Somebody explain this. The age of consent in GA is 16.
yerfriend
richard
> The girl is 17. He is being charged with "raping a child."
>
> http://www.wsbtv.com/news/21984379/detail.html
The man was married. That makes it "rape".
What I don't understand is, why did the guy making the original complaint
call the cops to begin with? Simply because the guy didn't recognize the PU
truck that's cause to a criminal act?
Even though the man being charged lived on the same street?
Then I see an issue here of, did the cops actually find the pair engaged in
sex or not? Where is it against the law for a man to have a 17 year old
girl in his own home? Bullshit law enforcement.
yerfriend
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:30:33 -0800 (PST), yerfriend wrote:
> > The girl is 17. He is being charged with "raping a child."
>
> >http://www.wsbtv.com/news/21984379/detail.html
>
> The man was married. That makes it "rape".
"Raping a child?" The age of consent is 16 in GA.
And it was obviously consensual.
This clown may not win Citizen of the Year awards, but
what was illegal about it?
> What I don't understand is, why did the guy making the original complaint
> call the cops to begin with? Simply because the guy didn't recognize the PU
> truck that's cause to a criminal act?
> Even though the man being charged lived on the same street?
My guess would be some nosy-ass busybody bitch with nothing else
to do.
> Then I see an issue here of, did the cops actually find the pair engaged in
> sex or not? Where is it against the law for a man to have a 17 year old
> girl in his own home? Bullshit law enforcement.
One would suspect any second -year law student could win this case.
M
Doubtful. The process of adoptions is a legal matter that makes sex
with the girl illegal - by incest laws and child care laws, if not
simply by age.
BTW, unless you really want to be be views as a scummy, cross-posting
creep, you might want to remove some of the groups from your posts.
If you DO want to be views as a mentally ill net-loon, you are doing
EXACTLY the right thing, though.
Mick
yerfriend
> On Dec 17, 12:46 pm, yerfriend <yerfrien...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 17, 12:32 pm, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:30:33 -0800 (PST), yerfriend wrote:
> > > > The girl is 17. He is being charged with "raping a child."
>
> > > >http://www.wsbtv.com/news/21984379/detail.html
>
> > > The man was married. That makes it "rape".
>
> > "Raping a child?" The age of consent is 16 in GA.
> > And it was obviously consensual.
> > This clown may not win Citizen of the Year awards, but
> > what was illegal about it?
>
> > > What I don't understand is, why did the guy making the original complaint
> > > call the cops to begin with? Simply because the guy didn't recognize the PU
> > > truck that's cause to a criminal act?
> > > Even though the man being charged lived on the same street?
>
> > My guess would be some nosy-ass busybody bitch with nothing else
> > to do.
>
> > > Then I see an issue here of, did the cops actually find the pair engaged in
> > > sex or not? Where is it against the law for a man to have a 17 year old
> > > girl in his own home? Bullshit law enforcement.
>
> > One would suspect any second -year law student could win this case.
>
> Doubtful. The process of adoptions is a legal matter that makes sex
> with the girl illegal - by incest laws and child care laws, if not
> simply by age.
They are not biologically related and she is over age of consent.
The kind of "incest" thinking you exhibit is from a couple of
centuries back.
> BTW, unless you really want to be be views as a scummy, cross-posting
> creep, you might want to remove some of the groups from your posts.
They are all relevant.
> If you DO want to be views as a mentally ill net-loon, you are doing
> EXACTLY the right thing, though.
You are the one who appears the loon, so obsessed with being some
kind of net nanny who thinks he has something to enforce.
> Mick
Rhymes with Dick.
M
> > Mick
My name
> Rhymes with Dick.
Yer brain.
Andrew Usher
> The girl is 17. He is being charged with "raping a child."
>
> http://www.wsbtv.com/news/21984379/detail.html
I agree that this case is absurd. As for the adoption, the story says
that the sexual relationship started earlier, so he was not in a
'position of trust'. I do not know what the age of consent is in
Georgia (it's very unfortunate that it can be different between
states) but it certainly never should be above 16, or, as I set out
( http://menswiki.wikidot.com/essay:age-of-majority and elsewhere),
above 15 ideally. Presumably the adoption was just crap made necessary
by our legal system - there's no way I would not regard this woman as
an adult.
Now since this is soc.men, I'll explain that most men's advocates
seems to support the age of consent and want to use it as a weapon
against women, an attitude I find retarded. Of course, such laws were
conceived and are almost entirely used against men.
Andrew Usher
dejablues
"Andrew Usher" <k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6dcf37d6-e136-4c8d...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> yerfriend wrote:
>> The girl is 17. He is being charged with "raping a child."
