Cop gets 20-day sentence for sex with girl, 15

[BBQorMILDEW]

Originally Posted by Iginla

This thread disgusts me.

I don't mind the jokes, but I actually get the feeling there are people in this thread that think what this creep did wasn't so bad.

First off, I don't think the cop is a pedophile or that he goes out looking for children to molest. I believe it was a crime out of opportunity and he will likely never rape a minor again. It was likely just a mistake but lets call it what it was, a sick creepy mistake by a police officer who should have known a whole lot better. The cop got off lightly with the law, but did suffer harsh personal consequences.

I'm just amazed how people are laughing this off making it seem like it's no big deal for a 39 year old police officer taking advantage of a 15 year old kid.

If it disgusts you, why click on the thread? You've said your piece in the first two pages, why do you have to sit here and antagonize everyone? God forbid it of anyone has a different approach to dealing with the story.

The guy did something wrong and he's going to pay dearly for that.

I just don't understand why you need to come in and complain some more.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by SebC

What makes speed limits arbitrary is that they are so far below the design speeds. You could design a road for 200 km/h but it would still have a 110 km/h speed limit because that's the highest allowed in Canada.

Sorta. It's true that large portions of roads are built well over design speeds. But where there are lots of constraints, they will design roads down to the minimum design requirement. That's where higher speeds can get more dangerous.

But again, where the arbitrary numbers come from are the safety factors built into those design speeds.

Anyway why am I discussing roads again? I thought we were talking about sexy kids or something.

[Alberta_Beef]

People have to know all the facts before placing a harsh judgement. You have to consider certain factors before automatically deciding someone is the scum of the earth. I for one would want to know certain things before passing a sentence as a judge.

I think one question that should be asked is how old does the girl look?

Now I am not saying the guy should be absolved of responsibility over this but sometimes it is true that you have absolutely no clue how old a person is. I have a cousin with a 14 year old daughter who looks at least 20 and has older guys hitting on her all the time and it scares the hell out of me because if she isn't forthright about her age none of these guys would have a clue. So you can't just hear 15 year old and assume she looks (and acts like she is 15).

A second question that needs to be asked is did she say she was older than 15?

I think this is important, especially with the 1st question I have. If she looks 20, acts 20 and says she is 20 then suddenly that grey area is much much larger because now in the guys mind the dilemma is now moral and not legal.

A third question to be asked is did he reveal he was a police officer?

If she had no idea he was a cop then he never abused his authority, because you can only abuse power if the other person knows you have it.

A fourth question is does the 39 year old look 39?

If he is one of those lucky #######s that looks like he is 10 year younger, then the girl might be less inclined to share her real age with him.

Now I am not for a second suggesting the girl is at fault here, but I think without all the facts it is impossible to pass judgement and chastise the decisions made by the judge and even he cop.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

You're right, the real problem here is the girl.

Let's play another game.

A 39 year old guy rapes a 15 year old girl and nothing ever happens to him, while the girl spends years and years trying to get over the abuse. He might feel bad about his mistake, or he might use his power to do it again, and again, and again. Your situation has happened about 1 for every 1000 times mine has throughout history.

There's a very easy way to stop all this: Stop sleeping with children. Stop sleeping with people that were very recently children. If you can't understand why you shouldn't sleep with teenagers, seek help. If you aren't mature enough to do that, stay away from everyone.

He deserves his punishment. And for every rapist that gets caught and punished, there is another that walked free.

At what age should everyone stop sleeping with children or recent children? All seems very black and white to you. As soon as you turn 18? I suppose you were completely fine with Marcus Dixon getting 10 years in jail for sleeping with a 16 yo when he was 18?

You talk about this girl like she was some pure, sixteen year old virgin, who is devastated about what this cop took from her. From reading the article, I don't see anything to suggest that she even regretted or was upset about having sex with him. Seemed like she had been kind of bragging about it. I see nothing to suggest that she thought of that night any differently than any other encounters she may have had. She wasn't the one reporting the cop, it was her friend trying to rat out the cop when she got busted for something else. I would actually guess she is more upset about what happened to the cop than about what he did to her.

But the law's the law, and he broke it. He got what seems like an appropriate sentence.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

People have to know all the facts before placing a harsh judgement. You have to consider certain factors before automatically deciding someone is the scum of the earth. I for one would want to know certain things before passing a sentence as a judge.

I think one question that should be asked is how old does the girl look?

Now I am not saying the guy should be absolved of responsibility over this but sometimes it is true that you have absolutely no clue how old a person is. I have a cousin with a 14 year old daughter who looks at least 20 and has older guys hitting on her all the time and it scares the hell out of me because if she isn't forthright about her age none of these guys would have a clue. So you can't just hear 15 year old and assume she looks (and acts like she is 15).

A second question that needs to be asked is did she say she was older than 15?

I think this is important, especially with the 1st question I have. If she looks 20, acts 20 and says she is 20 then suddenly that grey area is much much larger because now in the guys mind the dilemma is now moral and not legal.

A third question to be asked is did he reveal he was a police officer?

If she had no idea he was a cop then he never abused his authority, because you can only abuse power if the other person knows you have it.

A fourth question is does the 39 year old look 39?

If he is one of those lucky #######s that looks like he is 10 year younger, then the girl might be less inclined to share her real age with him.

Now I am not for a second suggesting the girl is at fault here, but I think without all the facts it is impossible to pass judgement and chastise the decisions made by the judge and even he cop.

