06-12-2008, 08:57 PM
[user=1201]Yesenia[/user] wrote:
Well, context is everything.
Was it wrong? Absolutely. Is he scum who deserves ass raped with large household appliances? Certainly.
Is it "obvious" that it wasn't "consensual?" Nope.
"Assault" is a legal term. So is "attack" . . . I note that the "attacks" took place over a period of time. And were videotaped. So I'm thinking underground P0RN industry . . . and pay for play. Could be wrong, might not be. Illegal either way, and the combination of cop AND short-eyes is a certain death sentence in prison, thankfully.
I don't know the specifics in NJ, but here in Texas, if a girl is 13, it is ALWAYS termed "assault." An "attack." Even though at the stroke of midnight on her 14th birthday, it becomes "statutory rape," a lesser charge. (and even though I have yet to have a year without at least one pregnant and/or teen mother on my 9th grade roster, all of whom presumably had sex at thirteen to give birth by then. Oddly, no one seems to get arrested . . .
At 16, in Texas, a girl can get married. But she can't legally have sex without being married until she's 17, a whole year later. Of course, in Texas, "he needed killing" is still a valid legal defense. [lol]
Meanwhile, A&F catalogs look like kiddie P0RN, and REAL P0RN is available to my 14 year old students on their televisions, computers, and cell phones. And who even blinks?
Still very, very wrong. Still flatly illegal. Still something I'd pull the fucker out onto the street and shoot him right in the face for doing. But now the victims are just a wee bit less "innocent."
Sidenote---when I was just-turned-eighteen my girlfriend was not-quite-sixteen. Under the laws at the time, what we'd been rather enthusiastically doing was legal one day, illegal the next. When I was 23, I dated a girl from NYC on vacation in SoCal, who was 17 and 11 months old, and what we did was illegal THEN . . . but isn't anymore. And when I was 34, post-divorce, one of my "gettin' over it" girlfriends was 22 (another was 46, but that's another story) and therefore, far younger than and farther apart in age from me than EITHER of the two "crimes" of my younger days . . . but no laws were broken.
Context is everything, and increasingly, we've lost the capacity as a society to understand that.
But this is all much, much too serious a digression for this thread, so let me just close by saying:
]BOVINE FELLATIO!!!
COW BLOW JOBS!!!
[lol] [lol] [lol]
NANPâ¢
[cigar]
Quote:[user=118]Not A Nice Person[/user] wrote:
Quote:[user=1201]Yesenia[/user] wrote:I found this today:
Quote:Not just animals...three children. CHILDREN.
Not to defend the pervy lil' sadsack, but I notice that they list no ages for the three girls. Which means, usually . . . jailbait.
Still wrong. But a year or two ago YOU would've qualified for the same label.
I could be wrong. But usually articles will list victims' ages if there's shock value involved, or a monster who needs killing.
Cows, though. That shit's just hilarious. [lol]
NANPâ¢
Moorestown police officer and Pemberton Township woman charged with sexually assaulting 3 juvenile girls
From reading that I can see you're probably right about them not being very young children, but they were under 18, nonetheless.Underage or not, it obviously wasn't consensual. And he had an accomplice!? These people are the scum of the earth.
I just realized these guys are from Jersey. This explains a whole lot...
Well, context is everything.
Was it wrong? Absolutely. Is he scum who deserves ass raped with large household appliances? Certainly.
Is it "obvious" that it wasn't "consensual?" Nope.
"Assault" is a legal term. So is "attack" . . . I note that the "attacks" took place over a period of time. And were videotaped. So I'm thinking underground P0RN industry . . . and pay for play. Could be wrong, might not be. Illegal either way, and the combination of cop AND short-eyes is a certain death sentence in prison, thankfully.
I don't know the specifics in NJ, but here in Texas, if a girl is 13, it is ALWAYS termed "assault." An "attack." Even though at the stroke of midnight on her 14th birthday, it becomes "statutory rape," a lesser charge. (and even though I have yet to have a year without at least one pregnant and/or teen mother on my 9th grade roster, all of whom presumably had sex at thirteen to give birth by then. Oddly, no one seems to get arrested . . .
At 16, in Texas, a girl can get married. But she can't legally have sex without being married until she's 17, a whole year later. Of course, in Texas, "he needed killing" is still a valid legal defense. [lol]
Meanwhile, A&F catalogs look like kiddie P0RN, and REAL P0RN is available to my 14 year old students on their televisions, computers, and cell phones. And who even blinks?
Still very, very wrong. Still flatly illegal. Still something I'd pull the fucker out onto the street and shoot him right in the face for doing. But now the victims are just a wee bit less "innocent."
Sidenote---when I was just-turned-eighteen my girlfriend was not-quite-sixteen. Under the laws at the time, what we'd been rather enthusiastically doing was legal one day, illegal the next. When I was 23, I dated a girl from NYC on vacation in SoCal, who was 17 and 11 months old, and what we did was illegal THEN . . . but isn't anymore. And when I was 34, post-divorce, one of my "gettin' over it" girlfriends was 22 (another was 46, but that's another story) and therefore, far younger than and farther apart in age from me than EITHER of the two "crimes" of my younger days . . . but no laws were broken.
Context is everything, and increasingly, we've lost the capacity as a society to understand that.
But this is all much, much too serious a digression for this thread, so let me just close by saying:
]BOVINE FELLATIO!!!
COW BLOW JOBS!!!
[lol] [lol] [lol]
NANPâ¢
[cigar]
NANP™
![[Image: UserBar1.jpg]](http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b1/miked889/UserBar1.jpg)
hock:
