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 | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-25 12:01:26 AM

BarkingUnicorn: The State is pressing charges. The victim is a material witness. You want to talk about the harm that coercion does to a teen? Let's talk about the victim's parents, the cops, and the prosecutor.


So true, poor kid wasn't done any favors in this.
 
2013-05-25 12:01:36 AM

Jument: 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.

Two years of World of Warcraft, yay! Not being able to go for a run outside, boo! I'm torn. On the other hand, how would you earn money? Let's assume for the sake of argument that webcam sex worker is off the table...


Gold farming in World of Warcraft?
 
2013-05-25 12:01:37 AM

Brostorm: Today I learned statutory rape laws should be ignored for lesbians.  My mind is trying to process the thousands of men (and women) i jail that will welcome this news.


The defenders of this knew they had a flawed argument already, so now they are trying to argue that statutory rape should be okay for everyone.
 
2013-05-25 12:01:42 AM

Puckmarin: WhippingBoy: BarkingUnicorn: WhippingBoy: BarkingUnicorn: The opinions of students at Kaitlyn's high school.

Basically, "It aint no thing."

If we can't trust the opinions of high-school students, who can we trust?

Their opinions are relevant because they directly bear upon the harm that might be done to the "victim."  If her schoolmates were outraged, she'd likely be bullied, shunned, persecuted.  But they seem indifferent at worst, supportive at best.  So there goes another "potential harm" basis for frowning upon this whole thing.

Since the victim is the one who is pressing charges, I'd say that the opinions of her schoolmates is irrelevant.

The victim isn't pressing charges.  Her parents are.


The victim is the cooperating complaining witness. So actually, she is. If she declined, her parents have the right to take that role, but she is willingly helping the prosecution.
 
2013-05-25 12:02:01 AM

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.


Does house arrest mean you can't leave your house for any reason or are there exceptions for school or work or grocery shopping or whatever else?
 
2013-05-25 12:04:01 AM

cybrwzrd: redslippers:
Why? Other than to issue a license to have sex? Do you have no perspective on how stupid and wrong that very premise is?

You want to change the law from protecting children to identifying which ones it would be permissible to diddle?

How on earth is that not disgusting and perverted?

No, I want the law to be changed to not cause stupid situations where an 18, 19, or even 20 year olds will not be prosecuted for having sexual relations with someone from their peer group.

I hate to make an appeal to antiquity here, but hell 4 generations ago no one would have batted an eye at this sort of thing (ignoring than the homosexual nature of it).

I also think that exceptional young adults should be allowed to drink and vote in elections - based on the same reasoning.


Yeah, so what?  That was 80 years ago.  Shall we also go back to black people being 2nd class citizens in much of the country?
 
2013-05-25 12:04:01 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: WhippingBoy: So if a five year old child (for whatever reason) consents to sex, everything is A-OK!

Oh, man it get's worse than that did you know almost every single newborn was forced to touch a vagina?
/Stop being stupid, I know the booze is probably good but, really.


How is this stupid? There's an age of consent for a reason. If someone is under the age of consent, why does it matter how much they are under? I realize that there's a difference between a 5 year old and a 14 year old, but how far back do you go?
 
2013-05-25 12:04:57 AM
I don't see why we haven't built ranges into child protection laws yet. Five years seems reasonable. (ie. 18-13 ok, 18-12 not, 22-17 ok, 23-17 no). Or if we were really going to reform the system we might make onset of puberty the cut-off since that's really the defining moment. But how would you go about standardizing that, I dunno. No one wants medical tests to get involved.
 
2013-05-25 12:05:37 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: WhippingBoy: So if a five year old child (for whatever reason) consents to sex, everything is A-OK!

Oh, man it get's worse than that did you know almost every single newborn was forced to touch a vagina?
/Stop being stupid, I know the booze is probably good but, really.


He's not stupid. There are idiots here saying age doesn't matter, but some magical maturity test someone could administer.
 
2013-05-25 12:06:34 AM

redslippers: Puckmarin: WhippingBoy: BarkingUnicorn: WhippingBoy: BarkingUnicorn: The opinions of students at Kaitlyn's high school.

Basically, "It aint no thing."

If we can't trust the opinions of high-school students, who can we trust?

