Six-year-old sex offender...

[Canarr]

I'm putting this here under Clash of Cultures - because in cases like this, I just don't get the US.

http://m.host.madison.com/mobile/article_c13c6a62-72b8-11e0-8659-001cc4c03286.html

Summary: a six-year-old is being charged with first-degree sexual assault for playing doctor with a five-year-old. Oh, and they're considering having him labelled a sexual predator. forbidding him from having unsupervised contact with children.

How can anyone look at this case and think, "Yeah, that kinda makes sense."? How can that D.A. still have a job?

I don't get it. I just don't.

[Andara Bledin]

I honestly believe that every person who comes across a situation such as the one described here who believes even slightly that the children should be charged with any form of sexual assault need to undergo a serious psych evaluation and possibly charged with some crime against children for putting them through this sort of thing.

^-.-^

[Lace Neil Singer]

I thought all children did this. Does that make all children sex offenders?

[telecom_goddess]

Most children do this.....it's a way to satisfy curiosity and has been going on since humankind began. WTF is wrong with people? Charging anyone with anything in this is as asinine as it gets.

[Glados]

This is a prime example of a prosecutor going overboard and labeling a child as a future danger to society. I have no doubt that those involved will consider this a win in the fight against crime. When will these people figure out that not all future criminal behaviors can be predicted and prevented? We cannot criminalize childhood behaviors because it MIGHT lead to future crimes.

This makes me sick because the charges will remain with this kid for life. Unless he gets a ruling to expunge his record he will forever be unable to work with children. I just had to get my clearances to work with children and found out that they do consider information from childhood. Children can be convicted of child abuse for hitting a sibling and have it stay on there record. What is wrong with the people who think up these stupid laws?

[PepperElf]

I agree... Not only will this be with the child for life.... this will shape how the child thinks and views himself.

I cannot imaging growing up constantly being reminded, "You're a sex offender" and turning out mentally healthy.



I mean it's fucking NORMAL to be interested in your body, and the body of people your own age. A year or two difference at that age isn't much... if anything a year or two means more when you're in your teens and going through puberty. Then after that's over, wider age ranges are normal to sample from etc.


What I fear though, is that this child is going to grow up thinking "I'm a molester!" and eventually kill himself over the mental hangups.

[Canarr]

Yeah... at least, as soon as he's old enough to understand what that even means.

What gets me is the Judge's position on this:

Judge Leineweber refused to dismiss the petitions, saying the relevant part of the sexual assault allegation is the mother’s observations.

The boy needed only to have penetrated the girl and known she was under a certain age, he wrote, adding, “Even the most immature 6-year-old could appreciate these two concepts.”

Now, I don't remember being six all too clearly; but I'm pretty sure that the concepts of "penetration" and "underage sex" were years beyond me. Okay, ignorance of the law is not a defense; but c'mon, how the hell is that kid supposed to even *understand* that?

Small anecdote from German law: any kid under the age of 14 cannot be charged with a crime, under any circumstances. This doesn't influence civil liability (kids or their parents may still be sued for damages), but as long as kids are 13 or below, the law can't touch them.

We've had some problems with juvenile delinquency over the last few years, and maybe 14 is too high in today's society, but I greatly appreciate the fact that at least children are beyond the reach of petty, braind-dead sociopaths like the D.A. and Judge in this case.

[Glados]

I also disliked the definition of sexual intercourse used in this state (it was in one of the articles) ..."is defined as penetration, however slight, of any part of another person's body"

The broad definition allows for absurd charges if the contact is unwelcome.

SARCASM: I wonder if I stick my finger in someone's ear in that state if they can arrest me for sexual assault based on that definition?

[RecoveringKinkoid]

"State law defines sexual intercourse, in part, as “intrusion, however slight, of any part of a person’s body.”

So, I've had sexual intercourse with my dental hygienist. And my dentist. Both of whom are women, and both of whom at some point have had their fingers in my mouth.

And neither of these bitches have sent me flowers. I feel so used.

I wonder if that's how the hygienist got knocked up? I could be a dad, ya'll. :eek:

[Greenday]

Intrusion implies you don't consent. The reason why this case fits the legal term is because the girl was too young to give consent in any US state. That's also the reason why claiming a dentist did it to you is absurd.

Whether what happened is right or not, eh. It is normal to explore sexuality as soon as you figure out that there is an opposite sex.