>>
>> http://www.wsbtv.com/news/21984379/detail.html
>
> I agree that this case is absurd. As for the adoption, the story says
> that the sexual relationship started earlier, so he was not in a
> 'position of trust'.
http://www.cbsatlanta.com/news/21988067/detail.html
"Raymond Chapman was working at the Georgia Baptist Children's Home in
Palmetto when the rape accusations surfaced. The home caters to children in
need of loving homes."
I'd call that a "position of trust".
Andrew Usher
> http://www.cbsatlanta.com/news/21988067/detail.html
> "Raymond Chapman was working at the Georgia Baptist Children's Home in
> Palmetto when the rape accusations surfaced. The home caters to children in
> need of loving homes."
Ah, well, I didn't read closely enough. It doesn't change my opinion,
though. Think, that even if she provided sexual favors expressly
because she thought it would improve her situation, that's nothing
other than what most women do and have always done. I do not think he
was in a position of great power over her or that this was really
coercive.
Further, I think the OP was especially objecting to the reference of
this case as 'rape' of a 'child'. Note especially the ridiculous
parent's comment in the article you link to.
> I'd call that a "position of trust".
Perhaps in the legal sense. But in the practical sense, I wouldn't say
that this is anything unusual.
Andrew Usher
M
> dejablues wrote:
> >http://www.cbsatlanta.com/news/21988067/detail.html
> > "Raymond Chapman was working at the Georgia Baptist Children's Home in
> > Palmetto when the rape accusations surfaced. The home caters to children in
> > need of loving homes."
>
> Ah, well, I didn't read closely enough. It doesn't change my opinion,
> though. Think, that even if she provided sexual favors expressly
> because she thought it would improve her situation, that's nothing
> other than what most women do and have always done. I do not think he
> was in a position of great power over her or that this was really
> coercive.
>
> Further, I think the OP was especially objecting to the reference of
> this case as 'rape' of a 'child'. Note especially the ridiculous
> parent's comment in the article you link to.
I read the parents comments.
I'm not sure what you find ridiculous about them. Anyone with a 10
year-old daughter would be concerned if a neighbor is using a position
of trust to sleep with a 17 year-old girl.
The word "rape" is used in a different sense than "violent coercion",
but if the law defines it as "child rape" that is the appropriate
term, yes? I think the legislators shoudl give it a different term,
but if they have not, then the refernce is completely correct.
> > I'd call that a "position of trust".
>
> Perhaps in the legal sense. But in the practical sense, I wouldn't say
> that this is anything unusual.
"In the practicle sense, this isn't anythiung unusual." What a non-
sequitor.
Usual, unusual? So what? Unusual doesn't hve anything to do with it
either way. Theft is not unusual. Extortion is not unusual. Beating
are not unusual. Crime is not unusual. Doesn't make it less (or more)
of a crime.
It appears as though Chapman used his position of trust to have a
sexual opportunity that he would not have have without that position.
That is very practical to me. If the girl was an adult, she woulld
not be involved in the institutions Chapman was getting paid to work
for in a position of trust.
Mick
Andrew Usher
> I read the parents comments.
>
> I'm not sure what you find ridiculous about them. Anyone with a 10
> year-old daughter would be concerned if a neighbor is using a position
> of trust to sleep with a 17 year-old girl.
Well, that's pretty ridiculous, isn't it? First a man sexually
interested in a 17-year-old is unlikely to be in a 10-year-old, for
reasons that should be patently obvious. Second, only a few predatory
types are likely to go after strangers of any age. There's no reason
to think he was. Sure, one can be 'concerned' about anything, but in
this case, there's significantly less risk than from a random
attacker.
> The word "rape" is used in a different sense than "violent coercion",
> but if the law defines it as "child rape" that is the appropriate
> term, yes? I think the legislators shoudl give it a different term,
> but if they have not, then the refernce is completely correct.
Newspaper headlines don't have to follow strict legal guidelines. And
wouldn't you agree that the emotional effect of 'Man guilty of child
rape' is quite different than 'Man guilty of sex with 17-year-old'?
That is why the original poster's reaction made sense.
> > > I'd call that a "position of trust".
> >
> > Perhaps in the legal sense. But in the practical sense, I wouldn't say
> > that this is anything unusual.
>
> "In the practicle sense, this isn't anythiung unusual." What a non-
> sequitor.
There's no such word as 'practicle' (or 'non sequitor'), and I even
showed you the correct spelling in the sentence you quoted! People
that are sloppy in their spelling are probably sloppy in their
thinking as well.