Their opinions are relevant because they directly bear upon the harm that might be done to the "victim."  If her schoolmates were outraged, she'd likely be bullied, shunned, persecuted.  But they seem indifferent at worst, supportive at best.  So there goes another "potential harm" basis for frowning upon this whole thing.

Since the victim is the one who is pressing charges, I'd say that the opinions of her schoolmates is irrelevant.

The victim isn't pressing charges.  Her parents are.

The victim is the cooperating complaining witness. So actually, she is. If she declined, her parents have the right to take that role, but she is willingly helping the prosecution.


I suspect that's based on the statement that she gave police which is much like the statement he defendant gave the cops.  They both admitted to having sex with each other.  Why shouldn't they?  It was consensual.  The cops probably lead them to believe that no one would get in trouble if they just told the truth.
 
2013-05-25 12:06:57 AM

kazikian: I don't see why we haven't built ranges into child protection laws yet. Five years seems reasonable. (ie. 18-13 ok, 18-12 not, 22-17 ok, 23-17 no). Or if we were really going to reform the system we might make onset of puberty the cut-off since that's really the defining moment. But how would you go about standardizing that, I dunno. No one wants medical tests to get involved.


A 13 year old and an 8 year old?
 
2013-05-25 12:07:15 AM

kazikian: I don't see why we haven't built ranges into child protection laws yet. Five years seems reasonable. (ie. 18-13 ok, 18-12 not, 22-17 ok, 23-17 no). Or if we were really going to reform the system we might make onset of puberty the cut-off since that's really the defining moment. But how would you go about standardizing that, I dunno. No one wants medical tests to get involved.


How about 15 and 10 year olds?
 
2013-05-25 12:08:31 AM

Puckmarin: I suspect that's based on the statement that she gave police which is much like the statement he defendant gave the cops.  They both admitted to having sex with each other.  Why shouldn't they?  It was consensual.  The cops probably lead them to believe that no one would get in trouble if they just told the truth.


It was consensual for the 18 year old, it wasn't consensual for the 14 year old, because legally, 14 year olds cannot give consent. Why is this so hard to understand?
 
2013-05-25 12:08:47 AM
People arguing that teenagers should be allowed to make their own decisions about sex obviously have never dealt with a teenager and don't remember being one.  Few teenagers have developed good decision making skills.  Most don't understand that actions can have long term consequences.  So we set an age when we call them "adult" and let them sink or swim.  We can't create a "maturity test" and have everyone take it each year when they enter high school because the test would be far too subjective.  Can you imagine a system where the government has final say on when you are a legal adult?  Look up "voting literacy tests" for an example of the type of abuse that would occur.

As for an older man or women getting with a teenager, I can't even imagine the attraction.  I can barely stand most women in their twenties and teenagers are quite possibly the most annoying creatures on the face of the planet.
 
2013-05-25 12:08:55 AM

bigwf2007: doglover: hammer85: Which as has been posted probably 3 pages worth in this thread, was not the case.

The legal system is broken. Of course the laws on the books aren't ideal. That's why we have trials. Laws suck, people point it out in court, and the courts strike those laws down.

What you have is two teens in the same high school. Close enough. It was legal when they were both underage. It ought to stay legal now. There's people out there right now shooting people down in the streets. That's where the legal system should be focusing its efforts. This? This is between two families. Should not be part of the courts at all.

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong. But I believe the parents of the 14-year-old did try to resolve it between the two families. They told the adults parents what was going on and told them to keep her away from their daughter. Instead, she encouraged the girl to run away for more sex. That's when they called the cops.


Their poor parenting skills are not really something I'm comfortable with the courts being involved in. Cops have pepper spray, guns, handcuffs, and clubs. They're violent thug stoppers, soldiers on the front line between society and violent crime.

This girl is not a threat to anyone. Most people have sex with they're in high school. This is a non issue become a news issue because of poorly written statutes. A generation ago, the cops would have hung up on the parents because there was real crime to deal with. At some point "for the children" stopped actually meaning what it says. If walk into any high school in the world, you'll find this same relationship a hundred times over. Making kids into felons for being normal teens is not a good road to start down.

