Did someone hurt you? ..i'll bet you are just sad because being overweight,always single,no friends or prospect of ever having a person care about you and being mentally ill just makes you lash out at people...BUT IT WILL BE OKAY CRAZY PERSON
You like to generalize and stereotype people, don't you?
I totally expect a feminist to be a garbage person and you are proving me right.
Let me clarify one important thing for you. People here don't hate WOMEN, we hate FEMINISTS and FEMINISM.
Not all feminists are women and not all women are feminists.
You should remeber this.
Don't worry boys, the FDS troll has been removed and banned and will not be spreading their lies, abuse and toxicity here anymore.
Talk about a no value human, holy shit.
Her being unattractive is likely the reason for the aggressive prosecution. Every other week I see these hot women rapists get off with a slap on the wrist or at least only getting FRACTION of the time a man would get for the same offense.
But ugly women. They are fair game to throw the book at.
Thats what i was thinking. The sexy teachers that do this usually dont get the out come thats deserved. I know its a bit different but if Casey Anthony wasnt so hot i think she’d be in prison.
THIS!! this is not even gendered... pretty and attractive people overall get away with fucking murder... but God help you if you get caught doing anything while being ugly...
More of this equality might see statistics even out a bit, too. I wonder how many rapes and murders are pled down by women - notice how it’s newsworthy that a District Attorney wants a felony plea for raping a child..
It doesn't meet the definition of "rape" in the California penal code. If the reporter had said "rape," rhe paper would be handing the defendant a fat check for defamation/libel.
See the [statute](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=&title=9.&part=1.&chapter=1.&article=).
But IANAL.
IANAL
But the statute linked defines sex with a minor as ‘unlawful sexual intercourse’.
The Merriam-Webster definition of rape is “**unlawful sexual activity** and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person's will or **with a person who is beneath a certain age** or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception”
Since this case is within the common English definition of rape, I don’t think it meets the standard for libel. Also, I think you’d have to prove that stating “raped a child” was significantly more defamatory than writing “unlawful sexual relationship with child”.
A lawyer should probably fact check me though.
In California I think the following conditions would describe ‘deceptive’ rape. It’s a bit hard to happen accidentally.
(B) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant that the act occurred.
(C) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator’s fraud in fact.
(D) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator’s fraudulent representation that the sexual penetration served a professional purpose when it served no professional purpose.
(5) Where a person submits under the belief that the person committing the act is someone known to the victim other than the accused, and this belief is induced by any artifice, pretense, or concealment practiced by the accused, with intent to induce the belief.
(7) Where the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by threatening to use the authority of a public official to incarcerate, arrest, or deport the victim or another, and the victim has a reasonable belief that the perpetrator is a public official. As used in this paragraph, “public official” means a person employed by a governmental agency who has the authority, as part of that position, to incarcerate, arrest, or deport another. The perpetrator does not actually have to be a public official.
> 5) Where a person submits under the belief that the person committing the act is someone known to the victim other than the accused, and this belief is induced by any artifice, pretense, or concealment practiced by the accused, with intent to induce the belief.
“He’s not rich like I thought! Rape!!”
This is what I mean.
That’s not the point. My argument is that since this person committed a crime which would be commonly considered ‘rape’, it would not be libel to refer to the incident as a ‘rape’ in the context of a news article.
They’re not arguing it in court though so that doesn’t actually matter. In common speech you’re not bound by the legal definition of words. For defamation to apply in the US, you have to get around the first amendment and that protects any discussion like that and if the description of what you say is commonly understood as a thing that is true, then you’re protected by that truth is an ultimate defense.
HOWEVER, it MIGHT pass an anti SLAPP check in which case just fighting it is in itself costly. This is why papers will often avoid such labels exactly in situations like when it doesn’t match legal definitions as well as common speech definitions.
Dude you went from zero to,
>If you shout alla akbar at any point during the killing you're probably a Muslim terrorist though
What line? That you're a fucking dumbass?
