Humor Factor?

[kenrexford]

I'm wondering how humorous this story would be, for tactical reasons.

 

A man has his girlfriend over for the night (no kids between them). He leaves Apartment A, telling her that he is leaving for a minute. The GF after a few minutes walks down the hall and sees the man in Apartment C with three women, one of which is giving him a lap dance.

 

All four end up back at the man's apartment, the three other women trying to tell the GF that this was all innocent. The GF gets irate and charges at the man. No one hits anyone, but the GF calls the police, claiming domestic violence of the "threaten harm" variety.

 

No one is arrested.

 

A few days later, the GF goes to the prosecutor and gets a "domestic violence threats" prosecution started. She immediately gets a hearing before the judge, the man not notified, for a protection order, which is granted.

 

She then takes the police to the man's house. He is not present. They help her "retrieve her things," which means that she actually had a police escort to help her rob him blind, taking all of his things, including even emptying the refrigerator. None of the stuff is hers. However, he catches all of this on video, because he has surveillance cameras in his apartment.

 

Later, the man is arrested. He had made a deal with a guy to buy a car and had paid the man, with a written contract even. The woman, however, knowing that he was in jail, went to the buyer to get the car titled in her name, convincing the seller that this is what the man wanted. She then realizes that the man in jail already has the keys, which is a problem.

 

So, she goes to the judge to have the judge order the man to turn over his keys to the woman. The man objects, trying to explain what has transoired so far. The judge won't hear it and refuses to release the man on bond unless he turns over the keys to his car to the GF. The man complies and is ultimately released after the GF gets the car keys and drives off.

 

So, on a marginal-at-best threats case, the judge issued orders enabling the GF to use the police as backup for a breaking and entering and theft from the guy's house, and then later she conned a seller out of a car, using the judge to help with the grand theft motor vehicle by incarcerating the victim and ordering the keys handed over to the thief.

[bid_em_up]

Sad and not funny.

 

The sad part is that it is probably a true story.

 

It's not funny, because the man has been screwed royally and there isnt a dang thing he can do about it. Not even after he goes to court, and spends thousands of dollars in attorneys fees to clear his name are the courts likely to assist him in any way, shape, form or fashion in recovering his possession's or press any charges against the g/f.

[mikeh]

I'm wondering how humorous this story would be, for tactical reasons.

 

A man has his girlfriend over for the night (no kids between them). He leaves Apartment A, telling her that he is leaving for a minute. The GF after a few minutes walks down the hall and sees the man in Apartment C with three women, one of which is giving him a lap dance.

 

All four end up back at the man's apartment, the three other women trying to tell the GF that this was all innocent. The GF gets irate and charges at the man. No one hits anyone, but the GF calls the police, claiming domestic violence of the "threaten harm" variety.

 

No one is arrested.

 

A few days later, the GF goes to the prosecutor and gets a "domestic violence threats" prosecution started. She immediately gets a hearing before the judge, the man not notified, for a protection order, which is granted.

 

She then takes the police to the man's house. He is not present. They help her "retrieve her things," which means that she actually had a police escort to help her rob him blind, taking all of his things, including even emptying the refrigerator. None of the stuff is hers. However, he catches all of this on video, because he has surveillance cameras in his apartment.

 

Later, the man is arrested. He had made a deal with a guy to buy a car and had paid the man, with a written contract even. The woman, however, knowing that he was in jail, went to the buyer to get the car titled in her name, convincing the seller that this is what the man wanted. She then realizes that the man in jail already has the keys, which is a problem.

 

So, she goes to the judge to have the judge order the man to turn over his keys to the woman. The man objects, trying to explain what has transoired so far. The judge won't hear it and refuses to release the man on bond unless he turns over the keys to his car to the GF. The man complies and is ultimately released after the GF gets the car keys and drives off.

 

So, on a marginal-at-best threats case, the judge issued orders enabling the GF to use the police as backup for a breaking and entering and theft from the guy's house, and then later she conned a seller out of a car, using the judge to help with the grand theft motor vehicle by incarcerating the victim and ordering the keys handed over to the thief.

Either I am incredibly naive, or both the main protagonists deserve each other.

 

Lap dancing down the hall?

 

Surveillance cameras in one's own apartment?

 

I give both of them free entry to the Jerry Springer Show.

 

Not funny: pathetic

[kenrexford]

Yeah, I kind of forgot that this might involve a lot of outrage, and the "humor" aspect might be lost by this.

 

For those who vote(d) toward the "not funny" side of things, any thoughts on how you would react if this was a true story and you read about this in the paper?

 

My reason is that I am concerned as to how likely it is that this a case where the man or the woman is in jeopardy of having the newspaper run this story if the facts somehow get out to a reporter?

[Phil]

It would be a lot funnier if the strippers were conspiring with the GF and conned the BF.

[Gerben42]

It's not funny, it's sad that this woman is still free on the streets.

