If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WPBF West Palm Beach)   Lesbian teen arrested for sex with underage girlfriend refuses to take plea deal. Says she's not licked yet   (wpbf.com) divider line 1323
    More: Followup, plea deal, WPBF 25 News, sex scandals, underage, girlfriend, refuses, lesbians, teens  
•       •       •

15111 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 May 2013 at 6:11 PM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1323 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-24 06:56:27 PM
do i gotta do everything?

ts2.explicit.bing.net
 
2013-05-24 06:56:51 PM

IamAwake: Ahem...

794.05Unlawful sexual activity with certain minors.-

(1)A person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.084. As used in this section, "sexual activity" means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose.So...as long as they simply say they're not eating each other out, it's...perfectly legal.  They can tussle around in bed, make out, do everything...so long as they don't do any carpet munching (or, so long as they say they aren't doing any...).  That seems like a pretty easy way to win this, really...as lesbians, they are actually at a bit of an advantage in the situation.  Simply going on dates, kissing, making out, that sort of thing?  Not illegal.


Uhm, NO. It is covered by Florida statute 800.04 paragraph (5) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS MOLESTATION.-
(a) A person who intentionally touches in a lewd or lascivious manner the breasts, genitals, genital area, or buttocks, or the clothing covering them, of a person less than 16 years of age, or forces or entices a person under 16 years of age to so touch the perpetrator, commits lewd or lascivious molestation.

and

 2. An offender 18 years of age or older who commits lewd or lascivious molestation against a victim 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of agecommits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
 
2013-05-24 06:57:03 PM
blondethumb.com
 
2013-05-24 06:57:38 PM

lotus: An 18 year old and a 14 year old. I don't understand what the discussion is about. Seems like that was a pretty sweet plea deal.


I at least two cases in the last decade or so in the area where I live with 17-year-old boys and 15-year-old girls. Both boys got 10 years after they were convicted. Since it doesn't seem she denies anything happened, I'd say that's a very good deal.
 
2013-05-24 06:58:53 PM

OregonVet: jst3p: This, if it were my 14 year old daughter I wouldn't care if it were an 18 year old boy or girl. I don't know if I would press charges (it would depend on a number of variables) but the sex of the other individual wouldn't be a factor.

So, you're saying there IS a chance?


I would say it would be probable, but I could imagine some scenario's where I wouldn't call the cops. I will note that I would make it clear that I don't condone that activity and while I know I can't stop them I better not hear about it again. And my 14 year old daughter is likely going to be on birth control and know about safe sex.
 
2013-05-24 06:58:54 PM

hardinparamedic: FTFA:  By accepting the plea deal, Hunt would have been placed on house arrest for two years.

House arrest for two years, no felony conviction, and no requirement to register as a sex offender? I understand the want to fight for a statement, but I have to say that in that position, I might just take the deal.


She would have been pleading guilty to felony child abuse, in exchange for the two years house arrest...
 
2013-05-24 06:59:10 PM
www.mentalfloss.com

Calm down.  Romeo and Juiet will be invoked.  Older Lesbian Lawyer has da smarts.
And soon da cash

/pic of lawyer's brother, frozen caveman lawyer
 
2013-05-24 06:59:22 PM

alienated: redslippers: There was a sexual encounter where Hunt inserted her

sure. bad ancedotal evidence is bad.


Not bad anecdotal evidence. That is straight from the arrest affidavit, and is Ms. Hunt's version of events as well as the victim.
 
2013-05-24 07:00:34 PM

redslippers: Let me clarify a few things:

This girl was 18 when she started dating the younger girl. The relationship started in November. Hunt turned 18 in August. The victim was 14 the entire time.

The Hunts have purposely spread misinformation regarding the circumstances in order to gain public sympathy and make it appear to the less informed that the situation was ridiculous. The statements they have made regarding the length of the relationship were false, the statements regarding age were false. They manipulated the public to create outcry where there should be none.

