California - Because it needs its own thread

Stuff we should click on.  Be sure to state Not Work Safe, if applicable.  KTHX.
User avatar
Vince
Posts: 8620
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

California - Because it needs its own thread

Postby Vince » Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:03 pm

TheCatt wrote:The bill does not allow for that discretion for victims who are 10 or 8 years old. It's for teens who are 15 to 17 only. So 15-25 is covered (sketchy), but also 15-18 (Reasonable)

SB 145 appears to allow adults to victimize minors by luring them with the intent to have sex, and then shields the predator from being automatically registered as a sex offender, as in the case of a 25 year old luring a 15 year old for sex, or a 22 year old luring a 12 year old.


They keep using 15 year olds in their examples, but that doesn't appear to be the lower end of the bill.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren

User avatar
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 37753
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

California - Because it needs its own thread

Postby TheCatt » Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:10 pm

Vince wrote:Source of the post They keep using 15 year olds in their examples, but that doesn't appear to be the lower end of the bill.

It's spelled out in the original bill, which SB 145 is amending.

And from the article
There is no age limit or range specified, except for existing law which already excludes lewd acts with children under 14.

I think it's 14 and under, not "under 14"
It's not me, it's someone else.

User avatar
Vince
Posts: 8620
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

California - Because it needs its own thread

Postby Vince » Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:31 pm

TheCatt wrote:Source of the post
Vince wrote:Source of the post They keep using 15 year olds in their examples, but that doesn't appear to be the lower end of the bill.

It's spelled out in the original bill, which SB 145 is amending.

Good God, lawyers should be shot. I was just trying to find the age stipulations in the original bill. Can you point me to the section that covers that?
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren

User avatar
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 37753
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

California - Because it needs its own thread

Postby TheCatt » Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:42 pm

Vince wrote:Source of the post I was just trying to find the age stipulations in the original bill. Can you point me to the section that covers that?

Honestly, I cannot. Cuz I cannot read that piece of shit either. And it references some other sections that may specify the specific crimes.

I would hope that the discretion piece is limited to 15-17, but who knows. But the idea of a HS senior being automatically a registered sex offender for having sex with a HS freshman seems absurd. I guess freshman often includes 14 year olds, and rarely 13 year olds.

NC allows for discretion at 4 years, with an age of consent of 16 instead of 18 like CA. So that in theory means discretion for a 12 year old and 16 year old, which seems icky.
It's not me, it's someone else.

User avatar
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 46567
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

California - Because it needs its own thread

Postby GORDON » Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:53 pm

My kid will be a 13 year old freshman.
Fuuuuuuck YOU.

User avatar
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 45518
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

California - Because it needs its own thread

Postby Leisher » Wed Jul 10, 2019 3:03 pm

TheCatt wrote:Source of the post So 15-25 is covered (sketchy), but also 15-18 (Reasonable)


Yeah 15-18 is the biggest leap I'm willing to take, and even that makes me cringe a bit. Huge difference between a 15 and 16 year old. Big difference between a 18 and 19 year old too.

TheCatt wrote:Source of the post The bill does not allow for that discretion for victims who are 10 or 8 years old.


I don't think it should be ok with anyone 17 or older having sex with a 14 year old or younger. Should a 15 year old be able to molest an 8 year old? No sir.

The bill just bugs me. I think they left in too much gray area.

TheCatt wrote:Source of the post But the idea of a HS senior being automatically a registered sex offender for having sex with a HS freshman seems absurd.


Agreed, but what if the senior is someone who flunked twice and the freshman someone who skipped two grades? :D
“I'm proud to introduce our new head coach, Mike Tomlin”
― Dan Snyder

User avatar
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 37753
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

California - Because it needs its own thread

Postby TheCatt » Wed Jul 10, 2019 3:21 pm

Leisher wrote:Source of the post Agreed

Well, that's what the discretion is for I guess
It's not me, it's someone else.

User avatar
Vince
Posts: 8620
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

California - Because it needs its own thread

Postby Vince » Wed Jul 10, 2019 3:46 pm

TheCatt wrote:Source of the post
Vince wrote:Source of the post I was just trying to find the age stipulations in the original bill. Can you point me to the section that covers that?

Honestly, I cannot. Cuz I cannot read that piece of shit either. And it references some other sections that may specify the specific crimes.

I would hope that the discretion piece is limited to 15-17, but who knows. But the idea of a HS senior being automatically a registered sex offender for having sex with a HS freshman seems absurd. I guess freshman often includes 14 year olds, and rarely 13 year olds.

NC allows for discretion at 4 years, with an age of consent of 16 instead of 18 like CA. So that in theory means discretion for a 12 year old and 16 year old, which seems icky.

I agree about most of that. Not sure about a senior with the freshman. I'm okay with senior vs sophomore. Our high school was 9th through 12th grades, so the freshmen to senior in our school would have been an almost Bill Clinton to intern level of unequal, with freshmen coming into school thinking they've reached a level of maturity that they have not and being taken advantage of because of it.