> Usual, unusual? So what? Unusual doesn't hve anything to do with it
> either way. Theft is not unusual. Extortion is not unusual. Beating
> are not unusual. Crime is not unusual. Doesn't make it less (or more)
> of a crime.
Obviously I was using some unstated premisses. Namely that sex in
general (and sex outside marriage, etc.) is not a crime, and that when
I said 'unusual', I was referring to normal and legal types of sexual
relationships - and if you say this is different because of her age,
you're begging the question.
> It appears as though Chapman used his position of trust to have a
> sexual opportunity that he would not have have without that position.
Well, yeah, he wouldn't have had it otherwise but the same can be said
of any medium where a man meets a woman he will eventually have sex
with, so it can't be used to show anything.
> That is very practical to me. If the girl was an adult, she woulld
> not be involved in the institutions Chapman was getting paid to work
> for in a position of trust.
And where would she be instead? 'The home caters to children in need
of loving homes.' - doesn't that imply that they are being given
opportunities they would not have if they were adults? Do you think
there's a magic law that takes away people's troubles upon turning 18?
You know, (for a woman) being taken in by an older man that insists on
sex is far from the worst thing that can happen. Indeed, the actual
behavior of women indicates that this is a normal state of affairs.
That's reality, as opposed to silly moralising.
Andrew Usher
M
I think it is more like you had some very unlear premises. Alas!
Nothing you ahve said ahs served to clarify them.
> Namely that sex in
> general (and sex outside marriage, etc.) is not a crime, and that when
> I said 'unusual', I was referring to normal and legal types of sexual
> relationships - and if you say this is different because of her age,
> you're begging the question.
I? Beg a question? I'm not sure what question you think I am
begging. We were not referring to a legal sexual relationship for
sure. Whether it was "normal"? not by most folks standards.
I don't think it was different solely because of her age. As teh OP
said, 16 is the usual age of consent ikn GA. This was not a normal,
legal relationship becaseu of his position. No questions being begged
there, just a fact.
> > It appears as though Chapman used his position of trust to have a
> > sexual opportunity that he would not have have without that position.
>
> Well, yeah, he wouldn't have had it otherwise but the same can be said
> of any medium where a man meets a woman he will eventually have sex
> with, so it can't be used to show anything.
I disagree. The same cannot be said for other media. He was being
paid for a position of trust with children.
Taking sexual advantage of that position is not the same as meeting a
girl in a park. It would take a certain social savvy for a man his
age to meet a girl her age in the part and convince her to have sex.
There is no indication that he has such savvy.
If he was not is that position, it would not have been "rape". I'm
guessing he knew that when he took the job and he knew that when he
had sex.
If the girl had been over 18? His behavior would have been merely a
reprehesible abuse of his position and cause for dismissal, not a
felony. Of course, if she had been 18, he would not have been
adopting her.
Also, in the US, girls rapidly change between the time they turn 17
and teh time they turn 18. There is a good chance that if he had
waited until she was 18, she would have outgrown the childish draw of
petty authority figures. I've seen it happen.
Do you really NOT understand why this was a crime? Or are you being
rhetorical?
Mick
Andrew Usher
> > > Usual, unusual? So what? Unusual doesn't hve anything to do with it
> > > either way. Theft is not unusual. Extortion is not unusual. Beating
> > > are not unusual. Crime is not unusual. Doesn't make it less (or more)
> > > of a crime.
> >
> > Obviously I was using some unstated premisses.
>
> I think it is more like you had some very unlear premises. Alas!
> Nothing you ahve said ahs served to clarify them.
I explain them in the next paragraph.
> > Namely that sex in
> > general (and sex outside marriage, etc.) is not a crime, and that when
> > I said 'unusual', I was referring to normal and legal types of sexual
> > relationships - and if you say this is different because of her age,
> > you're begging the question.
>
> I? Beg a question? I'm not sure what question you think I am
> begging. We were not referring to a legal sexual relationship for
> sure. Whether it was "normal"? not by most folks standards.
What do you think is the meaning of the word 'unusual'? I mean to say
that I am classifying it within the universe of sexual relationships,
and say that it can be _compared_ to 'legal and normal' ones.
> I don't think it was different solely because of her age.
Well, you've said that it would be different if she were 18, didn't
you? What am I supposed to believe?
> > > It appears as though Chapman used his position of trust to have a
> > > sexual opportunity that he would not have have without that position.
> >
> > Well, yeah, he wouldn't have had it otherwise but the same can be said
> > of any medium where a man meets a woman he will eventually have sex
> > with, so it can't be used to show anything.
>
> I disagree. The same cannot be said for other media. He was being
> paid for a position of trust with children.