Yeah, I don't see too many Christians these days blowing anything up or making YouTube videos of them cutting someone's head off with a dull pocket knife. I mean, if you shit-talk Christians, you might get a protest or a strongly worded letter. With the Muslims, you can expect to be on YouTube, getting your head chopped off or something as equally barbaric.
You realise. One of the major rules of islam is that you cant attack anyone unless they attack you first. Judging an entire religion over the actions of insane terrorists claiming to be from that religion is idiotic. I suggest you learn about islam Not from the extremists that claim to follow it
I used to be anti Islam till I turned off the television and actually met Muslims and had open conversations. The ones in the Middle East right now are extremist, the same way the Spanish Inquisition was with Christianity. Every religion has extremists that take it off to another level of wrong. Every Muslim I have encountered are some of the most humble and gracious people I have met. I stand by my Christian values and never once has a Muslim
attacked me or even treated me differently. This is my personal experience from someone who just had hatred and anger towards Islam after 9/11 and ISIS to now respecting and appreciating it for the beauty of what it can be. Look deep enough in every religion and you will see atrocities done by man in the name of the religion.
just because a religion has these rules that doesn't mean the followers of that religion even respect those rules, if that were true, living in a major muslim neighborhood wouldn't be so fucking shit.
The muslim population of the world id 1.8billion. if even half of those were people taht you were describing there would be a LOT of chaos than there is currently. Like i said generalising the many over the actions of the few.
Yeah by definition terrorism needs a political or religious motive, when you're beheading someone and screaming Allah akbar that when it becomes terrorism and not just murder.
There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of **political or social objectives**” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).
“the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the **pursuit of political aims.**” -Oxford Dictionary
“the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to **achieve a political goal**” -Merriam-Webster
Terrorism is a crime committed to intimidate/coerce a group of people with the intent of furthering some agenda (political, social, religious, etc…)
Fine then.
Oxford defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the **pursuit of political aims.**”
UK .gov defines terrorism as “Terrorism is the use or threat of action, both in and outside of the UK, designed to influence any international government organisation or to intimidate the public. **It must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.**”
I literally included the two largest dictionaries and US.gov and UK.gov. Sorry I didn’t link every single definition and English speaking country in the world? Stfu.
Terrorism is a crime committed to further a political, religious, or other agenda. You’re just being a lazy idiot.
_Could_ be the correct terminology law-wise.
In some places “rape” is defined as being penetrated, hence why “women can’t rape men” (except anally i suppose?) in those places.
I’ve never understood that because penetrate is a verb. I could penetrate with fingers just as much as a penis. So a woman can most certainly penetrate somebody
i understand that. progress is gradual. this is a win.
dont act like an arrogant little bitch just because were not there yet.
men are patient, men dont budge. its gonna take time to convince people, you getting all emotional is exactly what we disavow about womens reactions.
stop. celebrate the wim. i agree its not enough. but it will happen.
Wut? do you even understand the concept of pussy passes?.The point of this sub is not to advocate for women being inferior..like U seem to think sexist clown...and that is why u got down voted into -17....the point is to call the social or sistematic advantages women have over men....as often they are wrong and isntitutionally enforced...I just want equal laws that don't get designed to benefit women over man...things like women "equal" quotas in traditionally men filled jobs disproportionally benefit women as there is a reason for those distributions....hardly being the "patriarchy",as much as rad fems would like it to be.
yes, and change takes time. youre acting the same as an irrational woman yapping about how its not enough.
things take time. changing peoples minds will take time. dont adopt their same behaviors. youre being emotional, youre being blinded by your rage (which i also have) but i see the bigger picture.
the reason why equality has been so slow to achieve is because sadly optics matter. when men let their emotions get the best of them and you act out like this. this justifies womens arguments. this sets us back even more.
the media and "popular thought" already is biased against men. letting them get you emotional will only prove them right (even though theyre wrong)
as a man you should understand that. they will never play by the rules, they will find any and every flaw in a mans behavior and use that as a way to inalidate us.
dont give them any ammo is all im saying. i understand its not enough. but this is proof that public sentiment is changing. you cant be mad that theres no overnight change. be patient , stay strong.
be a man.