The girls started dating in November, and the victims parents were unaware. There was a sexual encounter where Hunt inserted her finger in the victim's vagina in a school bathroom in December, then a similar incident in January. Hunt helped the 14 year old girl run away overnight in January, at this point with full knowledge that the girls parents were not having it. She then had much more, ahem, comprehensive sex with the victim. The parents tried to stop the relationship, but when they found out, through nasty rumours at the school, and the 14 year old upset that she was being leered at by boys and treated like meat by the male students, they called the police. Hunt was arrested by mid February. The victim is a "cooperative complaining witness" and the sheriff and state attorney have made clear that the victim wants the prosecution to move forward, as well as the parents.

She was not expelled from school, which is another misleading statement made by the Hunts. She was moved to the alternative school and will be allowed to walk with her class. Male students in the same situation have been expelled, and students where age was not an issue who've had sex on campus have been expelled as well.

My best friend lives next door to the victim. The girl was well adjusted and fine until this. Now she is in therapy, depressed, acting out, etc.

The law is very clear, she violated it, in more ways than one, and any ...


This. There were several articles clarifying it recently, because the Hunts had been saying that their daughter was 17 when it started, and according to the police report, she was not -- she was 18 when school started and she met and began the relationship with the 14 year old. There was NEVER a moment in the relationship when it was legal, and if Hunt had been a man, she'd be looking at a hell of a lot worse than that plea deal. It could be that the 14 year old's parents were motivated by homophobia, but since we only have Hunt's parents' words for that, and they've been lying about the girls' ages, I'm not exactly taking that on trust. They're doing a great job spinning it from "Our daughter committed something which is a crime no matter what gender you are" to "Our daughter is being victimized solely because she's a lesbian." `

Here's the thing -- I think the laws on underage sex are overly strict and that having this girl registered as a sex offender would be pointless. However, trying to paint this as a case of "She's being persecuted for being a lesbian" is crazy. A man in her position would get no publicity, no sweet plea deal, and have his life wrecked in no time flat.
 
2013-05-24 07:01:07 PM

alienated: Look, lets place this differently- forget the age of consent issue. What whould we do to a 13 yr old and a 14 yr old ? Do you think that there would have been any charges ? If both parties are minors, exactly what is the crime ?


If both are 2-3 years or less under the age of consent then it's treated differently because technically both of the kids are victims. Rape-rape would be treated as such regardless of the ages involved of course although it would at least start in the family court where the situation would be looked at and a determination made by the judge on where to proceed from there.
 
2013-05-24 07:01:52 PM

hardinparamedic: lotus: An 18 year old and a 14 year old. I don't understand what the discussion is about. Seems like that was a pretty sweet plea deal.

Apparently the parents of the 18 year old are trying to turn this into a case of judicial revenge because the 14 year old was involved with someone of the same sex, rather than the fact it was someone of age with someone very much not of age of consent.

The hope  is that by going for the bigotry/discrimination angle, they can get public and popular opinion to either pressure the DA into dropping the charges, or influence the jury not to convict.


14-17 legal then vs 15-18 not now.  What a difference a year makes (in the eyes of the law)

Word is the parent of the "victim" waited to file charges as soon as the accused was 18.
 
2013-05-24 07:02:22 PM

duffblue: If it goes to a jury she would look like an idiot taking the plea bargain. Generally the prosecution gives plea bargains to people they don't have enough evidence to convict them on.


Nearly every single case I've ever heard of has a plea deal offered prior to a trial.  I've been a witness in murder trials where they've offered plea deals.  It may, from time to time, be a case of "take this, we're not sure we have enough to convict," but even slam dunk cases, 100% open and shut, are offered plea deals.
 
2013-05-24 07:02:39 PM
Rules are Rules you knucklehead
 
2013-05-24 07:03:13 PM
 Takes a licking and keeps on ticking.

John Cameron Swayze
1906- 1995
RIP
 
2013-05-24 07:03:44 PM

jst3p: I would say it would be probable, but I could imagine some scenario's where I wouldn't call the cops


Well, I'm clean, I like to take long walks on the beach, I work out, I wear a tie sometimes. Uhhhh. I like the beach?
 