>
> Taking sexual advantage of that position is not the same as meeting a
> girl in a park. It would take a certain social savvy for a man his
> age to meet a girl her age in the part and convince her to have sex.
> There is no indication that he has such savvy.
So, by implication, men with 'such savvy' and more entitled to sex
morally? That's what you seem to be saying.
> If he was not is that position, it would not have been "rape". I'm
> guessing he knew that when he took the job and he knew that when he
> had sex.
Some 'rape' when she agreed to be adopted by him!
> If the girl had been over 18? His behavior would have been merely a
> reprehesible abuse of his position and cause for dismissal, not a
> felony. Of course, if she had been 18, he would not have been
> adopting her.
As I said, the fact of adoption is nothing but a legal technicality.
> Also, in the US, girls rapidly change between the time they turn 17
> and teh time they turn 18. There is a good chance that if he had
> waited until she was 18, she would have outgrown the childish draw of
> petty authority figures. I've seen it happen.
Yeah, I'm sure. Women change so much in a few months, and it just
happens to be around the legal age of majority and the same for all
girls. And I don't think she was drawn to him just because he was an
'authority figure'.
> Do you really NOT understand why this was a crime? Or are you being
> rhetorical?
Are you a fucking cop?
Andrew Usher
dejablues
>
> There's no such word as 'practicle' (or 'non sequitor'), and I even
> showed you the correct spelling in the sentence you quoted! People
> that are sloppy in their spelling are probably sloppy in their
> thinking as well.
>
Says the man who can't spell "premises"!
a425couple
"yerfriend" <yerfr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:14738492-2fe3-4ce0...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> The girl is 17. He is being charged with "raping a child."
> http://www.wsbtv.com/news/21984379/detail.html
You may not like this explanation
(and I'm not going to spend enough time on it
to make it fully clear), but the core issue is around:
"Official Code of Georgia, 1992 Edition, Title 16
16-6-1. Rape
16-6-2. Sodomy
16-6-3. Statutory rape
16-6-4. Child molestation
16-6-5. Enticing a child for indecent purposes
16-6-5.1. Sexual assault against persons in custody ----
16-6-1. Rape.
(a) A person commits the offense of rape when he has carnal knowledge
of a female forcibly and against her will. Carnal knowledge in rape
occurs when there is any penetration of the female sex organ by the male
sex organ."
1. This 'dude' was adopting the victim.
2. There was "carnal knowledge" / sexual contact.
3. She was not able to freely with-hold consent from a person
in power over her, and thus is legally incapable of giving consent (to him),
hence it is automaticly "against her will".
If she was 17, and a stranger or friend, then there would appear
to be no crime if sexual contact.
However, if there is custodial control of a 17 year old,
the person holding that control (parent, teacher, police
officer, parole officer) CAN NOT have sexual contact.
M
>
> > If he was not is that position, it would not have been "rape". I'm
> > guessing he knew that when he took the job and he knew that when he
> > had sex.
>
> Some 'rape' when she agreed to be adopted by him!
Indeed. That makes it particularly pernicious. Probably makes it a
violatioin of incest laws as well.
>
> > If the girl had been over 18? His behavior would have been merely a
> > reprehesible abuse of his position and cause for dismissal, not a
> > felony. Of course, if she had been 18, he would not have been
> > adopting her.
>
> As I said, the fact of adoption is nothing but a legal technicalit
You state that as though it were a simple fact. I view it more as a
wild conjecture on your part.
>
> > Also, in the US, girls rapidly change between the time they turn 17
> > and teh time they turn 18. There is a good chance that if he had
> > waited until she was 18, she would have outgrown the childish draw of
> > petty authority figures. I've seen it happen.
>
> Yeah, I'm sure. Women change so much in a few months, and it just
> happens to be around the legal age of majority and the same for all
> girls.
In my experience, that is exactly correct. I suspect in a different
culture it would be different, but that is how it appears to me here
in the US.
> And I don't think she was drawn to him just because he was an
> 'authority figure'.
Evidence?
Everything I've seen indicates that he would not have a chance with a
17 year -od without his postition of authority.
> > Do you really NOT understand why this was a crime? Or are you being
> > rhetorical?
>
> Are you a fucking cop?
No.
Are you fucking stupid?
M
> M wrote:
> > Taking sexual advantage of that position is not the same as meeting a
> > girl in a park. It would take a certain social savvy for a man his
> > age to meet a girl her age in the part and convince her to have sex.
> > There is no indication that he has such savvy.
>
> So, by implication, men with 'such savvy' and more entitled to sex
> morally? That's what you seem to be saying.
Exactly!