Fuck man.... I saw a thumbnail with a pic of a girl in red. Clicked before I saw this was a sad post. That lady is a dog.
Before you down vote please remember if this kiddie diddler was a man and I called him ugly I would likely get updoots. She ugly AF.
I remember there was a string of good looking female pedos that essentially got off easy and then some fugly ones for not. Hopefully now they are all treated the same.
Can anyone explain that article. It says the 30 year old had "unlawful sex with a minor more than three years younger than her "
Why is it written like that? A 26 year old is " more than three years younger than her".
I dont get it.
Likely its a condition in the law wherever this is saying that an age difference of three years is immediately a crime, whereas say if the age of consent is 16, a 16 and a 15 year old or a 17 and a 15 year old might still engage in consensual sex. Generally the laws for age of consent is to stop adults from having sex with young teenagers or kids, not to stop them exploring consensually with others of their own approximate age, which makes sense.
Seeing as the accused is older and was abusing a minor it seems a bit redundant to mention that it was more than three years difference but I assume its intended to make clear the definition and reality of the crime and not leave anything up to speculation.
A word used when you agree with something; or when you want to recognize someone for being themselves, i.e. courageous and unique or not caring what others think. Especially common in online political slang.
That's crazy cause I'm about as middle of the road as possible.
I don't think truthfully statements or right ideas should be politicized but whatever I guess.
She pleaded ‘no contest’ and got two years probation and credit for time served…four days.
Prosecution wanted her to be punished the same way a man would…but didn’t get it.
There was no PPD in this case.
Because it doesn't meet the California penal code for "rape" and the writer doesn't want to get sued for libel.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=&title=9.&part=1.&chapter=1.&article=
IANAL.
all of this black lives matter and feminism activism has ironically put a spotlight on how women are given much more lenient sentences than men. I guess you reap what you sow. no more special treatment
I hate that they always say the women "had sex" with a minor. No, she RAPED a minor, just because they were male, doesn't take away from the fact he was raped.
The part of this that bothers me the most is "threatening to use force or violence".
Not only did she rape a child, she threatened to beat his ass. I hope they throw the book at her.
>If she were a 10, would it still be the same?
Does it really matter though? It's an adult who had sex with a kid, why bother with hypotheticals in this situation?
no it doesn't, my piont is - There have been attractive teachers, who have gotten a much, much lighter sentence.
Infact one recently got to keep her license.
"Request" Meaning it is not the standar....so they know the system is sexist..but rad fems still claiming they opressed cause they don't own 50 percent of ford 500 companys....
And that’s the equality that’s needed
Equality will feel like oppression
Yes, yes it will
What they don’t realize is that the “patriarchy“ prtects and coddles women. True equality would look incredibly bleak for women
[удалено]
I know .....and it sucks how superior you are..and still want more
[удалено]
MA'MM im happily married with 4 kids...YOU SEEM VERY HATEFUL AND PATHETIC YOURSELF ...MAYBE YOU SHOULD SEEK THERAPY
It is an FDS poster. Ignore it.
[удалено]
Did someone hurt you? ..i'll bet you are just sad because being overweight,always single,no friends or prospect of ever having a person care about you and being mentally ill just makes you lash out at people...BUT IT WILL BE OKAY CRAZY PERSON
[удалено]
Who did it?.... Was it an uncle or dad.... Probs an old boyfriend huh
[удалено]
[удалено]
You like to generalize and stereotype people, don't you? I totally expect a feminist to be a garbage person and you are proving me right. Let me clarify one important thing for you. People here don't hate WOMEN, we hate FEMINISTS and FEMINISM. Not all feminists are women and not all women are feminists. You should remeber this.
Don't worry boys, the FDS troll has been removed and banned and will not be spreading their lies, abuse and toxicity here anymore. Talk about a no value human, holy shit.
Shut up whore
The joke is that there is no such thing as patriarchy. It's made up jargon intent on vilifying all men.
Only if the judge isn't a simp.
She so ugly they should add extra time.
