Originally posted by Robtard
Kid = a young person.Young man = A young male, I've had people refer to my son as a "young man" or I sometimes use "little man" as a form of affection and he's 4.
But legally, Martin was a child. So Zimmerman shot and killed child, if "kid" is unacceptable to use in regards to a just turned 17 year old.
Cool.
And we can move the topic of discussion to something else and I will submit that a 17 year old should not legally be labeled as a child but as an adult, depending on that person. I would move that goalpost to 15, again, depending on the person. Don't forget that I was the one that proposed the fascist system of testing people for a certain political science proficiency before they could vote: age would be irrelevant. I think that's how it should be for many things including age of consent (that would also mean that some adults would not be allowed to consent because they just do not understand some social constructs well enough to give "informed" consent for sexual relations).
So, I disagree with the law. In fact, some states do define something between a child and an adult. Oklahoma has such gray areas: 16- less than 18 is a different category, in age of consent, than less than 16.
Additionally, Florida has such a provision. People between the age of 14 and 18 can be tried as adults. That very same state...addressing the gray area I am talking about...hmm.
There are other adult rights, in some states, that are granted to persons under 18 but not younger than 14. For me, the idea of calling someone of 17 a "child" is quite stupid and ignorant.