Maybe someone needs to sit down and sort this out, but criminal charges? What will this accomplish? Teens in the future won't stop having sex any more than kids in your high school did. Hell, even the Vestal Virgins, young women who were BURIED ALIVE when they broke their religious vows, had the occasional member who strayed. It's human nature, especially at that age. Teens fark. Making it crazy illegal just makes innocent teens into criminals.

And that's really the problem with America today. Too many shiatty laws and lawyers who support them because it pays the bills. The law is supposed to solve problems, not create them.
 
2013-05-25 12:09:31 AM

kazikian: I don't see why we haven't built ranges into child protection laws yet. Five years seems reasonable. (ie. 18-13 ok, 18-12 not, 22-17 ok, 23-17 no). Or if we were really going to reform the system we might make onset of puberty the cut-off since that's really the defining moment. But how would you go about standardizing that, I dunno. No one wants medical tests to get involved.


You do realize that the onset of puberty can, and is with increasing regularity, as young as 5 or 6, with onset of menses as early as 7 years old?

So no, onset of puberty is in no way a defining hallmark of readiness for sex.

You are all sounding like you want "grass on the field" laws, and that is wrong on a multitude of levels.

13 and 14 year olds are CHILDREN.
 
2013-05-25 12:09:52 AM

redslippers: Puckmarin: WhippingBoy: BarkingUnicorn: WhippingBoy: BarkingUnicorn: The opinions of students at Kaitlyn's high school.

Basically, "It aint no thing."

If we can't trust the opinions of high-school students, who can we trust?

Their opinions are relevant because they directly bear upon the harm that might be done to the "victim."  If her schoolmates were outraged, she'd likely be bullied, shunned, persecuted.  But they seem indifferent at worst, supportive at best.  So there goes another "potential harm" basis for frowning upon this whole thing.

Since the victim is the one who is pressing charges, I'd say that the opinions of her schoolmates is irrelevant.

The victim isn't pressing charges.  Her parents are.

The victim is the cooperating complaining witness. So actually, she is. If she declined, her parents have the right to take that role, but she is willingly helping the prosecution.


Cooperating, obviously, but I don't see one word of complaint from her.
 
2013-05-25 12:11:09 AM

kazikian: I don't see why we haven't built ranges into child protection laws yet. Five years seems reasonable. (ie. 18-13 ok, 18-12 not, 22-17 ok, 23-17 no). Or if we were really going to reform the system we might make onset of puberty the cut-off since that's really the defining moment. But how would you go about standardizing that, I dunno. No one wants medical tests to get involved.


Why is 17-23 not OK but 18-23 OK?  Do you really think that one year (or less) really makes a difference?

Statutory rape laws are stupid, especially when we're talking about teenagers having sex with other teenagers/early 20-somethings.

There's a pretty simple fix to this situation:

- Do away with statutory rape laws
- High school is the deciding factor.  Once you enter high school you have the right to legally consent regardless of the age of your partner or your age difference.
- Sex Ed in middle school & high school
- Sex with anyone below high school age is child abuse/rape/etc... not statutory rape.
 
2013-05-25 12:11:33 AM

redslippers: kazikian: I don't see why we haven't built ranges into child protection laws yet. Five years seems reasonable. (ie. 18-13 ok, 18-12 not, 22-17 ok, 23-17 no). Or if we were really going to reform the system we might make onset of puberty the cut-off since that's really the defining moment. But how would you go about standardizing that, I dunno. No one wants medical tests to get involved.

You do realize that the onset of puberty can, and is with increasing regularity, as young as 5 or 6, with onset of menses as early as 7 years old?

So no, onset of puberty is in no way a defining hallmark of readiness for sex.

You are all sounding like you want "grass on the field" laws, and that is wrong on a multitude of levels.

13 and 14 year olds are CHILDREN.


Old enough to pee, good enough for me, amirite?
 
2013-05-25 12:11:40 AM

OgreMagi: People arguing that teenagers should be allowed to make their own decisions about sex obviously have never dealt with a teenager and don't remember being one.  Few teenagers have developed good decision making skills.  Most don't understand that actions can have long term consequences.  So we set an age when we call them "adult" and let them sink or swim.  We can't create a "maturity test" and have everyone take it each year when they enter high school because the test would be far too subjective.  Can you imagine a system where the government has final say on when you are a legal adult?  Look up "voting literacy tests" for an example of the type of abuse that would occur.