2013-05-24 07:03:47 PM

HideAndGoFarkYourself: duffblue: If it goes to a jury she would look like an idiot taking the plea bargain. Generally the prosecution gives plea bargains to people they don't have enough evidence to convict them on.

Nearly every single case I've ever heard of has a plea deal offered prior to a trial.  I've been a witness in murder trials where they've offered plea deals.  It may, from time to time, be a case of "take this, we're not sure we have enough to convict," but even slam dunk cases, 100% open and shut, are offered plea deals.


Plea deals are standard procedure. They have nothing to do with evidence, they have everything to do with sparing the victims further pain and with avoiding the costs of trial.
 
2013-05-24 07:04:12 PM

TyrantII: hardinparamedic: lotus: An 18 year old and a 14 year old. I don't understand what the discussion is about. Seems like that was a pretty sweet plea deal.

Apparently the parents of the 18 year old are trying to turn this into a case of judicial revenge because the 14 year old was involved with someone of the same sex, rather than the fact it was someone of age with someone very much not of age of consent.

The hope  is that by going for the bigotry/discrimination angle, they can get public and popular opinion to either pressure the DA into dropping the charges, or influence the jury not to convict.

14-17 legal then vs 15-18 not now.  What a difference a year makes (in the eyes of the law)

Word is the parent of the "victim" waited to file charges as soon as the accused was 18.


"Word" is wrong. If you read the affidavit, the girls weren't even involved when the accused turned 18. She was 18 1/2 when arrested.
 
2013-05-24 07:04:17 PM

jst3p: Dracolich: hardinparamedic: Dracolich: This is stupid.  A 14 year old is being treated like property.  Here's a hint:  we're all descended from people who started families earlier than that.  Property.

Yes, because people DIED at 19 and 20 on a regular basis, and five out of their fifteen kids died as well, the 16th of which probably killed the young girl at 19 or 20.

Please don't argue the appeal to antiquity angle here.

I'm making the point that adulthood is arbitrary and that we're treating people like property when they clearly are viable adults in other environments.

And in those environments they are treated differently. If you think 14 year olds in our society are ready to be treated like adults then you must not be in regular contact with many 14 year olds.


Which is not what I'm saying either.

There are two transitions to know:

The transition to adult viability - This person should no longer be considered property.  This person should be tried as an adult.
The transition to environmental viability - This person is ready to exist on their own in the current environment.  This person should qualify for all adulthood rights and responsibilities.

Age has very little to do with it.  There's a wide variance with plentiful outliers.  It's a bad basis for governing.
 
2013-05-24 07:04:57 PM
Not sure I see what the big deal here is. To get to my point, I've never seen lesbionic "sex" as really being sex to begin with. Sure, they can vibrate each other and whatnot but, well, it seems pretty innocent. And if there were no "force"issues (I mean, it's not like the older one was 45 and tricking the younger one into something), what's the big deal? And if you're 18 and still in high school you should NOT be treated as an "adult". In other words, it was okay for them to diddle when the older chick was 17-1/2 but when her birthday came all of a sudden things magically changed?! Yeah, yeah, "the law is the law". Well, then, change it (at least when it comes to this sort of situation).
 
2013-05-24 07:06:10 PM

Dracolich: Age has very little to do with it. There's a wide variance with plentiful outliers. It's a bad basis for governing.


It is an imperfect system, but it is clear and easy to not find yourself violating the law. Do you have a better system in mind?
 
2013-05-24 07:06:15 PM

TyrantII: Word is the parent of the "victim" waited to file charges as soon as the accused was 18.


Science is time progresses at an invariable rate and paperwork lags.
 
2013-05-24 07:07:14 PM

TyrantII: hardinparamedic: lotus: An 18 year old and a 14 year old. I don't understand what the discussion is about. Seems like that was a pretty sweet plea deal.

Apparently the parents of the 18 year old are trying to turn this into a case of judicial revenge because the 14 year old was involved with someone of the same sex, rather than the fact it was someone of age with someone very much not of age of consent.

The hope  is that by going for the bigotry/discrimination angle, they can get public and popular opinion to either pressure the DA into dropping the charges, or influence the jury not to convict.

