Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jack1.0
My question and the intent of my earlier post is, "Did the 16 year old really consent?" The only thing I see in the article above is that the man was “convicted of voluntary oral copulation with a minor of the age of 16 or 17.” This does not mean that the girl consented. It means she couldn’t prove in court that she did not consent, or that a plea bargain was reached for a lesser offense. Is it possible that the man in this case manipulated her, conditioned her, and preyed upon her? Do we really know all the facts? (I’m sure the news reports have been completely fair and factual. </Sarcasm off>)
I know I’m a little off topic from the original question but I feel strongly about this and I think that we are far to quick to assume, in this and simiar situations, that intercourse was consensual without even trying to get the facts. It sounds a little too much like, “She was asking for it.”
|
According to California law (or at least the reading of the law by the website that I found), the sex could not be consensual, which is probably why this guy was charged in the first place. That said, we don't know any of the facts beyond the article that you've given us. If you have more facts, I'd be happy to give an opinion, but based on what we have in front of us, I don't see how we can judge as to whether or not she really did consent or even if she lied to the guy about her age. I think that you're rushing to judgement on a story where we don't even really have one side of the story, let alone both. Could he have been preying on her? Absolutely. Could she have lied about her age and given him a hummer of her own volition? Absolutely. Without knowing more about the story, it's really hard for me to condemn this guy. For all we know, she's the one who showed up with the rum, and he took the bullet on that for her. She may be a victim, and she may not be. Show me proof one way or the other.