But you said he was the victim, why would she get half? What did he bring upon himself? Isn't that like saying a rape victim brought it upon themselves?
LOL because yeah swinging a double headed dildo (you seem very knowledgeable about that) around in a menacing manner is the same as pointing a gun at someone's head. Which is why she was arrested. Earl Thomas is the victim here.
I think infidelity (he was busted in the act) is a reason to file for divorce if she chooses to do so. Whether or not she hurts her case with her criminal actions the other day that I don't know.
A double-header can be either shared, .OR, be engaged vaginally and anally simultaneously at which point the invaginated individual can then be carried home like a 6-pack - phallac utility. .Back on-topic: Earl Thomas was a philandering shit who got himself in hot water. . Heaven hath no mercy like a woman scorned (translation: Earl Thomas was a dickbag cheat and hardly a 'victim'). .
I'm just glad nothing happened further with the gun as that whole took the mag out and think its safe when its really not at all thing is an easy mistake to make if your mad out of your mind and/or not all that familiar with firearms. Earl's tough day could have easily gotten a little bit worse.
ok so legally FYI he's responsible anyway. there is a clause in the law that is basically (i'm not a lawyer BTW) if not for this, then that wouldn't happen. like if someone rear ends you and you hit the car in front of you you don't get in trouble for hitting the car in front of you because if you weren't rear ended then you wouldn't have hit the car. There was a case where a guy was arguing with his GF and reached into her car and was grabbing her. she backed out in reverse into another car and he was responsible for the damage. He committed adultery, he broke his legal contract with his wife. he caused this to happen. mind you she isn't off scott free for carrying a loaded weapon and aiming it at someone. but still.
The 1st line of my post, I do really believe that the team could possibly have an out using the morals clause if they wanted to try. I have no clue if they would be successful but it is not out of the realm of possibility. The rest of the post, I'll just say I am not at all a religious person.
So you do think that a team are within their right to sack a player due to him having an affair? Wow, that would certainly create a lot of issues in the real-life world and it would certainly cause chaos in English soccer as it seems 90% of them can't keep their cocks in their pants, married or not. The other was just religious guff and utterly meaningless.
Me saying "I do really believe that the team could possibly have an out using the morals clause if they wanted to try" does not equate to me thinking they should have that right. There are many things I believe people are allowed to do but I do not think they should be able to.
