Teenager Sex With Cop's Daughter Leads To Arrest

reply to post by acrux


As a parent, I understand the cop's concern. However, he abused his authority for a private matter and used it to threaten and harass the kid. Plus, it takes two last time I checked to have consensual sex. He should be fined and suspended.

reply to post by Nutter


Actually I believe it's in Montana or Idaho, a teenager can start driving at like 14.

Originally posted by OmiOra
This is ridiculous. The guy was maybe a year year older and clearly broke no law and if he did than the daughter did to. This cop took advantage of his power and position, this is why so many americans see cops are crooked. Not all cops are this way but the ones that are give a bad rep to them all.

Sad to see how many of you need to revisit reading comprehension. THEY BOTH BROKE THE LAW. Get it now? Remember, the father pressed no charges, it was only after the complaint that the police department pressed charges.

If he was not a cop and just went over there with a gun and told him to stay away it would be no issue. Since this is a cop though, so many of you are letting your anti-police bias get in the way of the real issue with this.

READ THE WHOLE TOPIC BEFORE POSTING PLEASE.

Originally posted by Y2KJMan

Originally posted by OmiOra
This is ridiculous. The guy was maybe a year year older and clearly broke no law and if he did than the daughter did to. This cop took advantage of his power and position, this is why so many americans see cops are crooked. Not all cops are this way but the ones that are give a bad rep to them all.

Sad to see how many of you need to revisit reading comprehension. THEY BOTH BROKE THE LAW. Get it now? Remember, the father pressed no charges, it was only after the complaint that the police department pressed charges.

If he was not a cop and just went over there with a gun and told him to stay away it would be no issue. Since this is a cop though, so many of you are letting your anti-police bias get in the way of the real issue with this.

READ THE WHOLE TOPIC BEFORE POSTING PLEASE.

That would have still been an issue with me, threatening a teenage boy for having sex with a consenting girl with a firearm is still wrong.

reply to post by King_John


I never once said either of these children were pedophiles. I did state that they are not capable of consensual sex, that anyone thinking otherwise is clearly ignorant of the law and that courts usually favor females if cases like this ever come to trial or to a panel of child services people.

My mentioning of Pedobear had nothing to do with the kids in this case but with the clearly stoked adults who think it's an abuse of power by the cop when he could have done something much, much more destructive and within the eyes of the law legal while saying children can have as much sex as they like (some people even said using condoms and the like).

See what I'm doing here - I'm disagreeing with the OP, staying on topic and stating a case which has proven some people here wrong time and again.

Will kids have sex - sure they will. Is this case unusual - not in the slightest. was the cop abusing his position of authority - not at all.

There. so who's got the popcorn?

-m0r

Originally posted by m0r1arty
reply to post by King_John

 

I never once said either of these children were pedophiles. I did state that they are not capable of consensual sex, that anyone thinking otherwise is clearly ignorant of the law and that courts usually favor females if cases like this ever come to trial or to a panel of child services people.
-m0r

You just compared two teenagers having sex to the killers of Jamie Bulger....

Originally posted by m0r1arty
reply to post by King_John

 

I never once said either of these children were pedophiles. I did state that they are not capable of consensual sex, that anyone thinking otherwise is clearly ignorant of the law and that courts usually favor females if cases like this ever come to trial or to a panel of child services people.

My mentioning of Pedobear had nothing to do with the kids in this case but with the clearly stoked adults who think it's an abuse of power by the cop when he could have done something much, much more destructive and within the eyes of the law legal while saying children can have as much sex as they like (some people even said using condoms and the like).

See what I'm doing here - I'm disagreeing with the OP, staying on topic and stating a case which has proven some people here wrong time and again.

Will kids have sex - sure they will. Is this case unusual - not in the slightest. was the cop abusing his position of authority - not at all.

There. so who's got the popcorn?

-m0r

The fact that both parties were guilty of the same thing yet only one was subject to punishment means the cop was abusing his power. If he had seen two teenagers that weren't related to him having sex and repremanded them both then this would be a non issue, but the fact that he did nothing to his daughter who was also guilty was a direct abuse of his position and power.

Originally posted by Death_Kron


That's a stupid and extremely narrow minded comment.

If you can't differentiate between consensual sex between two teenagers and two mentally disturbed individuals sexually abusing a young boy then you need help.

This is a stupid and extremely narrow minded comment.

