F*CK THE POLICE!!!

[Flaming Pie]

My school and even my parents had to really look for solutions to my anxiety. I was attending a blue ribbon school in a great neighborhood, but they didn't really know what to do to help me.

There were a couple meetings and intelligence tests and lots of counseling.

If my mom had died... man...

 

[Fogdog]

I already said when I was 13 I'd have consented to banging an 18 year old chick, but she wasn't game. That was a very long time ago. I was fully aware of what I would have been doing and made other arrangements with a different young lady who was younger. It was the best 3 seconds of my life.

In the present I can't answer your question though, since it's of no interest to me. Therefore there is no criteria for me to evaluate. You'll have to come up with your lines for how to do the babysitter on your own. I can't help you there. Sorry.

You did however mention that you thought at least some individuals could develop the wherewithal to consent within "several years" of 13. Are you willing to put a number on that and are you saying that there never could be a person of 13 with the wherewithal to consent, ever? How do you know this?

Yeah, sure, you were fully mature at 13 (a legend in your own mind -- laughing at you ). Your example points out exactly what I've been saying all along. The child is in no way responsible if an adult fucks them. The adult is the one with the responsibility to make the right decision. In your case that 18 year old woman decided correctly and left you alone.

I am saying and have said that a 13 year old can never have the wherewithal to consent to a sexual relationship with an adult, and to be precise, an adult over the age of 21. I see no possibility for this kind of relationship to be equal and free of risk to the development and mental health of the child. Do you believe this not to be true? If so, how would you know whether or not a child aged 13 has the wherewithal to understand and consent with knowledge of the consequences to a sexual relationship with an adult over the age of 21?

OK then, if you can't or won't answer my question, then STFU. You continue to say that some children can consent but you make no attempt to explain yourself. If you can't or won't answer this question then trying to answer it when the lines aren't quite as clear would be a waste of time.

 

[ginwilly]

Yeah, sure, you were fully mature at 13 (a legend in your own mind -- laughing at you ).

I am saying and have said that a 13 year old can never have the wherewithal to consent to a sexual relationship with an adult, and to be precise, an adult over the age of 21. I see no possibility for this kind of relationship to be equal and free of risk to the development and mental health of the child. Do you believe this not to be true? If so, how would you know whether or not a child aged 13 has the wherewithal to understand and consent with knowledge of the consequences to a sexual relationship with an adult over the age of 21?

OK then, if you can't or won't answer my question, then STFU. You continue to say that some children can consent but you make no attempt to explain yourself. If you can't or won't answer this question then trying to answer it when the lines aren't quite as clear would be a waste of time.

I'm not RobRoy, but Japan put their arbitrary age of consent at 13, so depending on which imaginary borders you are within dictates the age.

Our attempt at legislating morality let's a 17 year old bang a 15 year old unless he turns 18 before she turns 16, then we lock him up for 10 to 20 and make him register as a sex offender the rest of his life. Labelled a rapist because his birthday was before hers.

One country you can consent at 14 unless it's a homosexual relationship then you have to wait until 18. Another country has 15 unless your dad objects, then it's 21.

Nature tells someone when they are ready for sex and the age is different for everyone. Society dictates the morality of age, and it's the same for everyone.

I think teens are not mature enough to handle natures mandate to reproduce, but I'm not going to pretend I know the exact age that people magically acquire that ability like people in this argument have done.

 

[Rrog]

^^^ interesting post ^^

 

[Fogdog]

I'm not RobRoy, but Japan put their arbitrary age of consent at 13, so depending on which imaginary borders you are within dictates the age.

Our attempt at legislating morality let's a 17 year old bang a 15 year old unless he turns 18 before she turns 16, then we lock him up for 10 to 20 and make him register as a sex offender the rest of his life. Labelled a rapist because his birthday was before hers.

One country you can consent at 14 unless it's a homosexual relationship then you have to wait until 18. Another country has 15 unless your dad objects, then it's 21.

Nature tells someone when they are ready for sex and the age is different for everyone. Society dictates the morality of age, and it's the same for everyone.

I think teens are not mature enough to handle natures mandate to reproduce, but I'm not going to pretend I know the exact age that people magically acquire that ability like people in this argument have done.

There is no way that a 13 year old can have an equal relationship with an adult, sexual or otherwise. If we can't agree on this then there are no grounds for us to discuss less clear lines regarding age of sexual consent. Do libertarians support the idea of letting the free market decide when children can be fucked by adults?

Japan is not exactly the country that I'd like to model our social policies around. There are a lot of other countries that also have policies more appropriate to times past when life was riskier, shorter and people had less time to grow up. Modern societies recognize that a thirteen year old has a long way to go in terms of physical, emotional and mental development. Like this country, they have laws that are more protective of its children. These laws give parents and guardians the ability to use the legal system to exclude older people with the wrong intentions from their child's life. The emphasis is on protecting the child and very clearly tells adults to leave the child alone. Why do you and Rob want to put the decision on the child and not on the adult? How do you justify that?