[insertNameHere]

Ok,I could understand if the boy was 14 and the girl was 6.... He should know better. But 6 and 5, really? It is a sad state of things how just about everyone is labeled as a sexual predator for stuff that should be non-issue. Keep in mind, If i stumble with X feet of school zone while drunk, take a piss against a dumpster with NO children around for 1000ft.... and a cop walks up, I can now be labeled as a sex offender. I mean seriously, sure it wrong to piss in public but to go so far as to label someone a sex offender is over the fucking top and they really need to work on trying to get evidence on the drug dealers and murders who get sweetheart deals compared to average joe taking a piss or little kid playing doctor

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Intrusion implies you don't consent. The reason why this case fits the legal term is because the girl was too young to give consent in any US state. That's also the reason why claiming a dentist did it to you is absurd.

Whether what happened is right or not, eh. It is normal to explore sexuality as soon as you figure out that there is an opposite sex.


I know claiming a dentist did it to me is absurd. However, it's no more absurd than saying a six year old did it to a five year old. That's my entire point.

A five year old cannot give consent. Neither can a six year old. By the logic presented in this finding, I'd be interested what would happen if the same six year old were coerced into fingering someone of the legal age. Is he still a sex offender? If they're going to argue he knew what he was doing, how then are they going to prosecute the person he fingered as a sex offender?

This whole thing is so absurd I don't even know how to debate it intelligently.

[Boozy]

Intrusion implies you don't consent. The reason why this case fits the legal term is because the girl was too young to give consent in any US state. That's also the reason why claiming a dentist did it to you is absurd.

No. The law is defining sexual intercourse, not sexual assault. Thus you can have intrusion with consent.

Laws don't "imply" things. They are written to explicitly state them.

That's why I will bet everything I have that what the article says is not what state law really says. I suspect that the "intrusion into any part of the body" must be made by a penis, or if not a penis, the intrusion must be into the vaginal area or anus.

This is how sex is defined in the vast majority of North American legal districts.

[NateSean]

Most children do this.....it's a way to satisfy curiosity and has been going on since humankind began. WTF is wrong with people? Charging anyone with anything in this is as asinine as it gets.

Hell, when I was in Kindergarten I would run up to girls and kiss them on the cheek. I considered myself fortunate when I heard about a kid in the same siuation almost seven years later being charged with sexual harrassment.

Now I truly weep for the future if this occurs. And no, I'd like to honestly think that this is not how the entire US legal system works and that it is in fact an isolated incident.

Then again, look at the town I currently live in and suddenly it's easy to see about where we took a turn towards this time.

[jackfaire]

SARCASM: I wonder if I stick my finger in someone's ear in that state if they can arrest me for sexual assault based on that definition?

My little brother is a registered sex offender because the law states that him fingering a girl who was 4 years younger than him rather than 3 when he was a teenager is statutory rape. They equate it with him actually having sex with her.

[Gravekeeper]

Aren't DA's elected? That's the problem right there. Combine the frothing "OMG WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN" with an elected position and you get shit like this.

[jackfaire]

That's why I will bet everything I have that what the article says is not what state law really says. I suspect that the "intrusion into any part of the body" must be made by a penis, or if not a penis, the intrusion must be into the vaginal area or anus.

Actually no in my state the actual law reads Intrusion into any part of the body. If they really wanted to be jerks shoving your finger into a girl's mouth against her will counts as rape by the literal definition of the law. "Penetration of orifice" is how it's defined without qualifiers for what part of your body into what orifice.

[Boozy]

I'd like a citation for the source you are using, since my source says no such thing.

My source is Chapter 9A.44.010 of the Washington State legal code. I will post a link when I'm not on my mobile.

[jackfaire]

I'd like a citation for the source you are using, since my source says no such thing.

My source is Chapter 9A.44.010 of the Washington State legal code. I will post a link when I'm not on my mobile.

My source was the paperwork they gave my little brother when they charged him. It said he was being charged with Statutory Rape on the basis that any form of unwanted penetration with any part of him in a sexual manner is considered rape.

His lawyer said that he could have been charged with Statutory rape for french kissing the girl.

[Beckpatton]

Summary: a six-year-old is being charged with first-degree sexual assault for playing doctor with a five-year-old. Oh, and they're considering having him labelled a sexual predator. forbidding him from having unsupervised contact with children.