 

1. The cops didn't check if what she took was hers.

2. The judge didn't care to presume innocence until proven guilty.

[qwery_hi]

Either I am incredibly naive, or both the main protagonists deserve each other.

 

Lap dancing down the hall?

 

Surveillance cameras in one's own apartment?

 

I give both of them free entry to the Jerry Springer Show.

 

Not funny: pathetic

That's what makes this mildly funny. What would make it hilarious is if they traded STD's and sued each other, ending with both of them bankrupt and in jail!

[Hanoi5]

I'd pay for having this story in my newspaper or TV program. Just imagine the side of some feminists: 'What!? He got what he deserved! Poor woman, she was being cheated on!'

 

I guess you're a lawyer in this case, you might as well sell it, and profit from it...(kidding)

[gwnn]

I am a horrible person, but I think it is both sad and funny.

[helene_t]

I gave up reading the story as it became to complex for me at the point of the lap dance.

 

That's why I never read fiction. Or the crime stories in newspapers.

[mtvesuvius]

I am a horrible person, but I think it is both sad and funny.

I'm also a horrible person :).

 

I have always loved irony, so I found it sad... But funny.

[kenberg]

I have learned, and re-learned, not to make judgments until facts are verified and/or fleshed out.

 

For example, I am finding it difficult to imagine exactly how this police escort into the man's home was engineered. Did the GF go to the cops and say "I want to go into someone else's house and take a bunch of stuff that I claim is mine" and the cops said "Sure, no problem, we'll go with you"? I do have it right that they were not sharing the residence, she had stayed over for the night? Maybe the exact content of various court orders is relevant? Perhaps there was some violence at some time? Perhaps she had reason to fear him? I would not judge until I heard from her side. And I probably wouldn't judge then either, unless I was placed on a jury.

 

They whole scene does sound pretty dismal. I find nothing remotely amusing about it.

[Sadie3]

I agree with whoever said they deserve each other. They probably expected nothing less from each other in the first place.

[PassedOut]

What in the devil is a Lapp dance?

[jmc]

I am sure some elements of this story are true, but I find it highly unlikely it actually went down this way with almost every element working against the man. My BS meter is going off like crazy.

 

Funny? Not really. Paper worthy? Doubtful.

 

The funny part to me is that Ken, a lawyer with an extremely good BS meter I assume, believes it is true. This means either the story is true, very sad, or that Ken might have a horse in the race.

 

Lawyers never lie, we just reframe the issues.

 

jmc

[Codo]

I gave up reading the story as it became to complex for me at the point of the lap dance.

 

That's why I never read fiction. Or the crime stories in newspapers.

lap dance is too complicated for you?

 

Don't be shy, I bet you can....

[vang]

what's this, a script for a new soap opera?

[helene_t]

No it is what Ken is doing for a living :)

[kenrexford]

I am sure some elements of this story are true, but I find it highly unlikely it actually went down this way with almost every element working against the man. My BS meter is going off like crazy.

 

Funny? Not really. Paper worthy? Doubtful.

 

The funny part to me is that Ken, a lawyer with an extremely good BS meter I assume, believes it is true. This means either the story is true, very sad, or that Ken might have a horse in the race.

 

Lawyers never lie, we just reframe the issues.

 

jmc

FWIW, you would be surprised by reality.

 

In this instance, police records and other evidence backs this up.

 

To give you another case, to prove how insane the world actually is...

 

A few years ago, I handled a probable cause hearing for a man charged with "domestic violence threats." Here are the facts, given to us BY THE WOMAN WHO COMPLAINED:

 

"We broke up about 3 months ago, but I thought things might work out until I found out he was with another woman. So, I went into my kitchen, grabbed a knife,and drove over to his house. I waited for him to leave and then followed him to a 7-11. I followed him inside the store. I then walked up behind him, taped on his shoulder, and, when he turned around, stabbed him in the chest (scars to add to this). I then stabbed him in the chest a second time. When I went to stab him a third time, the store clerk grabbed my hand, I dropped the knife, and I left the store."

 

OK, so how is SHE the victim, you ask? The story continues...

 

"A week later, after he was out of the hospital, he called me on the phone and told me that if he ever saw me again, he would kill me. That caused me to be afraid."

 

So, the government decided, on her word alone, with this ENTIRE story for their consideration, to not prosecute the woman because "she was probably afraid of him for some reason." Instead, the man was prosecuted, with no other evidence beyond her statement, for threatening her.

 

So, yes, in fact the system is a tad stacked against the one with the outie.

 

I could go on. (For the skeptics -- all public record. Transcripts could be ordered.)

[kenrexford]

Oh yeah! Forgot one of the funniest quickies. "For the record," the prosecutor ultimately did drop this one after months of litigation:

 

A man makes his wife really mad. How? Who knows. Same old same old.