As for an older man or women getting with a teenager, I can't even imagine the attraction.  I can barely stand most women in their twenties and teenagers are quite possibly the most annoying creatures on the face of the planet.


You, sir, are a voice of reason in a sea of bullshiat.
 
2013-05-25 12:12:04 AM

redslippers: kazikian: I don't see why we haven't built ranges into child protection laws yet. Five years seems reasonable. (ie. 18-13 ok, 18-12 not, 22-17 ok, 23-17 no). Or if we were really going to reform the system we might make onset of puberty the cut-off since that's really the defining moment. But how would you go about standardizing that, I dunno. No one wants medical tests to get involved.

You do realize that the onset of puberty can, and is with increasing regularity, as young as 5 or 6, with onset of menses as early as 7 years old?

So no, onset of puberty is in no way a defining hallmark of readiness for sex.

You are all sounding like you want "grass on the field" laws, and that is wrong on a multitude of levels.

13 and 14 year olds are CHILDREN.


Voted for "Smart". I can't believe there are idiots here trying to defend adults having sex with 14 year olds.
 
2013-05-25 12:13:51 AM

Puckmarin: Statutory rape laws are stupid, especially when we're talking about teenagers having sex with other teenagers/early 20-somethings.


Why don't you grow up and try to find a woman for once instead of still trying to hit on children?
 
2013-05-25 12:14:21 AM

BarkingUnicorn: redslippers: Puckmarin: WhippingBoy: BarkingUnicorn: WhippingBoy: BarkingUnicorn: The opinions of students at Kaitlyn's high school.

Basically, "It aint no thing."

If we can't trust the opinions of high-school students, who can we trust?

Their opinions are relevant because they directly bear upon the harm that might be done to the "victim."  If her schoolmates were outraged, she'd likely be bullied, shunned, persecuted.  But they seem indifferent at worst, supportive at best.  So there goes another "potential harm" basis for frowning upon this whole thing.

Since the victim is the one who is pressing charges, I'd say that the opinions of her schoolmates is irrelevant.

The victim isn't pressing charges.  Her parents are.

The victim is the cooperating complaining witness. So actually, she is. If she declined, her parents have the right to take that role, but she is willingly helping the prosecution.

Cooperating, obviously, but I don't see one word of complaint from her.


Because she's an underage victim in a sexual abuse case. You'll never see or hear anything from her. The expectation that you would is moronic.
 
2013-05-25 12:15:31 AM
The 14yr old girl's parents did the right thing. If I found out my 14 yr old was sexually penetrated by an 18 yr old in the school bathroom I would be more than a little concerned. They did try and resolve the situation without involving the law. However when the adult continued to rape their daughter (statutory rape=rape) then they were forced to act.

The reason a 14yr old isn't capable of consenting to sex is the same reason they can't sign a mortgage or get a credit card etc..For their protection from the unscrupulous.
 
2013-05-25 12:15:51 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Lot's of these things are not like the other, Am I right or what?


The. "She was willing therefore it shouldn't be statutory rape" argument is just as dumb as the "She was asking for it because of how she was dressed therefore it's not rape" argument. I was just pointing it out.
 
2013-05-25 12:15:57 AM
I'm 35 and I have a 19 year old f*ck buddy.  That's a 16 year old age difference.  I'm technically old enough to be her father.  There's nothing wrong with this scenario legally or morally.

We are freaking out when two people with a 4 year age difference had sex because one of them happened to be past an arbitrary age that was set years ago by people who know nothing about the two girls having sex with each other.  How is that fair?
 
2013-05-25 12:17:14 AM
redslippers:


13 and 14 year olds are CHILDREN.

The argument for the status quo never gets beyond this utterly meaningless stage.
 
2013-05-25 12:17:23 AM

bukijin: The 14yr old girl's parents did the right thing. If I found out my 14 yr old was sexually penetrated by an 18 yr old in the school bathroom I would be more than a little concerned. They did try and resolve the situation without involving the law. However when the adult continued to rape their daughter (statutory rape=rape) then they were forced to act.

The reason a 14yr old isn't capable of consenting to sex is the same reason they can't sign a mortgage or get a credit card etc..For their protection from the unscrupulous.