 

[ChesusRice]

I'm not RobRoy, but Japan put their arbitrary age of consent at 13, so depending on which imaginary borders you are within dictates the age.

Our attempt at legislating morality let's a 17 year old bang a 15 year old unless he turns 18 before she turns 16, then we lock him up for 10 to 20 and make him register as a sex offender the rest of his life. Labelled a rapist because his birthday was before hers.

One country you can consent at 14 unless it's a homosexual relationship then you have to wait until 18. Another country has 15 unless your dad objects, then it's 21.

Nature tells someone when they are ready for sex and the age is different for everyone. Society dictates the morality of age, and it's the same for everyone.

I think teens are not mature enough to handle natures mandate to reproduce, but I'm not going to pretend I know the exact age that people magically acquire that ability like people in this argument have done.

I'm starting to wonder if all racists are also closet pedophiles

 

[ginwilly]

Why do you and Rob want to put the decision on the child and not on the adult? How do you justify that?

Why do you want to put words in my mouth?

I already said I don't pretend to know the proper age. I'm not attracted to teeny boppers so it doesn't apply to me anyway, I just hate to see people's lives ruined over an arbitrary law.

Let's say a 30 year old falls for a 15 year old. If they get away with it long enough they are good, if they are caught then the 30 year old's life is ruined. They could get married when the 15 year old is 18 and all will be forgiven. Hell, you can marry a 14 year old here in some states as long as the parents sign off on it. So marrying a child is fine by law, but not having sex (unless they are married).

Some states wave parental consent if you have proof of pregnancy. So either marry the dude or put him in prison. Seems logical....

 

[ginwilly]

I'm starting to wonder if all racists are also closet pedophiles

No... you don't wonder anything, you just make shit up and repeat it enough hoping it sticks.

What SHOULD be the uniform age of consent, should it be different for males than it is females? What happens if the 18 year old girl gets pregnant by a 15 year old boy? Do you lock her up, take the baby and make her register as a sex offender the rest of her life?

You guys in your lust to paint RobRoy as something he's not have shown how much you lack in the critical thinking department.

Tell us what the universal laws are, and then what they should be, because going by some of the laws, you are completely off the mark. I tried to point out how every country has a different standard, you took that as a chance to accuse someone you disagree with as a pedo. What you did was show the newer folks here just how dumb, mean spirited and dishonest you can be. So I guess that's a good thing.

I fully expect the 3 stooges to reply to this with racist/pedo idiocy though, you guys are nothing if not predictably ignorant.

 

[spandy]

How many videos of this have you guys watched?


There are like 3 angles available. She's what, 16, and she hit him before he tossed her ass down. OP vid does make officer look guilty, but other angles and slowed down show she struct him multiple times and in the face for that matter, before he put the chair in reverse mode. He was no doubt going to pull her out forcefully, but again, he didn't initiate the flip until being struck multiple times.

I wonder how this all would have went down, had she listened to the first adult who told her to put her fucking phone away and pay attention.

 

[spandy]

I do not feel one bit sorry for the police officer. This is not a misunderstanding, this is not a panic moment of life and death, it was an officer making a VERY POOR decision.

Yeah, he should have begged her for another hour, teaching all the other students F*CK THE POLICE.

 

[nk14zp]

Just making sure on his stance. He approves of conditional discrimination.
So if a white person, native, Hindu, Asian or whatever were to read FBI statistics about a black male being 38 times more likely to do a crime then he can discriminate against blacks because of the conditions..... It's no different just depends on how much one discriminator needs to feel justified in their discrimination.

Just like everyone on this forum if they read that Chevy were 38 times more likely to break down than another they would not buy Chevys

Too bad chevys arn't that good.

 

[ginwilly]

There is no way that a 13 year old can have an equal relationship with an adult, sexual or otherwise. If we can't agree on this then there are no grounds for us to discuss less clear lines regarding age of sexual consent. Do libertarians support the idea of letting the free market decide when children can be fucked by adults?

Japan is not exactly the country that I'd like to model our social policies around. There are a lot of other countries that also have policies more appropriate to times past when life was riskier, shorter and people had less time to grow up. Modern societies recognize that a thirteen year old has a long way to go in terms of physical, emotional and mental development. Like this country, they have laws that are more protective of its children. These laws give parents and guardians the ability to use the legal system to exclude older people with the wrong intentions from their child's life. The emphasis is on protecting the child and very clearly tells adults to leave the child alone. Why do you and Rob want to put the decision on the child and not on the adult? How do you justify that?

Hey I agree, I'm just pointing out an entire country disagrees. If you picked 14 which is still in the hands-off age to me you bring in several more countries that disagree.

Thing is, it's fine to get married here at that age as long as the parents consent or in some states shows a pregnancy is involved. What our laws are telling minors is it's fine to have sex as long as you are married. Does that sound like logic or morality being legislated? I thought we were against morality laws here? Or is just the ones you don't agree with you don't like?