While I agree that the idea a 6 year old boy knowingly acted as a sexual predator is insane, I can understand the parents wanting him to get some kind of counselling as it wasn't an isolated incident. When you read about his previous behaviour with babysitters, my first thought is that he seems to be very sexualised for his age, perhaps something happened to him and he is just copying the behaviour.

Something very similar happend at my old primary school, a young boy, about 7 maybe 8 was acting inappropriately with some of the 5 year olds, he was sent to counselling and turns out someone had been messing with him.

They're not actually laying criminal charges here, he's too young. They are asking for a legal order to force the child into counselling, and to get whatever help he may need. See below from the article:

Under state law, the boy is too young to be charged with a crime or in a juvenile delinquency petition, the equivalent of a criminal complaint for juveniles. Instead, prosecutors have included the allegations in a petition seeking protection or services for the boy. Such petitions are typically used by parents or authorities to identify children under 10 who need services to change inappropriate behavior.

The girls parents weren't happy with the reaction of the boys parents, so pressed it further.

As for branding him a sexual predator, and restricting his time spent with kids, again they want him evaluated to see if in fact he may be one in the making, or just a kid playing doctor, (the most likely scenario). Until that process has been completed, for his and everyones safety, they are keeping him supervised when with other kids.

They said authorities even raised the prospect that the boy be evaluated as a potential sexual predator and suggested he not be allowed to have any unsupervised contact with children.

I feel weird even defending this story, but I understand the intent behind it. Sure they're all probably overreacting, most kids do this kind of thing at this age, I know I sure did! (Actually my mum had to give me "the talk" when I was 5 because the 10 year old neighbour was trying to play these kinds of "games" with me). I'm sure once it's resolved it will turn out that the cause of all this, (him playing "Butt doctor") will be him acting out what happened when he had some health issues. In the article it says he had to have enemas and stuff, I reckon that's where it all came from!

[FArchivist]

How can anyone look at this case and think, "Yeah, that kinda makes sense."? How can that D.A. still have a job?

The state in question follows "zero tolerance" guidelines in regards sexual offenses. Zero tolerance requires the same harsh response regardless of circumstance.

By the logic presented in this finding, I'd be interested what would happen if the same six year old were coerced into fingering someone of the legal age. Is he still a sex offender? If they're going to argue he knew what he was doing, how then are they going to prosecute the person he fingered as a sex offender?

The person who coerced the six-year-old would be considered to be the offender, with the six-year-old being classed as the victim. It is always the initiator that is considered to be at fault, defaulting to the legal age person.

[jackfaire]

The person who coerced the six-year-old would be considered to be the offender, with the six-year-old being classed as the victim. It is always the initiator that is considered to be at fault, defaulting to the legal age person.

*nods* The exception always being the age. If you initate a sexual relationship as a teenager with an adult they will be considered the sex offender.

I think they might make exceptions if you can prove you were unwilling but that would be like physically forced, if you were drugged or anything like that you would have a harder time proving you didn't want it.

[tropicsgoddess]

An adult or teen molesting or sexually assaulting and/or abusing the child, or engaging in lewd/lascivious acts with the child is something to put them as a sex offender. But to put a 6 year old as a sex offender for playing doctor with a 5 year old girl is fucking ridiculous! The girl's mother went way overboard on getting the authorities involved instead of hashing it out with the parents and having a talk with her child about inappropriate touching and such.

[bara]

Thats it! Stop the planet, Im getting off.

[jackfaire]

I am really glad people weren't like this when I was in Kindergarten because I played doctor too.

Oh No I is EviiiiiLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!:eek:

[Mytical]

I've heard some ridiculous, absurd, and knee-jerk reaction things.but this might be the winner of the award for such. Bring out the trophy, I would weep if I find something that could top it. At six, with all honesty, I didn't even know the difference between a male and a female..no really I had no clue. Didn't care to either. I thought the boys who were crying about 'cooties' were strange. Of course now mind that my older sister was considered a tom boy (climbed trees etc) so to me there was no difference. My sister could outwrestle, out climb, out fight any boy..so what was the issue? :D

Me and my sister wrestled, just like me and my brother did (both older, but I didn't let that stop me). I am sure during the wrestling hands were placed where they shouldn't have, but we were KIDS FOR CRIMMINIES SAKE. Besides wounded egos and a few bruises and such..there was never any harm done. Now I never played doctor (when I was old enough to be curious I was already too shy) but to call this boy a sexual predator is signs that people have gotten certain wooden objects too far into certain crevices. I agree with Bara..stop the world..I want off.