Statutory rape doe not equal rape.  Nothing in this scenario suggests that the sex was forced or non-consensual.
 
2013-05-25 12:17:30 AM
I have to go deal with my chicks and go to sleep. It's been enlightening.
 
2013-05-25 12:17:39 AM

skozlaw: Ah, yes. The magical ages of 16, then 18, then 21 where you suddenly become responsible enough to engage in behaviors that were completely out of the question the day before.

/ if you have to place an arbitrary age limit on your law to enforce it, it probably shouldn't be a law


So you believe that 3-year-olds should be allowed to drive?  Or have you not thought through the logical consequences of your assertion?
 
2013-05-25 12:18:11 AM

WhippingBoy: redslippers: kazikian: I don't see why we haven't built ranges into child protection laws yet. Five years seems reasonable. (ie. 18-13 ok, 18-12 not, 22-17 ok, 23-17 no). Or if we were really going to reform the system we might make onset of puberty the cut-off since that's really the defining moment. But how would you go about standardizing that, I dunno. No one wants medical tests to get involved.

You do realize that the onset of puberty can, and is with increasing regularity, as young as 5 or 6, with onset of menses as early as 7 years old?

So no, onset of puberty is in no way a defining hallmark of readiness for sex.

You are all sounding like you want "grass on the field" laws, and that is wrong on a multitude of levels.

13 and 14 year olds are CHILDREN.

Old enough to pee, good enough for me, amirite?


Damn.  That's worse than, "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed."
 
2013-05-25 12:18:27 AM

Puckmarin: I'm 35 and I have a 19 year old f*ck buddy.  That's a 16 year old age difference.  I'm technically old enough to be her father.  There's nothing wrong with this scenario legally or morally.

We are freaking out when two people with a 4 year age difference had sex because one of them happened to be past an arbitrary age that was set years ago by people who know nothing about the two girls having sex with each other.  How is that fair?


So you'd be OK with a 17 year old having sex with a 1 year old? That's also a 16 year old age difference.

/that's why
 
2013-05-25 12:19:38 AM

WhippingBoy: tinfoil-hat maggie: WhippingBoy: So if a five year old child (for whatever reason) consents to sex, everything is A-OK!

Oh, man it get's worse than that did you know almost every single newborn was forced to touch a vagina?
/Stop being stupid, I know the booze is probably good but, really.

How is this stupid? There's an age of consent for a reason. If someone is under the age of consent, why does it matter how much they are under? I realize that there's a difference between a 5 year old and a 14 year old, but how far back do you go?


Well I wasn't gonna play you're absurd argument, but well a 5 yr old has not sexually developed a 14 yr old has for the most part well at least I was. Granted I didn't make wise or good decisions back then but who does. And it could be argued that I still don't.

So you didn't answer about the booze, what are you drinking? I might need to stay away from it : )
 
2013-05-25 12:20:01 AM

Rev. Skarekroe: Until the stroke of midnight on your 18th birthday, you are a child and completely incapable of making any sexual decisions.

It's science.


No, it's recognizing the need to draw the line SOMEWHERE.
 
2013-05-25 12:20:57 AM

Puckmarin: I'm 35 and I have a 19 year old f*ck buddy.  That's a 16 year old age difference.  I'm technically old enough to be her father.  There's nothing wrong with this scenario legally or morally.

We are freaking out when two people with a 4 year age difference had sex because one of them happened to be past an arbitrary age that was set years ago by people who know nothing about the two girls having sex with each other.  How is that fair?


Yes, we already know you are all for child molesting if the 13 year old or whatever looks like they want it. Listen, go back to your sick little world of molesting the kids is okay.
 
2013-05-25 12:21:32 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: WhippingBoy: tinfoil-hat maggie: WhippingBoy: So if a five year old child (for whatever reason) consents to sex, everything is A-OK!

Oh, man it get's worse than that did you know almost every single newborn was forced to touch a vagina?
/Stop being stupid, I know the booze is probably good but, really.

How is this stupid? There's an age of consent for a reason. If someone is under the age of consent, why does it matter how much they are under? I realize that there's a difference between a 5 year old and a 14 year old, but how far back do you go?