This bill bothers me a lot. And there's a lot of ambiguity that bothers me as well (because we don't speak legal gobbley-goop). 10 years is too much. The fact that it's the LGBT coalition doing this bothers me. The age disparity among gay men seems to be the rule rather than the exception. But... there are a number of reasons I would never live in CA. We can just throw this on the heap.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren

User avatar
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 45518
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

California - Because it needs its own thread

Postby Leisher » Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:15 am

Vince wrote:Source of the post And there's a lot of ambiguity that bothers me as well (because we don't speak legal gobbley-goop). 10 years is too much. The fact that it's the LGBT coalition doing this bothers me.


If nothing else, all of this should give someone pause.

What's the purpose of this bill? What was the trigger incident that necessitated its creation?
“I'm proud to introduce our new head coach, Mike Tomlin”
― Dan Snyder

User avatar
Vince
Posts: 8620
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

California - Because it needs its own thread

Postby Vince » Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:22 am

Leisher wrote:What's the purpose of this bill? What was the trigger incident that necessitated its creation?

That's me. I completely understand the argument of "treating vaginal sex as less of an offense than other types of sex creates a legal bias against homosexuals". The whole 10 year change is what sets off alarms and raises more flags than the UN.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren

User avatar
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 37753
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

California - Because it needs its own thread

Postby TheCatt » Thu Jul 11, 2019 10:00 am

Vince wrote:Source of the post
Leisher wrote:What's the purpose of this bill? What was the trigger incident that necessitated its creation?

That's me. I completely understand the argument of "treating vaginal sex as less of an offense than other types of sex creates a legal bias against homosexuals". The whole 10 year change is what sets off alarms and raises more flags than the UN.

Agree.
It's not me, it's someone else.

User avatar
Troy
Posts: 5810
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:00 am

California - Because it needs its own thread

Postby Troy » Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:16 pm

Put a strong offer in on a house north of Berkeley and had the U Cal Berkeley blow everyone out of the water by $100k and a non contingency offer for a professor. As in they don’t even need to get the place appraised, Cal just handed them the check. Like competing with Walmart.

Brutal, we fight on.

User avatar
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 37753
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

California - Because it needs its own thread

Postby TheCatt » Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:41 pm

Troy wrote:Source of the post Put a strong offer in on a house north of Berkeley and had the U Cal Berkeley blow everyone out of the water by $100k and a non contingency offer for a professor. As in they don’t even need to get the place appraised, Cal just handed them the check. Like competing with Walmart.

Brutal, we fight on.

Holy fuck.
It's not me, it's someone else.

User avatar
Vince
Posts: 8620
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

California - Because it needs its own thread

Postby Vince » Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:55 pm

Insane!
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren

User avatar
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 45518
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

California - Because it needs its own thread

Postby Leisher » Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:14 pm

I do not envy you searching for a house in Cali. That market is insane.
“I'm proud to introduce our new head coach, Mike Tomlin”
― Dan Snyder

User avatar
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 45518
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

California - Because it needs its own thread

Postby Leisher » Thu Jul 18, 2019 10:33 am

Berkeley is banning all gender language.

Thank goodness people will no longer be traumatized by words like manhole and manpower.
“I'm proud to introduce our new head coach, Mike Tomlin”
― Dan Snyder

User avatar
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 37753
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

California - Because it needs its own thread

Postby TheCatt » Thu Jul 18, 2019 11:01 am

The revised city documents also will replace instances of gendered pronouns, such as "he" and "she" with "they," according to the ordinance.

English needs a better gender neutral singular term.
It's not me, it's someone else.

User avatar
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 45518
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

California - Because it needs its own thread

Postby Leisher » Thu Jul 18, 2019 11:08 am

TheCatt wrote:Source of the post
The revised city documents also will replace instances of gendered pronouns, such as "he" and "she" with "they," according to the ordinance.

English needs a better gender neutral singular term.


How about "fucktard"?
“I'm proud to introduce our new head coach, Mike Tomlin”
― Dan Snyder

User avatar
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 37753
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

California - Because it needs its own thread

Postby TheCatt » Thu Jul 18, 2019 11:18 am

Leisher wrote:Source of the post
TheCatt wrote:Source of the post
The revised city documents also will replace instances of gendered pronouns, such as "he" and "she" with "they," according to the ordinance.

English needs a better gender neutral singular term.


How about "fucktard"?

This issue existed before the current gender stuff.
It's not me, it's someone else.

User avatar
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 45518
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

California - Because it needs its own thread

Postby Leisher » Thu Jul 18, 2019 11:32 am

TheCatt wrote:Source of the post
Leisher wrote:Source of the post
TheCatt wrote:Source of the post
English needs a better gender neutral singular term.


How about "fucktard"?

This issue existed before the current gender stuff.


I agree with you, but my recommendation remains the same.
“I'm proud to introduce our new head coach, Mike Tomlin”
― Dan Snyder


Return to “Internet Links”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests