|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on Jun 11, 2007 14:05:20 GMT -5
tinyurl.com/27r8lhGood deal. Its about time some people got it through their head that teens having sex are NOT adults molesting children simply because of a a slight age difference. Not sure about everyone else here, but lots of juniors and seniors were dating freshmen and sophomores when I went to school. And sex was just as much in demand then as it is now. And we had plenty of alcohol and weed back then, just as they do now, for that matter. Teens having CONSENSUAL sex may be frowned upon by NON teens(parents), but it is hardly grounds for 10 years in prison in most cases. Just because your little girl grew up faster than you planned does not mean a 16 or 17 year old teenage boy has to be sacrificed on an alter, or pegged as a sex offender for the rest of his life. Now, maybe I was just a REAL 'naughty' teen, and I grew up in a REAL 'naughty' school. . . . . . who knows. I can accept that, but if so I had lots of company. Marriage at 12, 13 & 14 wasn't an odd thing at all not so very long ago. Nature is still VERY MUCH in control of when the urge to mate kicks in, regardless of how many adults want to prolong childhood. ;D Now of course, any man of my age yearning for 15 year old girls(or boys for that matter) is a real social issue. No arguments there at all. But a 16 or 17 year old boy is another matter, and it really always was. (I hope this made more sense this time . . . ) 
|
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Jun 11, 2007 14:08:52 GMT -5
Man, am I glad we had a boy!
|
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Jun 11, 2007 14:39:07 GMT -5
I read the DA is going to appeal that ruling. I guess he has nothing important to do?
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on Jun 11, 2007 14:44:32 GMT -5
I read the DA is going to appeal that ruling. I guess he has nothing important to do? He probably has a teenage daughter that doesn't do what she is told(who would ever have thought), so now he wants to scare the boys off. Lots of parents think that way ya know . . .  |
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jun 11, 2007 14:54:38 GMT -5
The history of this case is what really  es me off ...... They actually changed the law after this kid was tried and convicted but they refused to allow the "NEW" law to preside over his case. It was wrong. They knew it was wrong. The prosecutor has said in the past that he would let him go "if he admitted wrongdoing" The kid refused and stuck by his guns .... so they let him sit there for the last couple of years. Complete and total BS. |
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Jun 11, 2007 16:10:31 GMT -5
The history of this case is what really whizes me off ...... They actually changed the law after this kid was tried and convicted but they refused to allow the "NEW" law to preside over his case. It was wrong. They knew it was wrong. The prosecutor has said in the past that he would let him go "if he admitted wrongdoing" The kid refused and stuck by his guns .... so they let him sit there for the last couple of years. Complete and total BS. But Swilk, wasn't it a Felony? Didn't he deserve what he got for knowingly violating the law? Doesn't he deserve to be permenantly barred from ever owning a firearm? Seems like you want things bothe ways...  |
|
|
|
Post by Hawkeye on Jun 11, 2007 16:26:32 GMT -5
This kid should never have went to prison,If every kid who had sex in high school was convicted of the crime ,half of us adult population would now be registered sex offenders.Say and do what you want but most teenage kids will and are having sex.
|
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jun 11, 2007 16:30:54 GMT -5
He received oral sex from a willing female. To say that he "knowingly" committed a felony he would have to have known about the law prior to commiting ..... and he would have had to have have positive age of the female.
I very seriously doubt he knew of the law or if he bothered to ask how old the girl was.
Ignorance is no excuse when it comes to the law ..... but in this case ignorance coupled with a stupid (and later changed) law kind of make this a no brainer.
I realize what you are trying to say ..... and I would have done the same thing to you .... but in this case the poor kid got screwed.
|
|
|
|
Post by racktracker on Jun 11, 2007 18:09:13 GMT -5
This kid should never have went to prison,If every kid who had sex in high school was convicted of the crime ,half of us adult population would now be registered sex offenders.Say and do what you want but most teenage kids will and are having sex. You can say that again. |
|
|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on Jun 11, 2007 19:10:29 GMT -5
The history of this case is what really whizes me off ...... They actually changed the law after this kid was tried and convicted but they refused to allow the "NEW" law to preside over his case. It was wrong. They knew it was wrong. The prosecutor has said in the past that he would let him go "if he admitted wrongdoing" The kid refused and stuck by his guns .... so they let him sit there for the last couple of years. Complete and total BS. But Swilk, wasn't it a Felony? Didn't he deserve what he got for knowingly violating the law? Doesn't he deserve to be permenantly barred from ever owning a firearm? Seems like you want things bothe ways... Surely not . . . |
|
|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on Jun 11, 2007 19:16:12 GMT -5
This kid should never have went to prison,If every kid who had sex in high school was convicted of the crime ,half of us adult population would now be registered sex offenders.Say and do what you want but most teenage kids will and are having sex. You can say that again. You would be amazed at the number of adults are currently listed as sex offenders were done so under very much the same circumstances. This type of stupidity has been going on for years now. Lots of young men labeled sexual predators for life because they got caught doing what many of us did ourselves 20, 30 or 40 years ago. Its garbage. And it is one more thing overdue to be 'fixed'. |
|
|
|
Post by duff on Jun 11, 2007 19:39:51 GMT -5
I agree the punishment doesn't really fit the crime. Additionally I don't agree with putting a 18 or 19 year old on a registered sex offender list for satutory rape, as most is consentual.
But really laws are laws even if you don't know about them or agree with them, and like all crimes if you think you are innocent you can fight the charges but if you loose your punishment is much worse. In my opinion he was crazy not to accept the plea, the law wasn't fuzzy or up to individual intrepretation. Would have been hard to fight that charge.
|
|
|
|
Post by RiverJim on Jun 11, 2007 20:10:35 GMT -5
He received oral sex from a willing female. Wonder why he didn't try the bill clinton defence? I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT GIRL! According to slick willy oral sex IS NOT really sex! |
|
|
|
Post by RiverJim on Jun 11, 2007 20:16:51 GMT -5
[quote author=swilk board=campfire thread=1181588720 .... but in this case the poor kid got screwed.[/quote]
No he didn't! he got a *&^%
And that's NOT SEX according to our last democratic president! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Jun 12, 2007 8:37:56 GMT -5
Ask Bill & Monica what they think!!!!!!!!
|
|