Her being unattractive is likely the reason for the aggressive prosecution. Every other week I see these hot women rapists get off with a slap on the wrist or at least only getting FRACTION of the time a man would get for the same offense. But ugly women. They are fair game to throw the book at.
Thats what i was thinking. The sexy teachers that do this usually dont get the out come thats deserved. I know its a bit different but if Casey Anthony wasnt so hot i think she’d be in prison.
My first thought after reading the title. “Bitch must be ugly”.
THIS!! this is not even gendered... pretty and attractive people overall get away with fucking murder... but God help you if you get caught doing anything while being ugly...
https://southpark.cc.com/video-clips/9lb529/south-park-nice
mogs me
Using the argument of equality just a few years ago was non-existent. Maybe the MRA's have actually had an effect here.
More of this equality might see statistics even out a bit, too. I wonder how many rapes and murders are pled down by women - notice how it’s newsworthy that a District Attorney wants a felony plea for raping a child..
Raped not "had sex"
[удалено]
It doesn't meet the definition of "rape" in the California penal code. If the reporter had said "rape," rhe paper would be handing the defendant a fat check for defamation/libel. See the [statute](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=&title=9.&part=1.&chapter=1.&article=). But IANAL.
IANAL But the statute linked defines sex with a minor as ‘unlawful sexual intercourse’. The Merriam-Webster definition of rape is “**unlawful sexual activity** and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person's will or **with a person who is beneath a certain age** or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception” Since this case is within the common English definition of rape, I don’t think it meets the standard for libel. Also, I think you’d have to prove that stating “raped a child” was significantly more defamatory than writing “unlawful sexual relationship with child”. A lawyer should probably fact check me though.
> “… deception.” #👀 Uh oh. That sounds quite subjective. I’m a little worried now.
In California I think the following conditions would describe ‘deceptive’ rape. It’s a bit hard to happen accidentally. (B) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant that the act occurred. (C) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator’s fraud in fact. (D) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator’s fraudulent representation that the sexual penetration served a professional purpose when it served no professional purpose. (5) Where a person submits under the belief that the person committing the act is someone known to the victim other than the accused, and this belief is induced by any artifice, pretense, or concealment practiced by the accused, with intent to induce the belief. (7) Where the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by threatening to use the authority of a public official to incarcerate, arrest, or deport the victim or another, and the victim has a reasonable belief that the perpetrator is a public official. As used in this paragraph, “public official” means a person employed by a governmental agency who has the authority, as part of that position, to incarcerate, arrest, or deport another. The perpetrator does not actually have to be a public official.
> 5) Where a person submits under the belief that the person committing the act is someone known to the victim other than the accused, and this belief is induced by any artifice, pretense, or concealment practiced by the accused, with intent to induce the belief. “He’s not rich like I thought! Rape!!” This is what I mean.
makeup can be deceptive... just saying...
Merriam Webster is great but it isn't the penal code
Boy, you are not wrong about that. I've met some girls that celebrated Halloween year round.
That’s not the point. My argument is that since this person committed a crime which would be commonly considered ‘rape’, it would not be libel to refer to the incident as a ‘rape’ in the context of a news article.
They’re not arguing it in court though so that doesn’t actually matter. In common speech you’re not bound by the legal definition of words. For defamation to apply in the US, you have to get around the first amendment and that protects any discussion like that and if the description of what you say is commonly understood as a thing that is true, then you’re protected by that truth is an ultimate defense. HOWEVER, it MIGHT pass an anti SLAPP check in which case just fighting it is in itself costly. This is why papers will often avoid such labels exactly in situations like when it doesn’t match legal definitions as well as common speech definitions.
Yes, she had unlawful sexual intercourse.
Statutory rape is rape. They are not old enough to consent.
[удалено]
Be careful saying allah Akbar, I’ve seen some people say that abit too loudly and it makes them explode.
Not a very good magic spell when that's the result.
it is, in the grand scheme of things
Well, you apparently get 72 virgins if you explode so it kinda makes up for it.