 

Anyway, he is sitting in the couch watching TV. The woman grabs a dinner plate, walks up behind the man, and, to his surprise, whacks him on the back of the head with the plate, so hard that the plate shatters.

 

However, when the late hit his skull, the man's hands flew backwards to protect himself, and one of his hands hit part of the plate. That caused that shard to change direction and head backwards, striking the wall behind the couch. It then fell forward and hit the woman, although at such a slow speed that no damage was done.

 

However, the police arrest and charged the man for this. The wife was very upset that part of the plate was hurdled backwards and struck her, on a rebound off the wall.

[blackshoe]

Ken, you ought to send some of this stuff to Randy Cassingham, for his This is True newsletter.

 

Robert Heinlein, in the late 1940s, when he mapped out his "future history", labelled the last half of the 20th century and first half of the 21st "the crazy years". It seems he was right. :)

[kenberg]

I do not contest the fact that the American legal system is highly dysfunctional. With the specific story, I have problems.

 

Some may be just a matter of wording. The GF stayed overnight. The man left apartment A. Later the GF sees the man in apartment C where a woman is giving (to him?, you don't say) a lap dance. The women in C perform lap dances with the apartment door open?

 

 

Then she goes to his house. What house? I thought he lived in apartment A. Does he have a house and an apartment? Were they using someone else's apartment?

 

She went to the house with the cops. How did she get in? Does she have a key? Was she actually living there? What address is shown on her driving license? In short, does she have legal status to enter this house when the man s not there? If she has a key that was given to her by the man, if she spends many nights in that house, if she has, or had, a substantial number of items of value in the house, I can imagine that the answer is that she did have such a right. I obviously am not a legal expert but it appears that the cops thought that she had this right. I doubt that they reached this conclusion totally on air.

 

She took some stuff from the refrigerator? I hope this isn't the main issue.

 

 

I don't understand about the car. The guy bought a car, paid for it, and had a written contract. Got that. Now the GF went to the previous owner and told him some story. Why? If the car is already sold, what is the point? It sounds as if the seller still had the car, otherwise I can't see the point, or the harm, in some story. But then she realizes the BF has the keys? So if I have this right, the BF and the seller wrote up a sales contract for the car, the BF gave the seller the money, and then he took the keys with him but not the car. Is that right? It's particularly difficult to make sense of this part of the story.

 

I am willing to believe that the BF is a total moron. That part comes across well. The rest of it I am having trouble with.

[ASkolnick]

Actually, I think it would be very likely the 3 other girls were in cahoots with the girl friend. I don't think this scenario as unlikely as people may think. Honestly, sounds actually like a pretty well thought out scam.

 

I understand how the protection and things would wind up being taken under criminal protection, but what would happen if the guy were to file a civil suit against the woman? I can sort of seeing this in a similar situation to OJ Simpson where although he was found innocent in the criminal case, he still lost the wrongful death civil suit.

[kenrexford]

As to kenberg's Questions:

 

1. I was an apartment. By "house," I should have said "home."

2. The door open? Yes. People are strange.

3. Cop assistance? Of course they thought this was OK. But, this is the problem with a hearing where only one side talks. They take that person's word for it and hand over property because of this.

4. The car? I think the car was alreay delivered (not sure). The sole issue was the title, which had not yet been transferred. Why this method? These are not sophisticated business people, who handle their affairs in the right manner. Er, like bank CEO's and the like.

[kenberg]

OK. The guy lives in an apartment house where you can walk down the hallway and watch some gals entertaining. Is there an extra charge in the rent for this? Sort of like adding in X-rated channels on the cable service?

 

I have lived in some odd places but I'm out of my depth here.

 

There is still an issue that maybe those with legal background could comment on: A guy gives a girlfriend a key to his apartment. By doing this, has he effectively given her the right to legal access to the apartment? Btw, it would never occur to me to outfit my place with security cameras but, especially if I lived in the sort of spot described, I am sure i would keep a close tab on who had a key and change locks as appropriate. Of course perhaps the building manager let the woman and the cops in.

 

An early life experience demonstrating the effect of perception: It's 1960, I am driving a 53 Chevy, the suspension is giving out, the car shakes as I drive it. A cop stops me, arrives at the window with ticket book in hand,and opens the conversation with "Son, you don't care much about the safety of the young lady there, do you?' I reply that I know the car needs work but my wife and I really wanted to go out to a movie. At the mention of the word "wife" he puts the ticket book away. I am immediately transformed from smart-ass punk to young family man doing his best to accommodate a wife who needs to get out of the house. I am subsequently addressed as "sir" rather than "son", no ticket is given.

 

A less amusing story: Around the same time I knew a young African American (a black guy in the language then) who was considerably more conservative in style than I was. Just as a passing comment he once remarked "Cops treat all black people like criminals". I have never had any trouble believing this. I hear things have changed. I hope so.

 

About this poor schmuck: Tell him to stay away from lap dancers. Forget the moral issue. There are far more compelling practical issues involved.