Why would you think it odd that men with the social skills to
successfullly initiate non-coercive sexual activity are more morally
entitled to sexual activity? In a free country that is the way it is.
Michael Snyder
It is an unnecessary leap from "moral" to "entitled".
It is moral to successfully initiate non-coercive sexual activity.
That does not mean that people who are handicapped by the lack
of social skills are less "entitled" than the differently abled.
Andrew Usher
> > There's no such word as 'practicle' (or 'non sequitor'), and I even
> > showed you the correct spelling in the sentence you quoted! People
> > that are sloppy in their spelling are probably sloppy in their
> > thinking as well.
>
> Says the man who can't spell "premises"!
That spelling is not a mistake. I'd only spell it 'premises' if I'm
talking about property.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > > If he was not is that position, it would not have been "rape". I'm
> > > guessing he knew that when he took the job and he knew that when he
> > > had sex.
>
> > Some 'rape' when she agreed to be adopted by him!
>
> Indeed. That makes it particularly pernicious.
No, it doesn't. Think about it: the opposite would be 'she would not
agree to be adopted by him'. Isn't it the case that that would make it
more incriminating, not less?
> > > If the girl had been over 18? His behavior would have been merely a
> > > reprehesible abuse of his position and cause for dismissal, not a
> > > felony. Of course, if she had been 18, he would not have been
> > > adopting her.
>
> > As I said, the fact of adoption is nothing but a legal technicality.
>
> You state that as though it were a simple fact. I view it more as a
> wild conjecture on your part.
A conjecture is a guess about unproven facts. Here, the only (obvious)
conjecture I am using is that he adopted her legally so that she could
live with him: do you agree? Since that would not be necessary if she
were 18 (or, possibly, if she were not in this home), it makes the
adoption w.r.t. this case a legal technicality.
> > > Also, in the US, girls rapidly change between the time they turn 17
> > > and teh time they turn 18. There is a good chance that if he had
> > > waited until she was 18, she would have outgrown the childish draw of
> > > petty authority figures. I've seen it happen.
>
> > Yeah, I'm sure. Women change so much in a few months, and it just
> > happens to be around the legal age of majority and the same for all
> > girls.
>
> In my experience, that is exactly correct. I suspect in a different
> culture it would be different, but that is how it appears to me here
> in the US.
If this is not your self-delusion, it is because of their leaving high
school at that time, which I can disregard.
> > And I don't think she was drawn to him just because he was an
> > 'authority figure'.
>
> Evidence?
>
> Everything I've seen indicates that he would not have a chance with a
> 17 year -od without his postition of authority.
Do you know anything more than has been reported in the news
articles?
Besides, your statement is NOT equivalent to mine. I was talking about
her motivations, which are certainly not determined by how they met.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > So, by implication, men with 'such savvy' and more entitled to sex
> > morally? That's what you seem to be saying.
>
> Exactly!
>
> Why would you think it odd that men with the social skills to
> successfullly initiate non-coercive sexual activity are more morally
> entitled to sexual activity? In a free country that is the way it is.
It's the old is-ought fallacy again! Besides, it's always been my
contention that men making this argument are really, at bottom, just
jealous (of men that are in positions to easily land teenage girls).
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> It is an unnecessary leap from "moral" to "entitled".
>
> It is moral to successfully initiate non-coercive sexual activity.
>
> That does not mean that people who are handicapped by the lack
> of social skills are less "entitled" than the differently abled.
Yes. In my opinion, though, there is no meaning of 'non-coercive'
that's consistent with how anybody views the problem, and that's the
root of my disagreement. Coercion is a matter of degree, and if you
were consistently against all coercion you would (a fortiori!) have to
condemn the capitalist wage-labor system, among other things.
Andrew Usher
Day Brown
> The girl is 17. He is being charged with "raping a child."
>
> http://www.wsbtv.com/news/21984379/detail.html
civilized, if anything, more so.
Given the record, going all the way back to Plotinus, the law is not to
protect the virgins, but the assets of the families since that's who
tends to get them. Vatsyayana, in the Kama Sutra, has a section where he
advises the Shakti to be careful not to cause economic hardship on the
family of the man she performs ritual with.
M
> Besides, your statement is NOT equivalent to mine. I was talking about
> her motivations, which are certainly not determined by how they met.
Certainly?
HAHAHAHA!
Andrew Usher
OK, my assertion was not ideally precise. But you should know what the
point was.
Andrew Usher
M
How should I know what your point was?
Telepathy?
Michael Snyder
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:32:12 -0700, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> The man was married. That makes it "rape".
>
> with a charge or indictment of rape.
Nor anyplace else, for pete's sake!