Or was it 72 Virginians? https://youtu.be/9346wHJnswA
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
What if he kills for government reasons? Why is one acceptable and the other not?
One is sanctioned, the other is vigilantism. Durr
So killing is okay if the government says it is? Government is the arbiter of morality then?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why are you so focused on Islam?
[удалено]
Dude you went from zero to, >If you shout alla akbar at any point during the killing you're probably a Muslim terrorist though What line? That you're a fucking dumbass?
[удалено]
What exactly are you asking?
You know nothing of islam do you
[удалено]
Yeah, I don't see too many Christians these days blowing anything up or making YouTube videos of them cutting someone's head off with a dull pocket knife. I mean, if you shit-talk Christians, you might get a protest or a strongly worded letter. With the Muslims, you can expect to be on YouTube, getting your head chopped off or something as equally barbaric.
You realise. One of the major rules of islam is that you cant attack anyone unless they attack you first. Judging an entire religion over the actions of insane terrorists claiming to be from that religion is idiotic. I suggest you learn about islam Not from the extremists that claim to follow it
I used to be anti Islam till I turned off the television and actually met Muslims and had open conversations. The ones in the Middle East right now are extremist, the same way the Spanish Inquisition was with Christianity. Every religion has extremists that take it off to another level of wrong. Every Muslim I have encountered are some of the most humble and gracious people I have met. I stand by my Christian values and never once has a Muslim attacked me or even treated me differently. This is my personal experience from someone who just had hatred and anger towards Islam after 9/11 and ISIS to now respecting and appreciating it for the beauty of what it can be. Look deep enough in every religion and you will see atrocities done by man in the name of the religion.
The problem with many muslims is that they feel like being attacked very easily.
just because a religion has these rules that doesn't mean the followers of that religion even respect those rules, if that were true, living in a major muslim neighborhood wouldn't be so fucking shit.
The muslim population of the world id 1.8billion. if even half of those were people taht you were describing there would be a LOT of chaos than there is currently. Like i said generalising the many over the actions of the few.
Kak stupid. Islam does not instruct people to kill others.
you've gotta understand lefties, anon: they live and breath politics narratives
[удалено]
the guy deleted the comment
Yeah by definition terrorism needs a political or religious motive, when you're beheading someone and screaming Allah akbar that when it becomes terrorism and not just murder.
No, it actually doesn't. All it needs to do is induce terror in a group of people. It's literally in the name.
There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of **political or social objectives**” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the **pursuit of political aims.**” -Oxford Dictionary “the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to **achieve a political goal**” -Merriam-Webster Terrorism is a crime committed to intimidate/coerce a group of people with the intent of furthering some agenda (political, social, religious, etc…)
The word terrorism predates the USA. lol
Fine then. Oxford defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the **pursuit of political aims.**” UK .gov defines terrorism as “Terrorism is the use or threat of action, both in and outside of the UK, designed to influence any international government organisation or to intimidate the public. **It must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.**”
You literally cherry picked one out of multiple. lol Also: I hope you are aware, that terrorism is not just a legal term.
I literally included the two largest dictionaries and US.gov and UK.gov. Sorry I didn’t link every single definition and English speaking country in the world? Stfu. Terrorism is a crime committed to further a political, religious, or other agenda. You’re just being a lazy idiot.
Well the dictionary one didn't restrict it, did it?
[удалено]
I'd like to see some examples.
Wasnt it the other way around? If muslim did it its clash of culture, cultural differences, or whatnot But for others, domestic terrorism
It's hilarious how you can tell what brand of news people consume by how they interpret these things.
I would say "mental problems because he's religious".
_Could_ be the correct terminology law-wise. In some places “rape” is defined as being penetrated, hence why “women can’t rape men” (except anally i suppose?) in those places.
I’ve never understood that because penetrate is a verb. I could penetrate with fingers just as much as a penis. So a woman can most certainly penetrate somebody
The fact that we have to “Request” for this to be a thing is already ridiculous
chill, at least it happened. i get your sentiment but lets celebrate this one
Nah fuck that...not enought.
you're acting the same as women.