If you dont understand that laws are made to protect those of us that cannot protect themselves, then you wouldnt be able to grasp the reason for the law in the first place. The reason that there is a legal age of consent is because the developing mind does not grasp the consequences of some actions. Hell even those of us with many years of experience in the real world do not grasp all consequences all the time.

Get over the fact that you think that sex should be ok, and let your kids run rampant. Leave parenting of our kids to us. As WE SEE FIT. That is the beauty of parenting. Oh and by the way, that kid opened up the can of worms when he had sex with that girl. It made it that father's business.

14 is too young of an age to understand that even though it feels good, STD's are lifelong. Kids are lifelong, hell even a miscarriage or abortion have lifelong consequences.

You should get off your high horse, we do not have outdated morality. We have our own morality. Get over it.

reply to post by Death_Kron


I agree with you to an extent. I do think that saving yourself is old fashioned and uncommon, but not a disastrous way to start a marriage. Think of the fun they will have figuring each other out over the years. Sounds good to some, I'm sure.

Not having anyone or anything to compare it to, in my view, is a sadly missed opportunity. Or many, depending on the person.

I was 30 before I married, and very happy now in year 8 BECAUSE I sowed my oats long ago. I've seen many marriages much younger than mine fail in part to one or the other realizing how much they missed out on experiences with others...having the freedom to explore once the taboo of sex in itself had been lifted. Sure, it wasn't the main or only reason, there are other issues, but it helps me to know that due to our ages, we both have a pretty good sample of what else is out there and don't focus on what if.

I was 17 before I became sexually active, but it was not through lack of effort. I personally see this as a non-issue. As long as she wasn't forced and this was not an 18+ year old man taking advantage. Who's to say SHE was not the aggressor? At those ages, I'll bet she was the more mature....

Originally posted by Death_Kron
You just compared two teenagers having sex to the killers of Jamie Bulger....

To you perhaps.

I compared people who are either capable of free thinking and thus consenting in an act to 2 teenager having sex.

I think you'll find almost all websites that have a sign up upon them ask that people are at least over 13 years old.

See the pattern here.

Children are not seen as capable as being able to understand laws, consequences or as being responsible for their actions in many courts of law.

Did I polarize this hugely by picking a big media case - it's the best way!

-m0r

reply to post by Y2KJMan


A few points you don't seem to be very educated on:

1.) Not all teenagers are that immature to not use contraception

2.) Not all teenagers are that immature to not understand the consequences of their actions

3.) Protection isn't needed for a consensual act

You really need to get a grip of modern life.

Originally posted by King_John

The fact that both parties were guilty of the same thing yet only one was subject to punishment means the cop was abusing his power. If he had seen two teenagers that weren't related to him having sex and repremanded them both then this would be a non issue, but the fact that he did nothing to his daughter who was also guilty was a direct abuse of his position and power.

Again, please read the source material before you comment. His daughter got threated with Juvenile Hall for this, in fact he placed her in his car and started the drive. There was no favoritism, he scared them both.

Read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read.

Originally posted by Cole DeSteele
reply to post by Death_Kron

 

I agree with you to an extent. I do think that saving yourself is old fashioned and uncommon, but not a disastrous way to start a marriage. Think of the fun they will have figuring each other out over the years. Sounds good to some, I'm sure.

Not having anyone or anything to compare it to, in my view, is a sadly missed opportunity. Or many, depending on the person.

I was 30 before I married, and very happy now in year 8 BECAUSE I sowed my oats long ago. I've seen many marriages much younger than mine fail in part to one or the other realizing how much they missed out on experiences with others...having the freedom to explore once the taboo of sex in itself had been lifted. Sure, it wasn't the main or only reason, there are other issues, but it helps me to know that due to our ages, we both have a pretty good sample of what else is out there and don't focus on what if.

I was 17 before I became sexually active, but it was not through lack of effort. I personally see this as a non-issue. As long as she wasn't forced and this was not an 18+ year old man taking advantage. Who's to say SHE was not the aggressor? At those ages, I'll bet she was the more mature....

Spot on.

Have a star

Originally posted by OmiOra
Actually I believe it's in Montana or Idaho, a teenager can start driving at like 14.

With another licensed driver (older than 18) in the seat beside them. It's called a learner's permit.

Doesn't mean they can drive a vehicle by themselves and therefore are not old enough for the responsibility. Which is what the poster's point was that I responded to.