[Dreamstalker]

Not quite the same, but related to the thread title:

Boy accused of sexual harassment for punching a bully in the groin (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/boston-first-grader-investigated-sexual-harassment-punching-classmate-groin-article-1.985944)

Basically, the bully stole his gloves and began choking him on the bus. The boy puched back in an attempt to get free and managed to connect with the bully's testicles.

How is this 'sexual harassment'?!

[jackfaire]

How is this 'sexual harassment'?!

They thought it was meant to be a love tap?

[Dreamstalker]

That seems better than any explanation mom or I could come up with. I was under the impression that the person doing the harassing must be aware that it is harassment.

This seems to be a 'natural' outgrowth of the zero-tolerance bullshit (which we have zero tolerance for).

[RedRoseSpiral]

I just got done reading the comments and all I could see was BS about how this is all the fault of the feminist...wtf?

[Canarr]

The state in question follows "zero tolerance" guidelines in regards sexual offenses. Zero tolerance requires the same harsh response regardless of circumstance.


I get the concept of Zero Tolerance. It's a shitty concept, but I get it. What I don't get is how a (supposedly) responsible adult with a degree in Law (as I'd expect a judge to have) can seriously hold the position that a six-year-old should be able to actually understand what a sexual offense is. When I was six, I sure as hell didn't.

[Duelist925]

I get the concept of Zero Tolerance. It's a shitty concept, but I get it. What I don't get is how a (supposedly) responsible adult with a degree in Law (as I'd expect a judge to have) can seriously hold the position that a six-year-old should be able to actually understand what a sexual offense is. When I was six, I sure as hell didn't.

This. A thousand times this. When I was six, I knew less about sex than I did about freaking nuclear power. Which wasnt a lot!

[Seshat]

But to put a 6 year old as a sex offender for playing doctor with a 5 year old girl is fucking ridiculous! The girl's mother went way overboard on getting the authorities involved instead of hashing it out with the parents and having a talk with her child about inappropriate touching and such.

If she thought the boy was excessively or suspiciously sexualised, I can understand taking it to the authorities: basically, seeking to get help for the kid. Most of what I've read says that parents or people known to the parents are the most common child-rapists.
If the girl's mother believed that (me, I haven't personally seen the studies, but I'll accept it pending further info); then I can understand her choosing to bypass speaking to the parents and going straight to the people who are SUPPOSED to be able to handle these things properly.

Clearly, someone screwed up here. But I don't think it's automatically a parent.

[senor boogie woogie]

I am against sexual offender lists. If someone's crime was heinous (like forcable rape) and/or involved preteen children, the person should be locked up for the rest of their lives. If the crime was not as serious, the person should do their time and that's it.

These lists ruin far more lives than they save. Why not have a felon list? A list of people who have done domestic violence, robbery, theft, drug dealing and things like that?

I am a bit surprised that they are charging a 6 year old. Several years ago, a 6 year old boy shot a 6 year old female classmate a death in an elementary school in Flint, Michigan. The adults the boy lived with were drug dealers with a pistol and that fateful day the kid stole it, took it to school and murdered the other child. In the end he was not charged with a crime because he was too young to be culpable for the crime (which was 1st degree murder).

To the OP, America is not as free as advertised. It is very legalistic with cops who everyday look to arrest people for almost anything, seriously. Cops today are worse than ever, using dangerous weapons like tasers, wearing body armour and police departments buying military hardware like TANKS.

In New York City (supposedly a pretty liberal place), a girl and her friends were walking through a park one night going somewhere else and were stopped by the police. One girl was ARRESTED when she failed to have any identification. That's it. No drugs, no violence. She was arrested because she did not have a state ID for inspection. HELLO! Does this sound free to you?

The economy is so screwed and cities/governments so broke that they are going to leech on the people even more, with speeding tickets, parking fines and throwing people in jail for minor shit like having a gram of marijuana, or drinking a beer outside (I was watching an episode of COPS where there were 4 policemen pounced on a perp late one evening, when a poor bastard walks past with a can of Miller in his hand and his ass got pounced and arrested for violation of open container law.).

