Predicto Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 So no-one sees a problem with exposing ones-self on top of a 12 year old's faces, while simultaneously simulating a sexual position ? The kid is undoubtedly a total bully and a jerk. He deserves an asskicking. But not the label of sex offender for life. ---------- Post added July-20th-2011 at 10:50 PM ---------- while the laws are in place for a good reason.... No, not really. They pretty much do no good at all except feed our Nancy Grace paranoia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skin'Em84 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 The kid is undoubtedly a total bully and a jerk. He deserves an asskicking.But not the label of sex offender for life. ---------- Post added July-20th-2011 at 10:50 PM ---------- No, not really. They pretty much do no good at all except feed our Nancy Grace paranoia. You fail to read my post in context. While the law of public urination may be in place to catch child perverts holding it at a playground just saying they are pissing, which, IMO, is reasonable, its being applied by unreasonable people to the 'offenders' actually just peeing in public, with no sexual connotation at all (stuck in traffic, drunk, etc...). I in no way agree with how the law is being applied; there needs to be some resonable man clause in most laws today (e.g., offender is drunk, peeing in a bush, it obviously is not a sex crime.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 So no-one sees a problem with exposing ones-self on top of a 12 year old's faces, while simultaneously simulating a sexual position ? I don't see a problem with this ruling. The twerps got what they had coming to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I don't see a problem with this ruling. The twerps got what they had coming to them. When these guys are 30 years old and their neighbors look up "area sex offenders" on the internet, do you the neighbors will have accurate information to assess the danger these guys pose to their children? Or will the parents be unnecessarily burdened with by a false sense of danger? As Henry said earlier, this kind of thing cheapens the meaning of the term 'sex offender' creating confusion and a host of negative consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symbol Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I don't see a problem with this ruling. The twerps got what they had coming to them. As a kid, did you ever play the fart game with someone? Well, it can get you on the list by the letter of the law. What needs to be done, if they are going to stick kids on this list is to tell exactly what they did. Heck, a 15 year old boy has sex with his 15 year old girlfriend who is consenting, and the parents of the girl finds out, the 15 year old boy is a sex offender for the rest of his life. The law has huge holes in it, when it's put up for everyone to see it, but doesn't give the exact reasons why the person is placed on it. Someone brought up looking up their records, what happens if you're in California and the person did this act in Florida? Not as easy to look up records, even though they're public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forehead Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I'm proud of you ACW, it's nice that you want to forgive these two 14 year olds for what they did to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 If the law requires that then the law is stupid...but then in this day of over reaction and "zero tolerance" not much that is profoundly stupid surprises me anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted July 21, 2011 Author Share Posted July 21, 2011 I'm proud of you ACW, it's nice that you want to forgive these two 14 year olds for what they did to you.:slap: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sideshow24 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 This happened to a friend of mine. He was 19 and at a local parade party and some 16 year old kids were being dicks when people were dancing, so he went over and started grinding on them to piss them off. They left, got a cop and now he will forever be a registered sex offender. They were being dicks, so to piss them off he decided to be an even bigger one by grinding on them? Very smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10fttall Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 The bare buttocks part is what bothers me. I don't care where or when you grew up, if you think it's ok or harmless fun to put your bare butt on somebody's face against their will, and start wiggling around, you my friend have a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeaconTheVillain Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I guess I am a sex offender. "Hey did you know that its harder to do sit ups in the dark?" "Really? How so? "Just try it" ****, I was 16 once Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bird_1972 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Sure. It's stupid and immature. The kid should get suspended. Hell, put something on his permanent record. Even that is a little extreme, Henry. I'd settle for a suspension from school and perhaps a public apology in front of the school but that's it. Nothing permanent. Doesn't fit the "crime" at all. ---------- Post added July-21st-2011 at 12:39 PM ---------- They were being dicks, so to piss them off he decided to be an even bigger one by grinding on them? Very smart. So what? Point is that his friend shouldn't be registered as a sex offender. That law sound ridiculous to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiCkSoULjA Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Sitting on someones face with your ass out is ALL WRONG!!! I cant say I disagree with the ruling. I am sorry if some one sits on my duaghters face with there bare ass then its going to be a problem. They brought the hammer down, but FACE to ASS is messed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I have no idea what the fart game is. I guess I hung out with a better crowd. And the other situation you described is totally irrelevant to the current discussion. I think anyone would agree that it is absurd to label a 15 yr old a sex offender for having sex with a 15 yr old girl. And I would have no problem if these kids got the label off once they hit 18. Having it on for life does seem to be a bit much, now that I've given it some thought. 18 is about right. That will teach them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Even that is a little extreme, Henry. I'd settle for a suspension from school and perhaps a public apology in front of the school but that's it. Nothing permanent. Doesn't fit the "crime" at all By "permanent record," I mean school record. What they did was pretty awful and I'd have no problem with it staying with them until they got out of school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeaconTheVillain Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 By "permanent record," I mean school record. What they did was pretty awful and I'd have no problem with it staying with them until they got out of school. Agreed. But to have this on criminal record for life is beyond absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 You fail to read my post in context. While the law of public urination may be in place to catch child perverts holding it at a playground just saying they are pissing' date=' which, IMO, is reasonable, its being applied by unreasonable people to the 'offenders' actually just peeing in public, with no sexual connotation at all (stuck in traffic, drunk, etc...). I in no way agree with how the law is being applied; there needs to be some resonable man clause in most laws today (e.g., offender is drunk, peeing in a bush, it obviously is not a sex crime.)[/quote']No, I read your post in context. I just have the opinion that all "scarlet letter" laws of this nature do much more harm than good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.