[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/21/savannah-dietrich-faces-charges_n_1692374.html][quote]A Kentucky girl who was -blam!-ly assaulted could face contempt of court charges after she tweeted the names of her juvenile attackers.
Savannah Dietrich, the 17-year-old victim, was frustrated by a plea deal reached late last month by the two boys who assaulted her, and took to Twitter to expose them--violating a court order to keep their names confidential.[/quote][/url]
She pledged to not say their names, and did so anyhow. As much as I hate people who break pledges and allegiances to somethings, this is just stupid by the court. They molested her knocked-out form and then gave out pictures after the assault. This is just sad..
[Edited on 07.22.2012 8:09 PM PDT]
-
Horrible
-
The trial should continue as it would have but the girl should now face separate charges for tweeting the names.
-
My most recent ex girlfriend is named Savannah. I feel too biased to answer in this thread, for some reason.
-
I would probably give out their names too.
-
Broken link is broken.
-
YEA! TAKE DOWN THE WOMEN! WE DONT NEED THEM! MEN ARE WAY BETTER THAN WOMEN! SO WE MUST KILL THEM! DOMINANT SPECIES ALPHA OMEGA SUPREME! -blam!- -blam!-ES GET PAID! ERRYDAY! DONT BAN ME SORRY WHat i meant to say was whoa yea I agree that that is unfair on both sides. why must we pick one? how bout we just go back in time and change the event. we will stop crimes from happening. and we will have over 9000 uncorructable cops to bust you. dont ban me. Thanks.
-
[quote]Kentucky[/quote] Well that's the problem.
-
Justice is blind they say... They were being punished, she shouldn't have exposed their names. No matter what happened to her, now she's going to revive all the court stuff all over again. [Edited on 07.22.2012 8:08 PM PDT]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Todge16801 Broken link is broken. [/quote] Indeed it is.. I will find it elsewhere.
-
Wait, so she violated a court order, and you're mad at the court?
-
I'm all for confidentiality but those asses deserved it.
-
Valar Morghulis.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Swiftkillswitch3 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Todge16801 Broken link is broken. [/quote] Indeed it is.. I will find it elsewhere.[/quote] Lol, I had the same issue in [url=http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=73670165]my own thread about this[/url].
-
Sure in my country, if you harm an intruder that comes into your house, you can be put into prison or if he falls or slips, you are responsible.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] everywhere116 Wait, so she violated a court order, and you're mad at the court?[/quote] In essence yes, because of the fact that they removed her First Amendment. She couldn't name them off, in a pact that she was never told about. They (the court and two boys) made an agreement that she was never told about, which is against many things within the judiciary system.
-
lolwut? Wouldn't they be put on the sex offender's registry, anyway? [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Swiftkillswitch3 In essence yes, because of the fact that they removed her First Amendment.[/quote] Oh, lol. I didn't realise that you were an idiot. [Edited on 07.22.2012 8:12 PM PDT]
-
A rule is a rule. If a guy blew up a whole building full of kitties, and the police arrested the guy and forgot to say his Miranda rights, the guy would be let go. Even though it is 100% wrong to ever do that to a person, you can't just say the names of people WHO HAVE NOT YET BEEN LEGALLY SENTENCED/OFFICIALLY FELONS that's why they're in court, to be proven guilty/not guilty. It is her fault, she did not listen to the rule, she pays the punishment.
-
She is a bad person for exposing them publicly.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Seggi31 lolwut? Wouldn't they be put on the sex offender's registry, anyway? [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Swiftkillswitch3 In essence yes, because of the fact that they removed her First Amendment.[/quote] Oh, lol. I didn't realise that you were an idiot.[/quote] They were, yes, but they made an agreement behind closed doors that she found about after the fact of saying so anyhow. After the fact, wouldn't they be placed on that list to begin with?
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] tha man A rule is a rule. If a guy blew up a whole building full of kitties, and the police arrested the guy and forgot to say his Miranda rights, the guy would be let go. [/quote] lolno [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Swiftkillswitch3 They were, yes, but they made an agreement behind closed doors that she found about after the fact of saying so anyhow.[/quote] No, she found out about it when it was announced in court. [Edited on 07.22.2012 8:16 PM PDT]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Swiftkillswitch3 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] everywhere116 Wait, so she violated a court order, and you're mad at the court?[/quote] In essence yes, because of the fact that they removed her First Amendment. She couldn't name them off, in a pact that she was never told about. They (the court and two boys) made an agreement that she was never told about, which is against many things within the judiciary system.[/quote] [quote]Afterwards Dietrich tweeted, "They said I can't talk about it or I'll be locked up. ....Protect rapist is more important than getting justice for the victim in Louisville."[/quote]Yes, apparently she didn't know about the gag order. Also, gag orders are now unconstitutional.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] TomoK12 Sure in my country, if you harm an intruder that comes into your house, you can be put into prison or if he falls or slips, you are responsible.[/quote]Jolly old England? I'd sooner blow up the parliament building then go to jail because someone broke into my home.
-
How about two cases? Not that hard.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Swiftkillswitch3 In essence yes, because of the fact that they removed her First Amendment. She couldn't name them off, in a pact that she was never told about. They (the court and two boys) made an agreement that she was never told about, which is against many things within the judiciary system.[/quote] LMAO! You're an idiot! A) That does not break the First amendment. B) You are told you're rights and other issues IN THE COURT and not only that but usually a good lawyer will also tell her.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Seggi31 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] tha man A rule is a rule. If a guy blew up a whole building full of kitties, and the police arrested the guy and forgot to say his Miranda rights, the guy would be let go. [/quote] lolno[/quote] lolyes, that is the only thing a police officer has to do when they arrest someone.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] tha man A rule is a rule. If a guy blew up a whole building full of kitties, [b][u]and the police arrested the guy and forgot to say his Miranda rights, the guy would be let go.[/b][/u] Even though it is 100% wrong to ever do that to a person, you can't just say the names of people WHO HAVE NOT YET BEEN LEGALLY SENTENCED/OFFICIALLY FELONS that's why they're in court, to be proven guilty/not guilty. It is her fault, she did not listen to the rule, she pays the punishment. [/quote]Technically not true. Miranda rights are read for interrogations, not arrests. Not reading them the rights or not explaining them properly would get the interrogation deemed inadmissable, but it won't let the perp walk. [Edited on 07.22.2012 8:20 PM PDT]