Well I wasn't gonna play you're absurd argument, but well a 5 yr old has not sexually developed a 14 yr old has for the most part well at least I was. Granted I didn't make wise or good decisions back then but who does. And it could be argued that I still don't.

So you didn't answer about the booze, what are you drinking? I might need to stay away from it : )


Homemade bourbon.

And sexual development does not equal sexual maturity. I realize the ages are somewhat arbitrary, but I firmly believe that 14 is still a child.
 
2013-05-25 12:22:19 AM

Puckmarin: I'm 35 and I have a 19 year old f*ck buddy.  That's a 16 year old age difference.  I'm technically old enough to be her father.  There's nothing wrong with this scenario legally or morally.

We are freaking out when two people with a 4 year age difference had sex because one of them happened to be past an arbitrary age that was set years ago by people who know nothing about the two girls having sex with each other.  How is that fair?


Ahhh. Now it's clear. You like 'em young. Well currently you're within the law. But what if you were 5 years younger. Are you saying that the 30 year old you should have been able to fark 14 year olds? If yes why. If no why.
 
2013-05-25 12:22:45 AM

WhippingBoy: Puckmarin: I'm 35 and I have a 19 year old f*ck buddy.  That's a 16 year old age difference.  I'm technically old enough to be her father.  There's nothing wrong with this scenario legally or morally.

We are freaking out when two people with a 4 year age difference had sex because one of them happened to be past an arbitrary age that was set years ago by people who know nothing about the two girls having sex with each other.  How is that fair?

So you'd be OK with a 17 year old having sex with a 1 year old? That's also a 16 year old age difference.

/that's why


Irrational, passionate person is funny.

www.festivusweb.com
 
2013-05-25 12:23:44 AM

Puckmarin: Statutory rape doe not equal rape. Nothing in this scenario suggests that the sex was forced or non-consensual.


The law disagrees with you. 15 will get you 20.
 
2013-05-25 12:23:48 AM

jayphat: runescorpio: 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.

Thats still 2 years of her life for being in a relationship that started out as legal. Letter of the law people are the reason western society is crumbling around the edges. There is no leeway for circumstance. No mercy for petty issues.
Making someones way of life illegal simply because they had a birthday and the law says that makes them an adult to me screams ignorance and for the most part indicates a broken legal system.

Their relationship never started out as legal ever. She was 18, the other girl was 14. At no point in time was this ever legal.


Except for when she was 17 and the girl was 14.
 
2013-05-25 12:24:04 AM

muck4doo: Puckmarin: I'm 35 and I have a 19 year old f*ck buddy.  That's a 16 year old age difference.  I'm technically old enough to be her father.  There's nothing wrong with this scenario legally or morally.

We are freaking out when two people with a 4 year age difference had sex because one of them happened to be past an arbitrary age that was set years ago by people who know nothing about the two girls having sex with each other.  How is that fair?

Yes, we already know you are all for child molesting if the 13 year old or whatever looks like they want it. Listen, go back to your sick little world of molesting the kids is okay.


No.  I'm not advocating for molesting children.  I'd advocating for giving teenagers the right to choose what they do with their bodies and who they have sex with.  I'm also stating that statutory rape laws are stupid because they are all based around an arbitrary age set by people who have no insight on the individual situation.
 
2013-05-25 12:25:49 AM
Is there a reason people like Puckmarin can't handle a mature women and prefer little girls instead?
 
2013-05-25 12:25:53 AM

Christian Bale: jayphat: runescorpio: 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.

Thats still 2 years of her life for being in a relationship that started out as legal. Letter of the law people are the reason western society is crumbling around the edges. There is no leeway for circumstance. No mercy for petty issues.
Making someones way of life illegal simply because they had a birthday and the law says that makes them an adult to me screams ignorance and for the most part indicates a broken legal system.

Their relationship never started out as legal ever. She was 18, the other girl was 14. At no point in time was this ever legal.

Except for when she was 17 and the girl was 14.


For farks sake, it was never 17 and 14, and even if it had been, that is also illegal. Under 16 in Florida is a no go, regardless of the age of the partner.
 
2013-05-25 12:26:07 AM

Christian Bale: Except for when she was 17 and the girl was 14.


This is either one of the greatest trolls I've ever seen, or you are the world's biggest idiot.

