- 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
re: Newsom signs the California pedophile bill
Posted on 9/12/20 at 6:23 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 9/12/20 at 6:23 pm to AggieHank86
The whole point of the law is that they can't give consent. So a 23 can frick a 13 year old and we are supposed to sit back and take the word of a 13 year old ?
1
Posted on 9/12/20 at 6:30 pm to Tigers0891
quote:it is almost as if you have not read either the proposed legislation, this thread, or the 5/6 threads that preceded it.
The whole point of the law is that they can't give consent. So a 23 can frick a 13 year old and we are supposed to sit back and take the word of a 13 year old ?
quote:It would seem that California recognizes the existence of a distinction between de jure consent and de facto consent.
The whole point of the law is that they can't give consent.
This post was edited on 9/12/20 at 6:34 pm
Posted on 9/12/20 at 6:36 pm to AggieHank86
I fail to understand how anyone can be okay with someone who sodomizes a kid NOT being on the sex registry for life. It doesnt matter if the kid tells a judge he gave consent or not. People who are victims of grooming almost always blame themselves and will protect their abusers.
Posted on 9/12/20 at 6:37 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
We have been discussing this legislation for two solid weeks, and STILL you cannot seem to grasp that it does not change anything about sentencing ... only the length of time spent on the offender registry.
Except for legalizing grooming.
But sure, defend away.
Posted on 9/12/20 at 6:47 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
AggieHank86
Shocked....
Ok..not really.
Posted on 9/12/20 at 6:48 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
AggieHank86
phuck you you lying phaggot......can you here me now!
Posted on 9/12/20 at 6:55 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
This bill just gives judges the same discretion in both same-sex and opposite-sex cases. It is that simple.
This is wrong. Sexual orientation was not a factor in the old law. Can you site were the old law specified the orientation (in the mind) of the perpetrator?
A heterosexual man with girl vs. homosexual man with boy were treated exactly the same for same act.
Posted on 9/12/20 at 7:05 pm to TexasRiddler
quote:You are confusing the offense and sentencing (both of which DID treat hetero- and homo- the same) with REGISTRATION, which did not.
Can you site were the old law specified the orientation (in the mind) of the perpetrator?
To be clear, I HAVE simplified a bit to avoid being too graphic, but you seem to be going there.
The exception to the old registry statute actually dealt specifically with penile/vaginal sex only, such that a 23yo man could avoid the registry for vaginal sex with a 14 yo girl but not for performing cunnilingus on her or receiving fellatio from her. While ALL same-sex contact resulted in a mandatory spot on the registry.
This post was edited on 9/12/20 at 7:11 pm
Posted on 9/12/20 at 7:06 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
The only real question here, in my view, is whether we trust elected judges to use their discretion in a manner which is consistent with the Maurice of their constituents. I do.
In this day and age of judges advocating their belief systems from the bench, I do not trust them to rule accordingly...especially in California.
My question is, how long will it be before we hear of a pedo (that was not labeled as a registered sex offender) who moved into a neighborhood (unbeknownst to the families that live there) only to claim another victim.
Posted on 9/12/20 at 7:09 pm to walley tux
quote:Quite the little vulgarian, aren’t you.
phuck you you lying phaggot......can you here me now!
Posted on 9/12/20 at 7:09 pm to AggieHank86
Q- Do you not question whether the 14 year old is able to understand consent?
Your answer- “I think that some have that maturity,”
You’re a monster who should not be allowed around children.
Your answer- “I think that some have that maturity,”
You’re a monster who should not be allowed around children.
Posted on 9/12/20 at 7:12 pm to AggieHank86
It’s a good idea, but it needs more granularity. I think most on here could agree that a 25 year old and a 17 year old having consensual sex should not result in the 25 year old being on a sex offender list. But a 20 year old and an 11 year old? Yikes.
Posted on 9/12/20 at 7:22 pm to Madking
quote:Good Lord, you are an emotional child.
