California sex offender law changes

[turtlespeed 220]

On 9/18/2020 at 9:16 AM, Coreece said:

Well that doesn't really help much in building your profile and improving communication.

So far all I have is:

- Not the one woman man type

- Lacks a sense of humor

 

Good thing this isn't a dating profile. . .

[turtlespeed 220]

On 9/18/2020 at 1:47 PM, SkyDekker said:

What is fucked up is you thinking the crime of rape is based on the victim's decision.

So many times, though, it can be.  So many times though, it is.

Have you never heard of people being vindictive?

 

ETA: I'd say its even more common than bad cops.

That's just what I feel is reasonable as a comparison.

Edited September 19, 2020 by turtlespeed

[SkyDekker 1,465]

10 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

So many times, though, it can be.  So many times though, it is.

Have you never heard of people being vindictive?

 

ETA: I'd say its even more common than bad cops.

That's just what I feel is reasonable as a comparison.

That wouldn’t be rape. 
 

Concept really isn’t that hard. 

[nigel99 474]

On 9/19/2020 at 2:23 AM, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Coreece,

Re:  'So far all I have is:

- Not the one woman man type

- Lacks a sense of humor'

That shows how little you know of me.  As I would expect; and as it should be.

Re:  'Good thing this isn't a dating profile. . .'

I never came here for that.  Did you?

Jerry Baumchen

At least you know not to invite him to your next orgy

[turtlespeed 220]

3 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

That wouldn’t be rape. 
 

Concept really isn’t that hard. 

What concept is that?

The one where the rape is real, or the one where the rape is only accused after the one partner is scorned and wants to cause harm?

I understand them both, do you?

Edited September 20, 2020 by turtlespeed

[Coreece 190]

4 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

14 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

So many times, though, it can be.  So many times though, it is.

Have you never heard of people being vindictive?

That wouldn’t be rape.

That's the problem, that they could still be charged with it.  And it wouldn't matter if she was being vindictive or not.  A 17 year old preacher's daughter could think she's in a happy relationship with an 18 year old black kid, but there's nothing there to stop her father from filing charges against a black man for taking advantage of his underage daughter and raping her.

Black man is convicted, subsequently imprisoned, riots ensue - but at least he won't have to register as a sex offender!

Edited September 20, 2020 by Coreece

[SkyDekker 1,465]

5 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

What concept is that?

The one where the rape is real, or the one where the rape is only accused after the one partner is scorned and wants to cause harm?

I understand them both, do you?

We were talking about rape. We weren’t talking about rape accusations. Even without accusations a rape takes place. 
 

The idea you and Coreece seem to have that somebody can decide if they were raped after the fact is pretty offensive. 

[SkyDekker 1,465]

4 hours ago, Coreece said:

That's the problem, that they could still be charged with it.  And it wouldn't matter if she was being vindictive or not.  A 17 year old preacher's daughter could think she's in a happy relationship with an 18 year old black kid, but there's nothing there to stop her father from filing charges against a black man for taking advantage of his underage daughter and raping her.

Black man is convicted, subsequently imprisoned, riots ensue - but at least he won't have to register as a sex offender!

People can make all kinds of accusations. That still doesn’t determine if an actual rape took place. 
 

 

[Coreece 190]

3 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

We were talking about rape.

We're talking about statutory rape

 

3 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

The idea you and Coreece seem to have that somebody can decide if they were raped after the fact is pretty offensive. 

That's just because you're looking for reasons to be offended rather than paying attention to the conversation.   I wasn't even the one that initially phrased it as being a "decision."

 

3 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

7 hours ago, Coreece said:

That's the problem, that they could still be charged with it.  And it wouldn't matter if she was being vindictive or not.  A 17 year old preacher's daughter could think she's in a happy relationship with an 18 year old black kid, but there's nothing there to stop her father from filing charges against a black man for taking advantage of his underage daughter and raping her.

Black man is convicted, subsequently imprisoned, riots ensue - but at least he won't have to register as a sex offender!

People can make all kinds of accusations. That still doesn’t determine if an actual rape took place. 

All that's needed are their ages.

Edited September 20, 2020 by Coreece

[kallend 2,027]

I really don't see why the age of the offender is relevant beyond being an adult or a juvenile.

If an adult, tried and sentenced as an adult.  if a juvenile, dealt with in juvenile court.

[Coreece 190]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

I really don't see why the age of the offender is relevant beyond being an adult or a juvenile.

If an adult, tried and sentenced as an adult.  if a juvenile, dealt with in juvenile court.

That's not really what we're talking about, but since you brought it up, do you think rittenhouse shouldn't be charged as an adult?

[kallend 2,027]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

That's not really what we're talking about, but since you brought it up, do you think rittenhouse shouldn't be charged as an adult?

Adults are adults, juveniles are juveniles.  We treat them differently for good reason.  Calling a juvenile an adult is like calling a tail a leg so you can say a dog has 5 legs.

[turtlespeed 220]

8 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

The idea you and Coreece seem to have that somebody can decide if they were raped after the fact is pretty offensive. 