/she was never 17 and the girl was 14. Read the thread.
 
2013-05-25 12:26:14 AM

jayphat: Neums: The relationship had been going on for some time, when they were 14 and 17. The parents of the then-14-year-old waited until the day Hunt turned 18 to file charges. From what I've read, they're religious, blamed Hunt for coercing and turning their child gay, and planned for the birthday to punish them. But can they prove that they were together once Hunt turned 18? Seems to me that Hunt and the girlfriend could have decided to cool thing down until the girlfriend became legal. If all the activity happened prior to Hunt turning 18, then it's not statutory rape, is it?

No it didn't and no they didn't. Go reread the facts of this case please, then comment.



"In statements posted to a, Hunt's parents allege that their daughter's relationship with her girlfriend, who was 14 when they began dating, was known to the other girl's parents. They implied that the other girl's parents waited until Hunt turned 18 to press charges."

So yes, they did, or at least it is alleged that they did.   Go reread the facts of this case please, then comment.
 
2013-05-25 12:26:32 AM

bukijin: Do we want a society that allows child workers and child soldiers or is it just child sexual partners ??


I have met folks on the right who want all three of those things.
 
2013-05-25 12:26:58 AM

Radioactive Ass: tinfoil-hat maggie: Lot's of these things are not like the other, Am I right or what?

The. "She was willing therefore it shouldn't be statutory rape" argument is just as dumb as the "She was asking for it because of how she was dressed therefore it's not rape" argument. I was just pointing it out.


Wait were you one of those screaming for people to read the thread/links?
/hint.
//This isn't a statutory rape charge.
 
2013-05-25 12:27:05 AM

Neums: The relationship had been going on for some time, when they were 14 and 17. The parents of the then-14-year-old waited until the day Hunt turned 18 to file charges. From what I've read, they're religious, blamed Hunt for coercing and turning their child gay, and planned for the birthday to punish them. But can they prove that they were together once Hunt turned 18? Seems to me that Hunt and the girlfriend could have decided to cool thing down until the girlfriend became legal. If all the activity happened prior to Hunt turning 18, then it's not statutory rape, is it?


If they both state that they stopped having sex after Hunt turned 18 because they were fearful of the legal consequences how are they going to prove otherwise?
 
2013-05-25 12:27:28 AM

Puckmarin: muck4doo: Puckmarin: I'm 35 and I have a 19 year old f*ck buddy.  That's a 16 year old age difference.  I'm technically old enough to be her father.  There's nothing wrong with this scenario legally or morally.

We are freaking out when two people with a 4 year age difference had sex because one of them happened to be past an arbitrary age that was set years ago by people who know nothing about the two girls having sex with each other.  How is that fair?

Yes, we already know you are all for child molesting if the 13 year old or whatever looks like they want it. Listen, go back to your sick little world of molesting the kids is okay.

No.  I'm not advocating for molesting children.  I'd advocating for giving teenagers the right to choose what they do with their bodies and who they have sex with.  I'm also stating that statutory rape laws are stupid because they are all based around an arbitrary age set by people who have no insight on the individual situation.


No, you are advocating adults be allowed what they want to do with kids bodies, and treat the kids like they are adults for your own personal perverted ideals.
 
2013-05-25 12:27:53 AM

ciberido: jayphat: Neums: The relationship had been going on for some time, when they were 14 and 17. The parents of the then-14-year-old waited until the day Hunt turned 18 to file charges. From what I've read, they're religious, blamed Hunt for coercing and turning their child gay, and planned for the birthday to punish them. But can they prove that they were together once Hunt turned 18? Seems to me that Hunt and the girlfriend could have decided to cool thing down until the girlfriend became legal. If all the activity happened prior to Hunt turning 18, then it's not statutory rape, is it?

No it didn't and no they didn't. Go reread the facts of this case please, then comment.


"In statements posted to a, Hunt's parents allege that their daughter's relationship with her girlfriend, who was 14 when they began dating, was known to the other girl's parents. They implied that the other girl's parents waited until Hunt turned 18 to press charges."

So yes, they did, or at least it is alleged that they did.   Go reread the facts of this case please, then comment.


picardfacepalm.com
 
Displayed 50 of 1323 comments

First | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report