Since the 1980's and especially after the spate of school shootings and 9/11 was a call for something odiuos called "Zero Tolerance". I have read true stories recently about a honor roll student who was sent to the alternative school (a school for problem kids) for taking a Midol (like aspirin), because of zero tolernace laws. Another girl with the same reputation was suspeneded, sent to the alternative school or some other punitive punishment for accidentally taking her father's sack lunch to school which had a small knife for cutting fruit. DEADLY WEAPON ON CAMPUS! Zero Tolerance does not allow one to step back and judge the situation. A small pocket knife is a deadly weapon. Midol is a DRUG. What sucks is that it is perfectly legal to have these things on ones possession.

America is also very legalistic about someone's age and allowing rights to people (and punishing them) solely on age. At 18 one is an adult. Well, sort of, because one cannot buy/drink/possess alcohol until they are 21 (and if caught with alcohol be charged in an adult court as a misdeamnor). However, one can drive when they are 16.

Transversely, someone as young as 10 can be charged as an adult for major crimes such as murder. There is a kid from Pennsylvania who at age 12 was charged with first degree murder in the shooting death of his step-mother. I sort of call bullshit on that because the boy is not a legal adult or even close to it. It used to be until recently that the USA could execute prisoners who committed their crimes as juveniles. Sean Sellers of Oklahoma is a good example of that, committing his murders at 16 and was executed, or Ronald Ward, a poor black boy from West Memphis, Arkansas who was sentenced to death at the age of 15.

The court system is a huge money maker for the state. Lawyers love having an industry, representing clients who have made errors in judgement that is blown out of context by the government and the court system. The better or expensive the lawyer, the better chance of beating the case.

I have had sexual congress with three underage girls in my time. However, I was underage too. However, a 19 year old can be sent to prison for having sex with a 17 year old girlfriend and be branded a sex offender for the rest of his life. I mean, two young people have to basically ID themselves with proof from the state that they are old enough to have sex. That's BS.

[Panacea]

I am against sexual offender lists. If someone's crime was heinous (like forcable rape) and/or involved preteen children, the person should be locked up for the rest of their lives. If the crime was not as serious, the person should do their time and that's it.

One of the reasons for these registries is sex offenders tend to escalate their crimes over time until they DO become more serious.

But I do agree the lists should not be life long. Someone who exposes themselves at Mardi Gras is still a sex offender; let's look at that for what it is--youthful indiscretion and let it go. But someone sitting in a car masturbating, who opens the door to passing kids is another matter altogether; that's the kind of offender who escalates.

These lists ruin far more lives than they save. Why not have a felon list? A list of people who have done domestic violence, robbery, theft, drug dealing and things like that?

Well, actually they do. It's called a criminal record.

What you're talking about are the sex offender registries under Megan's Law. I don't have a problem with those; they helped me identify sexual offenders in my neighborhood. The problem with them is that the sex offenders don't register, or don't register changes of address like they're supposed to because of the stigma.

And many states have overly restrictive laws on where these people can live and work, which is driving many released sex offenders into homelessness.

I am a bit surprised that they are charging a 6 year old. .

I doubt this case will go very far. A six year old does not have the mental capacity to form intent.

To the OP, America is not as free as advertised. It is very legalistic with cops who everyday look to arrest people for almost anything, seriously. Cops today are worse than ever, using dangerous weapons like tasers, wearing body armour and police departments buying military hardware like TANKS.

The criminals are worse than ever. You've got thugs with automatic weapons. I've known a lot of cops; they don't look for excuses to arrest people just to make arrests. They look for suspicious behaviors that lead to criminal activity.

I do agree the drug laws in this country are nothing short of insane. We should decriminalize possession of small amounts of drugs and stop locking up people who need treatment.

In New York City (supposedly a pretty liberal place), a girl and her friends were walking through a park one night going somewhere else and were stopped by the police. One girl was ARRESTED when she failed to have any identification. That's it. No drugs, no violence. She was arrested because she did not have a state ID for inspection. HELLO! Does this sound free to you?

I'm thinking I don't have the whole story here. Was the park closed after dark? If so, the behavior is suspicious and the police have the right to investigate. In the course of an investigation, if they can't confirm who you are, they arrest you until they figure out who you are.

The economy is so screwed and cities/governments so broke that they are going to leech on the people even more, with speeding tickets, parking fines and throwing people in jail for minor shit like having a gram of marijuana, or drinking a beer outside (I was watching an episode of COPS where there were 4 policemen pounced on a perp late one evening, when a poor bastard walks past with a can of Miller in his hand and his ass got pounced and arrested for violation of open container law.).