Then be offended by reality.

[turtlespeed 220]

2 hours ago, kallend said:

Adults are adults, juveniles are juveniles.  We treat them differently for good reason.  Calling a juvenile an adult is like calling a tail a leg so you can say a dog has 5 legs.

This is going off topic, but your statement surprises me.

So, just so we are clear here, you disagree with the decision to charge Rittenhouse as an adult?

[kallend 2,027]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

This is going off topic, but your statement surprises me.

So, just so we are clear here, you disagree with the decision to charge Rittenhouse as an adult?

We shouldn't redefine "adult" just because we're particularly outraged by a juvenile.

 

Doing something very nasty doesn't suddenly turn you into an adult.

[Coreece 190]

9 hours ago, kallend said:

We shouldn't redefine "adult" just because we're particularly outraged by a juvenile.

 

Doing something very nasty doesn't suddenly turn you into an adult.

One's actions speak more to the level of adulthood than the simple stroke of midnight.

There are varying definitions of adulthood around the world - even the states have different ages of majority, typically 18-21.

The definition of an adult is someone that is fully grown or developed.  According to science, that would be closer to 25 -  but if policy isn't best served by science and we just pick some arbitrary age anyway, then it makes sense to include a "buffer zone," say ± 2-3 years.

Edited September 21, 2020 by Coreece

[kallend 2,027]

55 minutes ago, Coreece said:

One's actions speak more to the level of adulthood than the simple stroke of midnight.

There are varying definitions of adulthood around the world - even the states have different ages of majority, typically 18-21.

The definition of an adult is someone that is fully grown or developed.  According to science, that would be closer to 25 -  but if policy isn't best served by science and we just pick some arbitrary age anyway, then it makes sense to include a "buffer zone," say ± 2-3 years.

I suggest that Rittenhouse's behavior demonstrates a complete absence of adult judgment.

Making legal boundaries fuzzy IMO leads to all sorts of problems.

[Coreece 190]

4 minutes ago, kallend said:

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

One's actions speak more to the level of adulthood than the simple stroke of midnight.

There are varying definitions of adulthood around the world - even the states have different ages of majority, typically 18-21.

The definition of an adult is someone that is fully grown or developed.  According to science, that would be closer to 25 -  but if policy isn't best served by science and we just pick some arbitrary age anyway, then it makes sense to include a "buffer zone," say ± 2-3 years.

I suggest that Rittenhouse's behavior demonstrates a complete absence of adult judgment.

Making legal boundaries fuzzy IMO leads to all sorts of problems.

Leaving it black and white might make it easier, but truth and justice are not easily found, and often shaded gray.

[kallend 2,027]

5 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Leaving it black and white might make it easier, but truth and justice are not easily found, and often shaded gray.

Don't confuse law with justice.

Would you like fuzzy boundaries on the age to drive? pilot a plane? buy and drink booze? And if so, who would decide and how would they do it?

And why not fuzzy up state lines while about it.  Commit a crime within X miles of a state line and choose which jurisdiction will hold the trial.

[Coreece 190]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

Leaving it black and white might make it easier, but truth and justice are not easily found, and often shaded gray.

Don't confuse law with justice.

Would you like fuzzy boundaries on the age to drive? pilot a plane? buy and drink booze? And if so, who would decide and how would they do it?

If we can say that you don't have to be an adult to drive, and that adults under 21 can't drink, then surely we could say that a 17 and 18 year old having sex isn't rape unless one them says it was - and many states do just that.

As for Rittenhouse, fine, let the juvenile court deal with it, but if found guilty, should someone that you described as a CRIMINAL for the CRIME of MURDER automatically be released at 21 for an offense that you said carries a mandatory life sentence?

Edited September 21, 2020 by Coreece

[turtlespeed 220]

11 hours ago, kallend said:

We shouldn't redefine "adult" just because we're particularly outraged by a juvenile.

 

Doing something very nasty doesn't suddenly turn you into an adult.

You and I agree on that.

(I also realize you are not going to give a straight answer, so, please don't join the crowd when they ask me for specifics in the future.)

It's your brethren here that are out for blood.

[kallend 2,027]

11 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

 

(I also realize you are not going to give a straight answer, so, please don't join the crowd when they ask me for specifics in the future.)

 

See post #67.

Edited September 21, 2020 by kallend

[turtlespeed 220]

1 minute ago, kallend said:

See post #67.

I read that - I'm not arguing with you over your perceived stance - You and I agree on that.

It's the lack of a simple Yes or No when asked if he should be charged as an adult. 

Some posters in this forum, including you and I, can be pretty persnickety when it comes to details, you know.

[jakee 1,489]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

Leaving it black and white might make it easier, but truth and justice are not easily found, and often shaded gray.

Just keep in mind that It is demonstrated time and again that when there are grey areas available in charging and sentencing then black or white has a lot to do with it.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

13 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Then be offended by reality.

Clearly your understanding of this subject is the same as your understanding of your constitution. One sided and extremely limited.

Edited September 21, 2020 by SkyDekker