- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Californians want LGBT Pedophiles exempt from the sex offender rolls
Posted on 2/18/20 at 3:07 pm
Posted on 2/18/20 at 3:07 pm
35
Posted on 2/18/20 at 3:08 pm to Jax-Tiger
Why?
Posted on 2/18/20 at 3:08 pm to Jax-Tiger
The “big one” can’t come soon enough.
Posted on 2/18/20 at 3:08 pm to Jax-Tiger
Following their dumb logic of “love who and what you want” it should be. Soon pro-incest laws will follow.
Posted on 2/18/20 at 3:08 pm to Jax-Tiger
Just the other day, i was wondering what happened to that Milo guy that used to be worshipped around here, and now this thread. almost serendipitous.
Posted on 2/18/20 at 3:09 pm to Jax-Tiger
Posted on 2/18/20 at 3:10 pm to Jax-Tiger
Sounds totally logical.
Sarcasm: OFF
Sarcasm: OFF
Posted on 2/18/20 at 3:12 pm to Jax-Tiger
If I'm a parent of young children I'm packing up tonight and leaving that hell hole of a state.
Posted on 2/18/20 at 3:13 pm to LuckyTiger
quote:
Why?
Because that is the way the law reads for heterosexual pedos.
Posted on 2/18/20 at 3:13 pm to MeatCleaverWeaver
Remember when people said the filth would try to normalize pedos?
I remember.
I remember.
Posted on 2/18/20 at 3:13 pm to Jax-Tiger
The bottom of your article says hetero pedophiles in CA already have those protections.
This post was edited on 2/18/20 at 3:14 pm
Posted on 2/18/20 at 3:32 pm to Jax-Tiger
What the hell? Nowhere in the bill are the words homosexual or gay mentioned; nor is LGBT.
From this excerpt it appears judges would have the discretion to decide if a particular offense by anyone, straight or gay, is worthy of a lifetime label of sex offender. Why is that not reasonable?
From this excerpt it appears judges would have the discretion to decide if a particular offense by anyone, straight or gay, is worthy of a lifetime label of sex offender. Why is that not reasonable?
quote:
This bill would exempt from mandatory registration under the act a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor and if that offense is the only one requiring the person to register.
Posted on 2/18/20 at 3:35 pm to Jax-Tiger
Curious where the language is. I scanned through the bill and didn't see any direct callouts for BLTBBQ:
quote:
Existing law, the Sex Offender Registration Act, requires a person convicted of one of certain crimes, as specified, to register with law enforcement as a sex offender while residing in California or while attending school or working in California, as specified. A willful failure to register, as required by the act, is a misdemeanor or felony, depending on the underlying offense.
This bill would exempt from mandatory registration under the act a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor and if that offense is the only one requiring the person to register.
Posted on 2/18/20 at 3:37 pm to Jax-Tiger
#youcan’tlegislatelove
Consequences
Consequences
Posted on 2/18/20 at 3:38 pm to Jax-Tiger
John birch society mag
Posted on 2/18/20 at 3:40 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
This bill would exempt from mandatory registration under the act a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor and if that offense is the only one requiring the person to register.
So... if the minor is question is 12 and the "adult" is 20 and it's a first offense, it's all good?
Posted on 2/18/20 at 3:50 pm to Kentucker
quote:
What the hell? Nowhere in the bill are the words homosexual or gay mentioned; nor is LGBT.
It's LGBT because the proposed change is to include rape by sodomy. The current law offers these "protections" if the rape is vaginal.
Posted on 2/18/20 at 3:52 pm to FooManChoo
I read a follow-up article that said the 10 year exemption from mandatory registering is already the law for vaginal intercourse. This new bill would make it the law for everyone who is convicted of one of the sex offense crimes.
If that's the case, which makes much more sense, this article is fake news trash.
If that's the case, which makes much more sense, this article is fake news trash.
Posted on 2/18/20 at 3:56 pm to Jax-Tiger
Posted on 2/18/20 at 3:56 pm to Esquire
quote:
The bottom of your article says hetero pedophiles in CA already have those protections.
Yeah title is completely misleading.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News