You broadened it out by referring to psychologists and their opinions. I stuck on topic by saying that regardless of profession, it is an opinion.
I wasn't and haven't strayed from topic. Except that one time when I clearly stated that it WAS irrelevant and therefore needed to be discussed no longer.
-AC
I was reading some of this thread and I must say what her mentality was and is totally irrelevant..she could have the mind of the sagest wise men in the world and it won't mean squat.
the adult in question and who is in America should be very aware of the laws of this country..and if he was even considering the thought of intercourse with a minor he should have damn well known the law on statutory rape.
just for the record, consent of the victim and belief that the victim is of the age of consent are usually considered immaterial.
and when AC mentioned that in some country's the age of consent is much lower ,thats true, but if someone was to go that country to have sex with a minor from a country which the age is older,they can be prosecuted upon their return.
my 2 cents he deserves whats coming to him..
He absolutely does deserve what's coming to him. Never argued otherwise.
Knowing the law doesn't mean people automatically think "Oops. Better not do that." Hence why there are criminals.
What I don't see the point of, if someone sleeps with a 12 year old in a country where that is LEGAL and have NEVER committed acts of underage sex and/or paedophilia in their OWN country, then they should not be prosecuted there for they have broken no law.
It's a bit stupid to say "You broke OUR law in another country" coz that matters jack shit. Weed is illegal in the US, you're telling me that everyone who goes to Amsterdam to smoke it, gets arrested for drug use when they come back? No.
He deserves what's coming to him, which is a sentance. I don't see where people get off on becoming Judge Dredd everytime sex is involved in a crime. You want that authority? Become a judge or a cop.
-AC
The guy is obviously a predator. The 14 year old girl may have agreed to the sex, but she was still enticed and manipulated by a 39 year old man. This guy carried on a decietfull character to lure in an underage girl more than twice his age in youth. He drove from P.A to California to meet with this girl. In most cases i would say both parties would be equally as responsible here, but this guy is a predator who if given the chance would manipulate little girls in situations like this again and again. This guy had major forethought, of what he was doing.
You know the band is shitty when an actuall memeber cannot be reconized, by a fan.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If it was a 14 year old boy there'd be a different vibe.-AC
You mean a 14 year old boy and a 39 year old woman? If thats the case then your right. It would be looked at differently. The charges probably wouldnt be any where near as severe as they will be in this case. That doesnt mean the actions would have been less wrong. then again, there was that case not that long ago where a thirty somthing old teacher slept with her 16 year old student, and was put away for 7 years.
Yes but that's one case.
The fact that it's a 14 year old female drastically alters the proceedings doesn't it?
A 14 year old boy has no better chance of handling himself against a 38 year old man than a girl does, but there'd be no bigger fuss would there? Of course not.
The point I was making is this:
He commited a sex offense and after looking at all the evidence and what not, should be given a sentance accordingly. He deserves what any sex offender deserves, which is what the law states they deserve. I am not, contrary to Lil's consistant and rabid belief, condoning nor defending the man. I am saying he's wrong. What I am ALSO saying is that people shouldn't be blinded that it was a girl who had sex with a much older man. She is at fault also. We can go into "to what degree was she at fault?" all day. The point is, she carries some fault. Backfire and Lil believe she does not because they also happened to believe that she had an "undeveloped brain" that caused "irrational decisions and couldn't "think for herself" because she was 14. Which I believe to be tripe, by experience.
He deserves what a sex offender deserves, no more or less. The beef I have with calling the man a/implying that the man is a serial paedophile is that....he isn't. He committed a sexual act with an underaged girl and probably would have done so if she was legal. If he continually preyed on and targeted underaged people, yes. Lil, Sadako and others have no proof that he has done such. YES this was an ACT of paedophilia, but by definition. A paedophile is someone who does it continuously.
The reason why I picked this out is because in today's society where everyone is so Flash Gordon fast about labelling someone even remotely tied to a kid, a paedophile, there's hardly any fact there. Matthew Kelly, a gay TV presenter from the UK. He was "linked" by rumour to child porn. What did the nation do? Labelled him a paedophile. He got cleared of all charges and was found innocent. He got off the charges but he will forever be synonymous with the paedophilic (if you will) label attached to him.
It's a damaging thing and it's not something to be drastically thrown around because it's a serious case.
In closing and in relevance:
Were Tripp's actions wrong? Yes.
Did he take advantage? Yes.
Did she consent? We can if and but about why or how she consented all day, but yes she consented.
Did she make the bad/stupid decision and as a result end up in a dangerous situation? Yes.
So does she carry fault? Yes. Well, the fact that you treat her as a preschool mind not withstanding here.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Less people like you. Says the girl who hates opinions that conflict her own, hates things that she can't understand and hates anyone that doesn't 100% agree with her. You go girl, as you would say. Attack the idea not the person? Look at what I just quoted please. You always try to pick stuff out when we're in debates and every time I spank you. Purely because you never think and you never read my posts. Hence why I have to explain things to you more than 3 times, you never pay attention.
I have not quoted anyone, if you have a look, nor have i specifficaly said anything about you, but if you identify with it, then apperantly i was right.
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
You mean a 14 year old boy and a 39 year old woman? If thats the case then your right. It would be looked at differently. The charges probably wouldnt be any where near as severe as they will be in this case. That doesnt mean the actions would have been less wrong. then again, there was that case not that long ago where a thirty somthing old teacher slept with her 16 year old student, and was put away for 7 years.