Originally posted by m0r1arty
To you perhaps.

I compared people who are either capable of free thinking and thus consenting in an act to 2 teenager having sex.

I think you'll find almost all websites that have a sign up upon them ask that people are at least over 13 years old.

See the pattern here.

Children are not seen as capable as being able to understand laws, consequences or as being responsible for their actions in many courts of law.

Did I polarize this hugely by picking a big media case - it's the best way!
-m0r

Okay, I see your point to a degree.

But come on, there's a big difference between two teenagers having consensual sex in comparision to young boys sexually abusing, physically assaulting and ultimately killing a baby boy!

You also can't compare the mindset of the average teenage boy/girl with that to the mindset's of Bulger's killers, they were psychologically damaged children; I'm not excusing what they did what so ever but you honestly can't compare the two.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by Y2KJMan

 

A few points you don't seem to be very educated on:

1.) Not all teenagers are that immature to not use contraception

2.) Not all teenagers are that immature to not understand the consequences of their actions

3.) Protection isn't needed for a consensual act

You really need to get a grip of modern life.

Lets start with the difference between knowledge of something and the understanding (or wisdom) that comes after experiencing life.

Just because they are knowledgable that contraceptives exist does not mean they are wise enough to understand that if failure occurs these are the life changing events that can follow.

Just because they consented to eachother, doesnt mean that they were with the correct mental faculty to make that a binding contract (which is what consent is by the way). This is why no person under the age of 18 can sight a prenup in California for example, the law protects the minor from signing something that may adversely affect them due to their lack of wisdom. Not because they dont understand what a prenup is.

Like I said, ours is not an outdated morality. It is our morality. Just because everyone does it, it is not necessarily the right thing to do. If everyone started killing hobos for fun, would you?

Originally posted by Death_Kron
I'm not excusing what they did what so ever but you honestly can't compare the two.

I am and I can.

In the eyes of the law all of these people are underage and as such incapable of thought considered adult enough to be allowed to consent in their actions (thus tried in an adult court of law).

I'll agree that there are huge differences between the 2 cases but it's the similarity that I'm focusing upon;

These people are children and are incapable of consent - thus they fall into the trap of the judicial system for minors which almost inevitably spouts out fully developed criminals as adults.

Ergo - what the father could have done, legally mind, would have set this 15 year old boy up for a life of punishment for his silly actions. What he did do was give him a scare and speak to his parents about it.

It was a judgement call on the cops end and one which I am happy enough with.

-m0r

Originally posted by Y2KJMan

Originally posted by King_John

The fact that both parties were guilty of the same thing yet only one was subject to punishment means the cop was abusing his power. If he had seen two teenagers that weren't related to him having sex and repremanded them both then this would be a non issue, but the fact that he did nothing to his daughter who was also guilty was a direct abuse of his position and power.

Again, please read the source material before you comment. His daughter got threated with Juvenile Hall for this, in fact he placed her in his car and started the drive. There was no favoritism, he scared them both.

Read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read.

Are you saying that having a cop cuff you and arrest you is the same threat as your father bluffing you with a trip to Juvi?

No favoritism?

Originally posted by Lysergic
She consented.

He isn't the boys parents so has no right, and he used his authority for something that isn't part of his job.

Therein lies the problem.

What if the sexes of the two were switched, still make it right?


C'mon now wrong is wrong, and why attack the male? As if he forced her too...

edit on 28-9-2010 by Lysergic because: (no reason given)

They mustve changed the law again. She can't consent at 14, last I checked the age of consent in Cali is 16 and the other boy has to be within two years. now hes within two years but she's only 14. That means it's statutory rape because she cant consent.

NO u must not have any children or ur a child urself. They cant reason at that age to make an informed decision, It is the parents responsibility to make those decisions and teach them how to make the decisions when they become adults and haev to make those decisions for themself.

If it was my daughter the boy woulda got disappeared.
Jaden

reply to post by m0r1arty

Ergo - what the father could have done, legally mind, would have set this 15 year old boy up for a life of punishment for his silly actions. What he did do was give him a scare and speak to his parents about it.

OMG. In what court do you think this would have ended up in any kind of punishment whatsoever?

Dad would have wasted alot of time and paperwork for the Family court judge to give him an "are you kidding me?" look.

Dad didn't make a choice to be lenient on the kid. He had no recourse, in spite of the law, and he knew it.