14-17 legal then vs 15-18 not now.  What a difference a year makes (in the eyes of the law)

Word is the parent of the "victim" waited to file charges as soon as the accused was 18.


Jesus christ. READ THE FARKING THREAD. She was NEVER 17. She was always 18. And the charges were filed AFTER she tried to get the 14 year old to run away.
 
2013-05-24 07:07:20 PM

hardinparamedic: lotus: An 18 year old and a 14 year old. I don't understand what the discussion is about. Seems like that was a pretty sweet plea deal.

Apparently the parents of the 18 year old are trying to turn this into a case of judicial revenge because the 14 year old was involved with someone of the same sex, rather than the fact it was someone of age with someone very much not of age of consent.

The hope  is that by going for the bigotry/discrimination angle, they can get public and popular opinion to either pressure the DA into dropping the charges, or influence the jury not to convict.


Personally, I don't care of they were gay or not.  Unless the DA can prove without a doubt that the younger party was coerced or in some way manipulated into the relationship, these two kids should get a stern ass kicking from their parents, and grounded for a while.

This "0 tolerance", black and white interpretation of teen relationships has done more damage to the effectiveness and legitimacy of sex offender laws than anything else.
 
2013-05-24 07:07:42 PM

MelGoesOnTour: Not sure I see what the big deal here is. To get to my point, I've never seen lesbionic "sex" as really being sex to begin with. Sure, they can vibrate each other and whatnot but, well, it seems pretty innocent. And if there were no "force"issues (I mean, it's not like the older one was 45 and tricking the younger one into something), what's the big deal? And if you're 18 and still in high school you should NOT be treated as an "adult". In other words, it was okay for them to diddle when the older chick was 17-1/2 but when her birthday came all of a sudden things magically changed?! Yeah, yeah, "the law is the law". Well, then, change it (at least when it comes to this sort of situation).


No, read the damn thread. 17 year old having sex with a 14 year old isn't legal either (in Fla.)
 
2013-05-24 07:07:42 PM

alienated: hardinparamedic: alienated: This

Actually, not that. The relationship was never legal according to Florida State law to begin with.

No delicious loli for you. Not yours.

Look, lets place this differently- forget the age of consent issue. What whould we do to a 13 yr old and a 14 yr old ? Do you think that there would have been any charges ? If both parties are minors, exactly what is the crime ?



Iirc fom a case I read about several years back technically under FL law two 15 and unders who have sex have both raped each other.  Even if usually it's only the boy who gets charged.
 
2013-05-24 07:07:49 PM

RenownedCurator: redslippers: Let me clarify a few things:

This girl was 18 when she started dating the younger girl. The relationship started in November. Hunt turned 18 in August. The victim was 14 the entire time.

The Hunts have purposely spread misinformation regarding the circumstances in order to gain public sympathy and make it appear to the less informed that the situation was ridiculous. The statements they have made regarding the length of the relationship were false, the statements regarding age were false. They manipulated the public to create outcry where there should be none.

The girls started dating in November, and the victims parents were unaware. There was a sexual encounter where Hunt inserted her finger in the victim's vagina in a school bathroom in December, then a similar incident in January. Hunt helped the 14 year old girl run away overnight in January, at this point with full knowledge that the girls parents were not having it. She then had much more, ahem, comprehensive sex with the victim. The parents tried to stop the relationship, but when they found out, through nasty rumours at the school, and the 14 year old upset that she was being leered at by boys and treated like meat by the male students, they called the police. Hunt was arrested by mid February. The victim is a "cooperative complaining witness" and the sheriff and state attorney have made clear that the victim wants the prosecution to move forward, as well as the parents.

She was not expelled from school, which is another misleading statement made by the Hunts. She was moved to the alternative school and will be allowed to walk with her class. Male students in the same situation have been expelled, and students where age was not an issue who've had sex on campus have been expelled as well.

My best friend lives next door to the victim. The girl was well adjusted and fine until this. Now she is in therapy, depressed, acting out, etc.