 

[spandy]

That does explain why she wasn't compliant with orders.

So does she just get away with hitting a cop repeatedly also?

Apparently in this day and age she will.

 

[spandy]

Should of called for back up or tased her.
Tossing her was wrong

I would have busted out the taser. No reason to get physical when technology can put them down safely, though it might sting for a bit.

However, after hitting him repeatedly, the result should always be the expected out come. Even if she was missing or wasn't hitting that hard, could anyone just walk up to a cop and "pretend" to punch them and get away with it? I mean, you aren't actually hitting them, so it should be totally okay to cock back and put it an inch from their sniffer, right?

 

[Fogdog]

Why do you want to put words in my mouth?

I already said I don't pretend to know the proper age. I'm not attracted to teeny boppers so it doesn't apply to me anyway, I just hate to see people's lives ruined over an arbitrary law.

Let's say a 30 year old falls for a 15 year old. If they get away with it long enough they are good, if they are caught then the 30 year old's life is ruined. They could get married when the 15 year old is 18 and all will be forgiven. Hell, you can marry a 14 year old here in some states as long as the parents sign off on it. So marrying a child is fine by law, but not having sex (unless they are married).

Some states waive parental consent if you have proof of pregnancy. So either marry the dude or put him in prison. Seems logical....

Exactly right. Parents of children under the age of 18 know the child, are old enough to understand the situation better than the child and therefore are enabled to make decisions that are in the best interest for them. In most cases where somebody is prosecuted for violating child protection laws, parents are the ones that press charges when they feel their young one was violated by a person old enough to know better, not some arbitrary age limit that automatically triggers jail time. In many other cases, parents don't press charges because they feel it would not be in the best interest of their child. The decision is in the hands of adults with the best chance of getting the decision right.

Your example of a 30 year old falling for the 15 year old is another example where I don't think we can agree. First of all, would parents approve? If they don't then it should be "hands off" for the oldster. Also, there is a lot of wrong done in tying a kid down with marriage before they even understand what's ahead of them. Much happens to a kid between the age of 15 and 18 -- a lot of development mentally and physically. If the oldster really loved that kid should they also want what's best for them? Maybe the real reason is that the oldster is afraid that the kid will no longer want them when they get old enough to decide on their own? Which gets to the core of what's wrong with unequal relationships. The lesser party is more of a possession than a partner.

 

[Flaming Pie]

Yeah, he should have begged her for another hour, teaching all the other students F*CK THE POLICE.

Fact of the matter is, she was not being a threat to her class or the officer.

She wasn't saying fuck the police. She was saying fuck the world leave me alone.

 

[Flaming Pie]

So does she just get away with hitting a cop repeatedly also?

Apparently in this day and age she will.

Dude she's not getting away with anything. She was suspended.

The guy injured her.

 

[ginwilly]

Exactly right. Parents of children under the age of 18 know the child, are old enough to understand the situation better than the child and therefore are enabled to make decisions that are in the best interest for them. In most cases where somebody is prosecuted for violating child protection laws, parents are the ones that press charges when they feel their young one was violated by a person old enough to know better, not some arbitrary age limit that automatically triggers jail time. In many other cases, parents don't press charges because they feel it would not be in the best interest of their child. The decision is in the hands of adults with the best chance of getting the decision right.

Your example of a 30 year old falling for the 15 year old is another example where I don't think we can agree. First of all, would parents approve? If they don't then it should be "hands off" for the oldster. Also, there is a lot of wrong done in tying a kid down with marriage before they even understand what's ahead of them. Much happens to a kid between the age of 15 and 18 -- a lot of development mentally and physically. If the oldster really loved that kid should they also want what's best for them? Maybe the real reason is that the oldster is afraid that the kid will no longer want them when they get old enough to decide on their own? Which gets to the core of what's wrong with unequal relationships. The lesser party is more of a possession than a partner.

I'm not arguing with you, just pointing out the absurdity of trying to make a universal arbitrary designation. We all know 15 year olds that are more mature than some of the 18 year olds we know. I don't think the 18 year old who is less mature should have their life ruined because they received a blow job at a party without asking for ID. That's what arbitrary laws based on morality do, make criminals out of otherwise normal, law-abiding people.

 

[Flaming Pie]

If he had stopped after she fell back then he wouldn't of been fired. It was the throwing her across the floor that got him fired. There was no reason for that.

He could of pulled the desk off her and subdued her then.

 

[ginwilly]

If he had stopped after she fell back then he wouldn't of been fired. It was the throwing her across the floor that got him fired. There was no reason for that.

He could of pulled the desk off her and subdued her then.

Or dragged the desk with her in it out into the hall and the situation would have been over. I'm sure we'd still see the video and still be race baiting over it, but there are so many different choices the cop could have made.