If you don't speed, you won't get a ticket. If you don't park illegally, you won't get a parking ticket/get towed. I haven't gotten a parking ticket in nearly 30 years . . . because I don't park illegally. The few times I've gotten a speeding ticket, I deserved it--I was speeding. I shut up and paid it.

We agree on the marijuana possession, and disagree on open alcohol containers. Drunken people do very stupid things; you shouldn't be able to walk down the street drinking alcohol. And if this guy got jumped, I'll bet it was because he did something else stupid like tried to run or hit a cop, or tried to resist when a single cop tried to put the cuffs on.

Since the 1980's and especially after the spate of school shootings and 9/11 was a call for something odiuos called "Zero Tolerance". I have read true stories recently about a honor roll student who was sent to the alternative school (a school for problem kids) for taking a Midol (like aspirin), because of zero tolernace laws. Another girl with the same reputation was suspeneded, sent to the alternative school or some other punitive punishment for accidentally taking her father's sack lunch to school which had a small knife for cutting fruit. DEADLY WEAPON ON CAMPUS! Zero Tolerance does not allow one to step back and judge the situation. A small pocket knife is a deadly weapon. Midol is a DRUG. What sucks is that it is perfectly legal to have these things on ones possession.

I agree, zero tolerance policies tend to put officials in ridiculous situations where they have no discretion at all. They're bad: they set bad examples, and result in unjust punishments like the situations you describe.

America is also very legalistic about someone's age and allowing rights to people (and punishing them) solely on age. At 18 one is an adult. Well, sort of, because one cannot buy/drink/possess alcohol until they are 21 (and if caught with alcohol be charged in an adult court as a misdeamnor). However, one can drive when they are 16.

I have no problem with certain behaviors being restricted by age. The brain does not stop developing until the early 20's, and teens are well known for poor impulse control and reckless behavior. If anything, the legal age of adulthood should probably be raised.

Transversely, someone as young as 10 can be charged as an adult for major crimes such as murder. There is a kid from Pennsylvania who at age 12 was charged with first degree murder in the shooting death of his step-mother. I sort of call bullshit on that because the boy is not a legal adult or even close to it. It used to be until recently that the USA could execute prisoners who committed their crimes as juveniles. Sean Sellers of Oklahoma is a good example of that, committing his murders at 16 and was executed, or Ronald Ward, a poor black boy from West Memphis, Arkansas who was sentenced to death at the age of 15.

Lawmakers tended to overreact after some high profile cases of very young kids killing younger kids or even adults. I don't agree necessarily for trying those kids as adults. But 15, 16? Yeah, I think we should consider it. What are we to do with these violent offenders? Send them home with a stern warning?

The court system is a huge money maker for the state. Lawyers love having an industry, representing clients who have made errors in judgement that is blown out of context by the government and the court system. The better or expensive the lawyer, the better chance of beating the case.

Please provide a reference for this statement. The only lawyers who make the big bucks are CIVIL attorneys, not criminal attorneys. And most people can't afford a high priced lawyer for a criminal case.

I have had sexual congress with three underage girls in my time. However, I was underage too. However, a 19 year old can be sent to prison for having sex with a 17 year old girlfriend and be branded a sex offender for the rest of his life. I mean, two young people have to basically ID themselves with proof from the state that they are old enough to have sex. That's BS.

How do you feel about a 19 year old having sex with a 14 year old?

[Andara Bledin]

If you don't speed, you won't get a ticket. If you don't park illegally, you won't get a parking ticket/get towed.
Normally, very true. But there are outliers where people were doing nothing at all wrong and got screwed because the people in a position of power decided to be assholes.

A friend from a northern state (Wisconsin, maybe?) was the victim of a group of police who would pre-write their speeding tickets and then pull over an entire line of cars starting from a signal that had just turned green to hand them out. The cops were abusing the fact that the system that was in place at the time meant that nobody who got a ticket could go to the state to fight it, it was handled by a third party who refused to hear any cases, ever.

In the case of towing, there are predatory tow drivers who will wait for somebody who isn't doing anything wrong, but who they think they can extort a quick $50 out of for a "drop." Basically, they're holding cars hostage that aren't valid tows just to get some money out of people who don't know they haven't done anything wrong.

^-.-^

[senor boogie woogie]

How do you feel about a 19 year old having sex with a 14 year old?