The law is very clear, she violated it, in more ways than ...


I wish I had read your post earlier. I'm retracting my most recent one.  The point I previously made wold work if the gals were together for a longer period of time---but given the facts, that's not the case in this situation.
 
2013-05-24 07:08:34 PM
I'd have no problem with parents playing the "This state has shiatty consent gap laws", which is where even if 16 is the age of consent, that say 15 on 17 isn't stat rape due to the nearness in age.  Of course that doesn't appear to apply in this case since it started out 18 on 14.  At that point, the older girl was a dummy and should have just kept her tongue out of the other girl's pants.  Wait a few more months for college and have all the sex you want.

I find myself in an odd position.  I dislike the whole scarlet letter sex offender thing, but I also dislike how Hunt and her family are trying to play "It's only because I'm a lesbian."  That's bullshiat, if it was an 18 year old guy he'd have the book thrown at him and the really extreme folk would be calling for chemical castration or something else.

At the end of the day, any set of teenagers needs to grasp that when one person is checking out of highschool and the other person is just checking in, it is a bad idea.  Go download some porn or something.
 
2013-05-24 07:09:08 PM
I just don't see how if the girl was 17 and dating for a year it's ok, but as soon as she turns 18 it magically becomes morally wrong.  I know the law and all, but it still doesn't make sense.
 
2013-05-24 07:10:59 PM

baufan2005: I just don't see how if the girl was 17 and dating for a year it's ok, but as soon as she turns 18 it magically becomes morally wrong.  I know the law and all, but it still doesn't make sense.


I just don't see how someone can join a discussion but not be bothered to read the posts up to that point. I know laziness and all but it would prevent some from looking foolish.
 
2013-05-24 07:11:23 PM

RenownedCurator: TyrantII: hardinparamedic: lotus: An 18 year old and a 14 year old. I don't understand what the discussion is about. Seems like that was a pretty sweet plea deal.

Apparently the parents of the 18 year old are trying to turn this into a case of judicial revenge because the 14 year old was involved with someone of the same sex, rather than the fact it was someone of age with someone very much not of age of consent.

The hope  is that by going for the bigotry/discrimination angle, they can get public and popular opinion to either pressure the DA into dropping the charges, or influence the jury not to convict.

14-17 legal then vs 15-18 not now.  What a difference a year makes (in the eyes of the law)

Word is the parent of the "victim" waited to file charges as soon as the accused was 18.

"Word" is wrong. If you read the affidavit, the girls weren't even involved when the accused turned 18. She was 18 1/2 when arrested.


It's amazing to me that, and not just in this case, people will form an opinion based on early information. Then when that information is later proven to be inaccurate, they not only refuse to reconsider their opinion but refuse to accept the new information.

Actually, it amazes many that anyone accepts that the early information on any crime or natural disaster or accident is accurate, especially when one side is trying to spin it. By now everyone should know that the early accounts will almost inevitably prove to be inaccurate of not flat out wrong.
 
2013-05-24 07:11:45 PM

Xavier99: duffblue: If it goes to a jury she would look like an idiot taking the plea bargain. Generally the prosecution gives plea bargains to people they don't have enough evidence to convict them on.

I take it you are in the area and are looking forward to drooling over any "evidence" during the trial (if called to be a juror)?

duffblue: "Your honor, I am not sure if she is guilty or not yet - do you have any shots from a different angle?"

Or better yet - is this a state where the jury can ask questions of the defendent? boy that could get fun.


I was the 14 year old once. I can see how this happens. She broke the law, but this just screams bigot parents to me
 
2013-05-24 07:11:53 PM

baufan2005: I just don't see how if the girl was 17 and dating for a year it's ok, but as soon as she turns 18 it magically becomes morally wrong.  I know the law and all, but it still doesn't make sense.


It doesn't make any sense because that's not what happened. Not at all.
 
2013-05-24 07:11:57 PM
Sounds like she was called on the carpet for this one. That being said, I've got a munch she'll make the rug decision.
 