My criminology professor explained this kind of crime women/men recently - an adult sleeping with a minor is not a 'male' crime (like for exaple rape - woman cannot be accused of the actual rape because its so strictly defined, they can be charged with being an accomplice to the rape, but the actual act)
Sleeping with a minor, sex offending or paedophilia are just as bad for women as they are for men (and by that i mean the sentances are the same, or should be if you like).
How the trial is conducted though...i dont know makes differance i guess, but the actual law (again, in UK at least) recognises both male and female as equaly being able to offend in those types of crimes.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The beef I have with calling the man a/implying that the man is a serial paedophile is that....he isn't. He committed a sexual act with an underaged girl and probably would have done so if she was legal. If he continually preyed on and targeted underaged people, yes. Lil, Sadako and others have no proof that he has done such. YES this was an ACT of paedophilia, but by definition. A paedophile is someone who does it continuously.
Actually the reason everyone seems to think he is a paedophile is because it would seem he is:
http://www.undercover.com.au/news/2005/feb05/20050228_staticx.html
http://www.antimusic.com/news/05/feb/item47.shtml
It appears that he has done this more than once.
"I have not quoted anyone, if you have a look, nor have i specifficaly said anything about you, but if you identify with it, then apperantly i was right."
Sigh...
Where did I say you HAD quoted anyone Lil? Do yourself a favour girl, read what I write.
The sentances may be the same, the crimes are not. Manslaughter sentance can be the same as murder, different crime though.
"It appears that he has done this more than once."
It says he was caught sleeping in a car with an underaged girl.
You homosapiens and you're assumptions. Too quick off the mark that's your problem.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
"It appears that he has done this more than once."It says he was caught sleeping in a car with an underaged girl.
You homosapiens and you're assumptions. Too quick off the mark that's your problem.
-AC
In another article I read it said he had just had sex with her, if true thats at least two different underage girls he's had sex with. Thats before they've even checked his computer for more evidence.
*Goes to find the article.*
Here it is: http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=33435
More: http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/02272005_ent_sexassault.html
AC. Look mate.
1) As far as im concerned, this guy (In reference to you saying earlier that "Once doesn't make you a paedo..."😉 IS a paedo. Thats my just-as-valid-and-respectable-as-anyone-else's-POV.
2) How do you know that this isn't either a first time offender, having had paedo issues fro years and then the guy suddenly couldn't contain it any longer....? Or worse still, that this guy is being done for just his latest offence....
3) In regards to the personally attacking "Who do you think you are...?" Again someone with a well valid opinion that is a legitmate argument also, someone who is ten years older than you and who feels that even someone of MY age (29) having sex with a 14-yr old is well well well WELL dodgy. Now this guy was almost forty.
4) When you are the father of a 14yr old girl and if she comes home after having had sex with a 38 year old after hes groomed her on the web and lied about his identity because even HE(knows its statutory rape because its sex with a minor (A paedo act) and she comes home to you, would you just turn away saying -
"Ah... Thats alright, It's your fault. Besides, its actually legal in some countries..and no hes not a paedophile hes a sex offender....!!!!! now go to bed..."? If so then what father material you would be...
But im sure you wouldn't say that though .....
It just baffles me why you are so blind to it my and other's POV on this.
5) The Matthew Kelly thing. I agree that he shouldn't be labelled as a Paedo neccessarily.... After all, he doesn't seemed to have screwed any kids... Unlike this fella.
"In another article I read it said he had just had sex with her, if true thats, at least, two different underage girls he's had sex with."
Well why post the articles that you know are wrong then? He has probably had sex with may more overaged girls than underaged. 18 year olds sleep with 15 year olds, they're not paedophiles.
This is what it says on the link you sent:
"As reported by the Asbury Park Press, police in California arrested Salvador on Feb. 10 after finding him sleeping in a parked car with a girl with whom he had just had sexual intercourse, said Jon Fleischman of the Orange County Sheriff's Department."
On what grounds do they know this? It's more than possible they are making the connection that sleeping next to equates to intercourse. Two other sites have done so.
There's many IF'S here and no concrete fact. Like I said, by definition it is an act of paedophilia but so are many things. By definition any adult with an attraction on a minor is an act of paedophila. However, unless he has some provable, factual record, there's no reason to go slapping him with the label.
-AC
Well. Dna testing etc would tell pertaining to the statement you've just
posted form... The girl's testimony....? other Witnesses...? could be a lot of things. Speculation city....Granted....
If this is a case of not guilty, then quite right, I will apologise and withdraw my assessment of the guy.
But if hes banged up for it.... Then it all stands... As do my principles on the subject which stand regardless.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
"In another article I read it said he had just had sex with her, if true thats, at least, two different underage girls he's had sex with."Well why post the articles that you know are wrong then? He has probably had sex with may more overaged girls than underaged. 18 year olds sleep with 15 year olds, they're not paedophiles.
This is what it says on the link you sent:
"As reported by the Asbury Park Press, police in California arrested Salvador on Feb. 10 after finding him sleeping in a parked car with a girl with whom he had just had sexual intercourse, said Jon Fleischman of the Orange County Sheriff's Department."
On what grounds do they know this? It's more than possible they are making the connection that sleeping next to equates to intercourse. Two other sites have done so.
There's many IF'S here and no concrete fact. Like I said, by definition it is an act of paedophilia but so are many things. By definition any adult with an attraction on a minor is an act of paedophila. However, unless he has some provable, factual record, there's no reason to go slapping him with the label.
-AC
How do you know she didn't tell them they just had sex?
What articles are wrong?
I'm just pointing out that there may well be more to this than meets the eye, this may not be a one of incident.
I'm not saying he is definately a paedophile just saying that its looking highly likely.
What would a 39 year old man be doing sleeping in a car with an underage girl anyway? That in itself is worrying.