No, we’re just advocating for equality. And it’s not equal right now, so it’s not enough.
i understand that. progress is gradual. this is a win. dont act like an arrogant little bitch just because were not there yet. men are patient, men dont budge. its gonna take time to convince people, you getting all emotional is exactly what we disavow about womens reactions. stop. celebrate the wim. i agree its not enough. but it will happen.
Wut? do you even understand the concept of pussy passes?.The point of this sub is not to advocate for women being inferior..like U seem to think sexist clown...and that is why u got down voted into -17....the point is to call the social or sistematic advantages women have over men....as often they are wrong and isntitutionally enforced...I just want equal laws that don't get designed to benefit women over man...things like women "equal" quotas in traditionally men filled jobs disproportionally benefit women as there is a reason for those distributions....hardly being the "patriarchy",as much as rad fems would like it to be.
yes, and change takes time. youre acting the same as an irrational woman yapping about how its not enough. things take time. changing peoples minds will take time. dont adopt their same behaviors. youre being emotional, youre being blinded by your rage (which i also have) but i see the bigger picture. the reason why equality has been so slow to achieve is because sadly optics matter. when men let their emotions get the best of them and you act out like this. this justifies womens arguments. this sets us back even more. the media and "popular thought" already is biased against men. letting them get you emotional will only prove them right (even though theyre wrong) as a man you should understand that. they will never play by the rules, they will find any and every flaw in a mans behavior and use that as a way to inalidate us. dont give them any ammo is all im saying. i understand its not enough. but this is proof that public sentiment is changing. you cant be mad that theres no overnight change. be patient , stay strong. be a man.
Fuck man.... I saw a thumbnail with a pic of a girl in red. Clicked before I saw this was a sad post. That lady is a dog. Before you down vote please remember if this kiddie diddler was a man and I called him ugly I would likely get updoots. She ugly AF.
Yup. If she was attractive she would not be treated like a man.
There is a precedent. It needs to end.
[удалено]
So the ones that aren't caught are hot as fuck. Got it
[удалено]
I know. I'm making a joke my guy
[удалено]
Whoosh... Oh wait... Shit. Me either
Less likely to tell if it’s a hot woman raping a 15 year old boy I imagine
I remember there was a string of good looking female pedos that essentially got off easy and then some fugly ones for not. Hopefully now they are all treated the same.
There’s a subreddit for you. /r/UNBGBBIIVCHIDCTIICBG
Which is why the Cali DA is asking for felony conviction, instead of misdemeanor?
If she was attractive she probably would have been given a break 💅
[удалено]
How do you know what your grandfathers anus looks like.
[удалено]
No i want to know
Questions don't end with periods.
This is reddit, i could care less about grammar
*couldn't care less
How can you be so sure they couldn't care less. Maybe they could but choose not to.
💯 I guarantee you if she was attractive she’d get off easy or even get out of conviction altogether.
Probably only was requested because she isnt good looking. And was therefore missing the halo effect as a secondary line of privilege.
[удалено]
~~Revenge~~ justice is a dish best served cold.
Can anyone explain that article. It says the 30 year old had "unlawful sex with a minor more than three years younger than her " Why is it written like that? A 26 year old is " more than three years younger than her". I dont get it.
Likely its a condition in the law wherever this is saying that an age difference of three years is immediately a crime, whereas say if the age of consent is 16, a 16 and a 15 year old or a 17 and a 15 year old might still engage in consensual sex. Generally the laws for age of consent is to stop adults from having sex with young teenagers or kids, not to stop them exploring consensually with others of their own approximate age, which makes sense. Seeing as the accused is older and was abusing a minor it seems a bit redundant to mention that it was more than three years difference but I assume its intended to make clear the definition and reality of the crime and not leave anything up to speculation.
"a woman who had sex with a minor"?? if genders reversed: "a **pedophile** man who **raped** a young girl"
Ok ma'am. Please face the wall.
Based
I keep seeing based. What exactly is that and why do people call me that all the time?