Q- Do you not question whether the 14 year old is able to understand consent?
Your answer- “I think that some have that maturity,”
You’re a monster who should not be allowed around children.
The law says that a 14yo cannot give legal consent, regardless of whether the conduct is with a 24yo or an 18yo.
But does a 14yo understand the consequences of his/her actions adequately to counter the pragmatic notion of coercion? For most, the answer is likely “no.” But for SOME, the answer is likely “yes,” especially if we are discussing an 18yo boyfriend vs a 24yo predator.
AGAIN, that POSSIBILITY is why we elect judges and afford them some degree of discretion.
You clearly want a blanket rule. I recognize that each situation is unique and believe that the judiciary should be allowed the discretion to recognize that fact. I trust the electorate to replace judges who abuse the discretion we award them.
For that, you call me a monster. OK.
Posted on 9/12/20 at 7:29 pm to AggieHank86
Trying to convince yourself again? You condone pedophilia, you’re sub human filth.
This post was edited on 9/12/20 at 7:30 pm
Posted on 9/12/20 at 7:38 pm to Madking
I like someone's idea I previously saw on here of pulling the pedo behind the boat where they film the great whites coming as death from below rocketing into the air hunting seals. Or a bullet...
This post was edited on 9/12/20 at 7:40 pm
Posted on 9/12/20 at 7:40 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
You are confusing the offense and sentencing (both of which DID treat hetero- and homo- the same) with REGISTRATION, which did not.
To be clear, I HAVE simplified a bit to avoid being too graphic, but you seem to be going there.
The exception to the old registry statute actually dealt specifically with penile/vaginal sex only, such that a 23yo man could avoid the registry for vaginal sex with a 14 yo girl but not for performing cunnilingus on her or receiving fellatio from her. While ALL same-sex contact resulted in a mandatory spot on the registry.
Does your argument hinge on boys not having a vagina? So the lesser act is impossible with a boy? The same act is treated the same regardless of gender or orientation, true?
It is just some parings of genders people don't have certain body parts to do the lesser act.
It think you need to expand your worldview transgender boys have vaginas and a homosexual man could benefit from the same judicial leniency under the old law with vaginal sex with a transgender boy.
This post was edited on 9/12/20 at 8:11 pm
Posted on 9/12/20 at 7:54 pm to boxersdrule
quote:
I like someone's idea I previously saw on here of pulling the pedo behind the boat where they film the great whites coming as death from below rocketing into the air hunting seals.
Thanks. Hopefully it catches on
Posted on 9/12/20 at 8:01 pm to TexasRiddler
quote:Agreement to or with ... what?
Does your agreement hinge on boys not having a vagina?
My only positions on this legislation have been (1) that most people opining on it have ABSOLUTELY no idea what it actually says or does and (2) that the registry should be applied equally to same-sex AND opposite-sex offenses. Forgive me for thinking that “equal protection of the law” might be an important concept.
Would it have been nice if the California legislature had joined most of the country and tightened that 10-year age difference with a Romeo/Juliet regimen similar to that of most other States? Yeah.
Posted on 9/12/20 at 8:10 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Agreement to or with ... what?
Sorry I meant your "argument" not careful enough with spellcheck's change.
quote:
My only positions on this legislation have been (1) that most people opining on it have ABSOLUTELY no idea what it actually says or does and
I agree you you here other than when you accused me of this which I never did.
quote:
(2) that the registry should be applied equally to same-sex AND opposite-sex offenses. Forgive me for thinking that “equal protection of the law” might be an important concept.
I don't think it was unequal before. Could you give an example of the exact same act where the sexual orientation in the mind of the adult affects the judge's ability to be lenient on the registry issue? Or even give an example of an act which the judge's ability to be lenient on the adult regarding the registry issue changes if the child is a boy vs. girl? Or changes if the adult is a man vs. woman?
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News