and wife in the missionary position.  Of course underage, and age of consent are still important and often used, as they should be.

Imagine my surprise when in USAF JAG school when I raised my hand for clarification.... "so giving oral sex is sodomy, but receiving oral sex, even from your spouse, is also sodomy?"  "Yes lieutenant, it is....consensual sex between man and wife is not something the military is interested in prosecuting, and it rarely is an issue because of an old invention............ called curtains."  (laughter)

However, while stationed at my first assignment at Maxwell AFB, I learned that it did come up on occasion.  Almost all USAF military schools are at Maxwell, including the Chaplain School.  The Chief of Chaplains is a 2-star billet, and rotates between the major denominations.  The new So Baptist 2-star was leaving dinner at the O club with a large entourage on a Friday night and low and behold a young lieutenant was receiving oral worship in the front seat of his car from a local belle.  He felt obliged to get the lieutenant's name and unit, and the poor guy ended up with an Article 15 for sodomy on his record.       He forgot to use curtains.  

There is also the rather famous courtroom incident where the young girl (perhaps age 7-8) on the stand was asked to identify the airman who exposed himself to her, and she did, pointing to him at the defense table.  Then the prosecutor carefully asked, "Now we talked about this, and I told you I would have to ask you to be specific, so tell me, what was it that this man showed you, what did you see?

To which she replied in all seriousness......... "well, it looked like a penis, only smaller"  The accused putting his head down on the table, and the courtroom and jury suppressing laughter, and the judge banging the gavel for quiet.

[3fan4life]

look up blue laws

Most of VA's "Blue Laws" were related to Sunday Sales and were found to be unconstitutional sometime in the mid to late 1980's.

After which they were removed from the books.


The laws I posted are still on the books and while it is highly unlikely that a man and wife would be charged with a felony for participating in oral sex.  The fact remains that as long as the law is still on the books they could be.

Laws such as these are