2013-05-24 07:12:17 PM

TyrantII: hardinparamedic: lotus: An 18 year old and a 14 year old. I don't understand what the discussion is about. Seems like that was a pretty sweet plea deal.

Apparently the parents of the 18 year old are trying to turn this into a case of judicial revenge because the 14 year old was involved with someone of the same sex, rather than the fact it was someone of age with someone very much not of age of consent.

The hope  is that by going for the bigotry/discrimination angle, they can get public and popular opinion to either pressure the DA into dropping the charges, or influence the jury not to convict.

14-17 legal then vs 15-18 not now.  What a difference a year makes (in the eyes of the law)

Word is the parent of the "victim" waited to file charges as soon as the accused was 18.


I don't believe 14-17 is ever legal in FL
 
2013-05-24 07:12:21 PM
http://www.scribd.com/doc/142642135/Kaitlyn-Hunt-Redacted-Affidavit-R e dacted

To help those who can't seem to grasp the fact this girl was  NEVER 17 WHEN THE RELATIONSHIP STARTED.
 
2013-05-24 07:13:19 PM

redslippers: There was a sexual encounter where Hunt inserted her finger in the victim's vagina in a school bathroom


Hunt must be Dutch, you know with the finger in the dyke and all...
 
2013-05-24 07:14:00 PM
This relationship started when  Kaitlyn was 17 and the other girl was 14.   The prosecutor keeps referring to an 18/14 relationship, being a disingenuous douchebag.  But the ages aren't even relevant.

Kaitlyn is charged with child abuse, not statutory rape.  You don't have to be over 18 to commit child abuse; any "person" can be charged.  Florida law says child abuse involves physical or mental injury.  Physical injury doesn't seem to have occurred here; "mental injury" may be hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt:

"Mental injury" means injury to the intellectual or psychological capacity of a child as evidenced by a discernible and substantial impairment in the ability of the child to function within the normal range of performance and behavior as supported by expert testimony.

I think her chances at trial are good, if she can get an impartial  jury.  As for the reputational stigma, I don't believe there will be one among any people worth considering.  On the contrary, she'll be admired for her gumption and principles.
 
2013-05-24 07:14:11 PM

baufan2005: I just don't see how if the girl was 17 and dating for a year it's ok, but as soon as she turns 18 it magically becomes morally wrong.  I know the law and all, but it still doesn't make sense.


The fabric of society is very complex, George.
 
2013-05-24 07:14:33 PM
But did she actually have sex with the girl after she turned 18?
 
2013-05-24 07:14:52 PM

MelGoesOnTour: Not sure I see what the big deal here is. To get to my point, I've never seen lesbionic "sex" as really being sex to begin with. Sure, they can vibrate each other and whatnot but, well, it seems pretty innocent. And if there were no "force"issues (I mean, it's not like the older one was 45 and tricking the younger one into something), what's the big deal? And if you're 18 and still in high school you should NOT be treated as an "adult". In other words, it was okay for them to diddle when the older chick was 17-1/2 but when her birthday came all of a sudden things magically changed?! Yeah, yeah, "the law is the law". Well, then, change it (at least when it comes to this sort of situation).


Imagine what the 14 year old is going through at school right now. Imagine how she will be treated for the remainder of high school, by boys and girls alike. Think about how she will have to move to another school district to escape that. And the 18 year old was 18 at the inception of the "relationship".

The law doesn't need to be changed, as there is a major difference in development from 14 to 18. An 18 year old is light years ahead of a 14 year old. I know, I have a 14 year old, and raised my sister from age 12 to 19. If this was my daughter, I'd prosecute as well. It is just not excusable.

And I am from Indian River County. I personally KNOW Brian Workman, the state attorney on this. He'd have filed a No Information in a heartbeat if this situation was truly "harmless", regardless of the parent's demands. My husband practiced law there for years before we moved, and many of my friends are criminal defense attorneys there. I know the judges in town as well; it is a small community, and I am curious to see which one pulls this case.