Honestly, nothing. A 14 year old has a fully developed body and can have natural intercourse. These laws against having sex with post pubecsent minors is a new thing. People used to, and still do in most parts of the World have sex at that age. Usually, culture and common sense can dictate that a 40 year old fucking a 14 year old is not suitable.

Some states have enacted something called a "Romeo and Juliet" statute that someone under the age of 21 is permitted to have sexual congress with a person that is three years younger than them (I think Kansas has this law.) So.....

A 21 year old cannot have sex with anyone under 18.

A 20 year old can have sex with a 17 year old.

A 19 year old can have sex with a 16 year old.

An 18 yr. old can have sex with a 15 year old (which is only one year older than your question)

I think this law is well and good and prevents travesties like vindictive parents with a 16 year old daughter who they find is sexually active with her three years older boyfriend and absolutely ruin his life for a consensual relationship. Freshman and Sophmores in college and young people in the military still have "high school sweethearts" back home.

I am also an opponent of the drinking age. Any drinking age. I live in China where there is no drinking age. Anyone at any age can buy alcohol. Kids can even enter a bar and drink if they so choose (only saw this once in China in Shanghai. The kids in question were a group of AMERICAN high school kids!). I have been in China for 10 years in many different places, from the big cities down to the crappy, funky third world areas and have never, ever seen anyone under maybe 20 intoxicated. My "Chinese hometown" (where my wife is from and where I had my first job 10 years ago) is a "drunk town". People there love the red wine and a Chinese liquor called Baijiu. Next month is Chinese New Years and there will be a lot of intoxicated people with dangerous fireworks bandying about. It's not a teetotaling culture at all.

The Chinese kids are not that interested in it. They are busy with school, studying, sports and other activities. They know and understand that this is for adults. There is also no "forbidden fruit" involved. The parents, the school and indirectly the government (society and culture) prevents widespread drink use there.

The 21 year old drinking law is ridiculous. The legal age of majority is 18. I can sign contracts, get married, join the military, have the right to live on my own, and that I am culpably responsible for any crimes I commit. Either make the drinking age 18 again, or raise the age of majority to 21 (like it used to in the old days. My father got married when he was 20 in 1952 and actually had to get his mother's legal permission to marry. Of course, Uncle Sam could have dragged his ass off to fight in Korea underage without mama's permission).

I had a good acquaintence in college who was my next door neighbor in the dorms. Not being too bi-curious, but the boy was physically beautiful. Rob Lowe looked like Ernest Borgnine next to this boy. He got laid so many times, the bastard! (but a nice, gracious, cool dude.)

Well, he was TWENTY and was popped buying a bottle of wine (sober) to frink with his girlfriend. He was caught by undercover cops watching the liquor store. Poor guy was arrested, booked, and fingerprinted. He was charged in an ADULT court for being underage in possession/buying alcohol. Had to hire a lawyer to try to keep this off his record. I think it turned all right for him in the end, but what fucking bullshit, for a 20 year old MAN to go through. Again, in big, bad, evil, Communist fucking China, the police would have never bothered him, because he is AN ADULT.

You know, not to mention when I was 19-20 years old, I outgrew the teenie bopper shit of skating rinks, shopping malls and endless driving for weekend fun. I want to see a band, I want to have a drink, I want to dance and party. I wanted to go to a fucking bar like the rest of the legal adults (especially the dicks who were born around 1955-1960 who could buy alcohol at 18 in the 1970's).

AMERICA IS A FUCKING NANNY STATE. With a lot of goddamned guns! (another thing an 18 year old can have besides a beer.)

Another annoying aspect of this is always showing identification to buy alcohol. "Show me your ID." "ID" "Anyone under 35 must show ID" "We care we card". It made us used to always having state identification with us. This makes Americans no better than the Chinese or the Russians. And yes, American cops will throw your ass in jail if you do not have identification. It is something that is slowly over time eroding freedoms that Americans once enjoyed. How do you like going to the airport and getting patted down with some rent a cop having the option of "enhanced patdowns" and all that shit. China recently started doing this, following America's lead.

The Canadians let their kids drink at 18 (or 19 in one province I think). Every other nation on Earth that allows for the selling of alcohol either has no drinking age whatsoever or the age is 18 or the age of majority. Are Canadian kids going wild ass crazy driving drunk running over little old ladies and urinating in the back of squad cars?

MERRY CHRISTMAS!