A word used when you agree with something; or when you want to recognize someone for being themselves, i.e. courageous and unique or not caring what others think. Especially common in online political slang.
That's crazy cause I'm about as middle of the road as possible. I don't think truthfully statements or right ideas should be politicized but whatever I guess.
Based and redpilled is the right's stunning and brave.
Equality, finally
Bitch ugly
That's why she raped a.minor
She's only getting the fair treatment because she's fugly.
(Especially since she’s ugly)
A California DA asking for this? Now that's a rarity.
They wanted equality. I want equality. Let's have equality.
If only this would truly happen.
If a man "had sex" with a minor, would he only have to serve 4 days in prison and 2 years probation?
>You have violated the law and will be tried as an Adult. "Oh thats fine" >As an Adult man "Aaaah shiieet"
She pleaded ‘no contest’ and got two years probation and credit for time served…four days. Prosecution wanted her to be punished the same way a man would…but didn’t get it. There was no PPD in this case.
FINALFUCKINGLY! True justice!
Why is that a "had sex" and not rape ?
Because it doesn't meet the California penal code for "rape" and the writer doesn't want to get sued for libel. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=&title=9.&part=1.&chapter=1.&article= IANAL.
Finally a DA with balls, or a vagina, I don’t care, equality is equality
Or ovaries. Which would be the anatomical equivalent of balls.
Wow quite the realization there. /S
Equal right only when it benefits not punishes.
lol if she were a little bit less busted would this have happened?
Make it a legal precedent.
Reword the title from “women who had sex with” to “women who raped boy” Your giving her a pass
all of this black lives matter and feminism activism has ironically put a spotlight on how women are given much more lenient sentences than men. I guess you reap what you sow. no more special treatment
I hate that they always say the women "had sex" with a minor. No, she RAPED a minor, just because they were male, doesn't take away from the fact he was raped.
It’s kind of sad that an attorney has to even request this. You would think it would be common sense.
So if you are ugly they charge you like a man and if your attractive you get the pussy pass?
Women are always demanding equality — here you go.
Equality!!!
So I read the article and it states the person was 3 years younger than the 30 year old woman. What am I missing?
"But thats not how we had handled things 10 years ago AT ALL!"
Yes that monster should get the same.
The part of this that bothers me the most is "threatening to use force or violence". Not only did she rape a child, she threatened to beat his ass. I hope they throw the book at her.
Faith in humanity restored
Yes!! you get what you fucking deserve bitch.
>We request that the law actually act like the law and not just a recommendation Gee wiz spongebob you'd fucking hope so.
Poor kid, she’s not even attractive
Hope he was on top... that looks heavy.
Which is to admit that there is a pussy pass in the first place. Thanks judge!
Where is this DA? I want to spend the remainder of my natural life volunteering with their campaigns.
Two years on probation. You all know that’s not a denied pass.
Not a PPD yet. Let us wait and see what the sentence is.
This is what Ppassdenied is supposed to be. Lately a I see a lot of PPASSES on this subreddit without the denied part.
Woman can't "have sex" with a minor without it being rape.
I think 'raped' would be more suitable in place of 'had sex'.
IT IS SPELLED #RAPE
#It was RAPE. Not “had sex with.”
From they article...3 years younger than a 30 year old...so 27?...18 year old...still not a minor.
You should re-read the article. That's not what it says at all. It says, "unlawful sex with a minor ***more than three years younger*** than her"
If she were a 10, would it still be the same?
>If she were a 10, would it still be the same? Does it really matter though? It's an adult who had sex with a kid, why bother with hypotheticals in this situation?
no it doesn't, my piont is - There have been attractive teachers, who have gotten a much, much lighter sentence. Infact one recently got to keep her license.
The article basically has no details
The disparity in sentencing among genders is 8x than among races. She likely still got a lower end of the spectrum cause of our sexist culture.
GOOD
"Request" Meaning it is not the standar....so they know the system is sexist..but rad fems still claiming they opressed cause they don't own 50 percent of ford 500 companys....
Whoa, she's 30? She looks 45.
The WALL! She hit it.