The general consensus in the legal community is that the girl will quite deservedly get jail time if she doesn't take the plea. And I don't doubt it, as all the judges currently on criminal rotation are not the kind to find the Hunt's misinformation campaign and media shiatstorm charming. They will likely be harder on the girl to make well known that they won't be bullied by poorly executed PR campaigns and mock outrage.
 
2013-05-24 07:15:35 PM

redslippers: There was a sexual encounter where Hunt inserted her finger in the victim's vagina in a school bathroom


3.bp.blogspot.com

"Ain't nothing wrong with that, I once had a similar experience."
 
2013-05-24 07:15:53 PM

jst3p: baufan2005: I just don't see how if the girl was 17 and dating for a year it's ok, but as soon as she turns 18 it magically becomes morally wrong.  I know the law and all, but it still doesn't make sense.

I just don't see how someone can join a discussion but not be bothered to read the posts up to that point. I know laziness and all but it would prevent some from looking foolish.


READ TEH THREAD? NO WAI!

OMFG U R A HOMOPHONE! 1!!!!

/there are morality police on both sides of the aisle
 
2013-05-24 07:16:02 PM

UsikFark: Master P but not that one: meh

I submitted this with a better headline

Women finally win the fight for equal rights.

Submitted links approved: none

word.


LOL my ass off.

/subby
 
2013-05-24 07:16:12 PM

Stoker: But did she actually have sex with the girl after she turned 18?


Why would that matter?


/read the thread and you might learn why it doesn't.
 
2013-05-24 07:17:42 PM

jst3p: baufan2005: I just don't see how if the girl was 17 and dating for a year it's ok, but as soon as she turns 18 it magically becomes morally wrong.  I know the law and all, but it still doesn't make sense.

I just don't see how someone can join a discussion but not be bothered to read the posts up to that point. I know laziness and all but it would prevent some from looking foolish.


Get off of it, clown.  Maybe the guy (like me) sifted through most of the bullshiat and only later learned more details.

How's your basement bedroom holding up these days, by the way?
 
2013-05-24 07:17:50 PM
i48.photobucket.com

Burning's too good for him her! SHe should be torn into little bitsy pieces and buried alive!
 
2013-05-24 07:18:14 PM

BarkingUnicorn: This relationship started when  Kaitlyn was 17 and the other girl was 14.   The prosecutor keeps referring to an 18/14 relationship, being a disingenuous douchebag.  But the ages aren't even relevant.

Kaitlyn is charged with child abuse, not statutory rape.  You don't have to be over 18 to commit child abuse; any "person" can be charged.  Florida law says child abuse involves physical or mental injury.  Physical injury doesn't seem to have occurred here; "mental injury" may be hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt:

"Mental injury" means injury to the intellectual or psychological capacity of a child as evidenced by a discernible and substantial impairment in the ability of the child to function within the normal range of performance and behavior as supported by expert testimony.

I think her chances at trial are good, if she can get an impartial  jury.  As for the reputational stigma, I don't believe there will be one among any people worth considering.  On the contrary, she'll be admired for her gumption and principles.


Read the thread, and in specific, my posts. You are incorrect on age, you are incorrect on the charges, you have a very misinformed viewpoint. This chica is going to jail. She openly admitted to police, after being Mirandized, to having multiple sexual encounters with a 14 year old, which in Florida is ALWAYS illegal.
 
2013-05-24 07:19:14 PM
Is Kaitlyn Hunt's father named Mike?
 
2013-05-24 07:19:17 PM

MelGoesOnTour: jst3p: baufan2005: I just don't see how if the girl was 17 and dating for a year it's ok, but as soon as she turns 18 it magically becomes morally wrong.  I know the law and all, but it still doesn't make sense.

I just don't see how someone can join a discussion but not be bothered to read the posts up to that point. I know laziness and all but it would prevent some from looking foolish.

Get off of it, clown.  Maybe the guy (like me) sifted through most of the bullshiat and only later learned more details.

How's your basement bedroom holding up these days, by the way?


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-05-24 07:19:55 PM
Just wanna drop in and remind everyone that "the law is the law" and similar statements are what we in the business like to call a "thought-terminating cliché"
 
Displayed 50 of 1323 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report