If it's even a possibility, you ask. Hell when I was 25 and at a bar if I was worried a girl looked young I'd ask because I'd feel dirty even chatting up a 16 or 17 year old.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

If it's even a possibility, you ask. Hell when I was 25 and at a bar if I was worried a girl looked young I'd ask because I'd feel dirty even chatting up a 16 or 17 year old.

Never once when I was in a bar during my mid-20s did I ever think about asking a girl her age. Maybe I am just screwed up like that, but I am assuming that they got into the bar by someone checking their ID. If they are going to lie about it to them, they would probably lie about it to me.


There was a comedian, I want to say Louis CK, who had a bit about this that will be sending me straight to hell. Maybe someone can point me to a youtube clip.

"I don't want to have sex with under-aged girls"
"Who am I kidding, everyone wants to have sex with under-aged girls, that's why they have laws against it"

Bottom line is
a) It is illegal
b) It is pretty gross if you think about it with more than just your junk.
c) Some people are incapable of thinking with more than just their junk, so they need to go to jail.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Thor

Do you consider a 16 yr old a child?

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

Yes.

16 and 17 year olds are not children. I was in my first year of university at age 17. I think a lot of posters here are forgetting what it was like to be that age, and the kind of things kids at that age do. At 16 and 17, I was totally capable of making my own decision when it came to sex and understanding the consequences. It wasn't even a gray area.

Was a police officer suppossed to come around my dorm room and make sure I wasn't having sex with people I couldn't consent with? The current age of consent of 16 is totally acceptable.

Anyone stating that 16 and 17 year olds aren't capable of making these decisions is living in some kind of puritan fantasy. I wouldn't sleep with someone that young, as I find it reprehensible for moral reasons, however, there's a differnce between acts that are morally unacceptable and those that are criminal.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by blankall

16 and 17 year olds are not children. I was in my first year of university at age 17. I think a lot of posters here are forgetting what it was like to be that age, and the kind of things kids at that age do. At 16 and 17, I was totally capable of making my own decision when it came to sex and understanding the consequences. It wasn't even a gray area.

Your brain doesn't fully develop until you are 21 or so.

Not being a kid doesn't fully equate to being an adult.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by blankall

16 and 17 year olds are not children. I was in my first year of university at age 17. I think a lot of posters here are forgetting what it was like to be that age, and the kind of things kids at that age do. At 16 and 17, I was totally capable of making my own decision when it came to sex and understanding the consequences. It wasn't even a gray area.

Was a police officer suppossed to come around my dorm room and make sure I wasn't having sex with people I couldn't consent with? The current age of consent of 16 is totally acceptable.

Anyone stating that 16 and 17 year olds aren't capable of making these decisions is living in some kind of puritan fantasy. I wouldn't sleep with someone that young, as I find it reprehensible for moral reasons, however, there's a differnce between acts that are morally unacceptable and those that are criminal.

Agreed 16/17 yr olds are not children, that's why I asked about the definition. I was learning how to use a rifle to kill commies when I was 17.

That being said, both females in this story appear from what has been relayed to be in less than a good head space.........

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Your brain doesn't fully develop until you are 21 or so.

Not being a kid doesn't fully equate to being an adult.

I find that highly suspicious that the age you picked fits so neatly with American drinking laws.

And not every brain is the same. By some standards, some brains never develop.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Your brain doesn't fully develop until you are 21 or so.

Not being a kid doesn't fully equate to being an adult.

The brain and mind continue to develop throughout your lifespan. At 31 I'm capable of making better decision than I was at 21. That doesn't mean at 21 that I was incapable of making decisions and understanding the consequences.

Like I said before, at 16 and 17, "kids" are going to be in their final year of highschool or graduated and usually living on their own. They aren't kids anymore. You either had the most boring last year of highschool/first year of university ever, or you are being wilfully blind to what people at that age are actually like.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I find that highly suspicious that the age you picked fits so neatly with American drinking laws.

And not every brain is the same. By some standards, some brains never develop.

Agreed. Like I said in my othher post, the brain and mind are always developing. Picking an arbitrary age when you become an "Adult" is pretty ridiculous. And arbitrarily choosing 21 is even more ridiculous. At that age I was in my final year of undergrad and about to enter the workforce. 50 years ago, not so coincidentally, I would have been getting married and about to have my own children.

The age of 21 is essentially a way of enforcing prohibition. Up until very recently, you would have been in school/army/training for a trade until age 21. Then you would have been married with children afterwards. Choosing the age of 21 essentially cut out all partying, which was the goal of the puritans who put that law in place.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I find that highly suspicious that the age you picked fits so neatly with American drinking laws.

And not every brain is the same. By some standards, some brains never develop.

You are right, my post was not very precise. What I should have said was most normal brain development is finished in the early 20s.

The connection to the US d inking age is merely a coincidence.

[Stay Golden]

n/m it sounds like he did lose his job. Good!

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Rathji

You are right, my post was not very precise. What I should have said was most normal brain development is finished in the early 20s.

The connection to the US d inking age is merely a coincidence.

So then what about married 18 yr olds with children? I know that nowadays it is difficult to raise a family when you are 18, but 50 years ago that was not the case at all. Were they undeveloped brain-wise? Did that somehow negate the decisions they made as not responsible?

What do you even mean by "normal brain development"?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Knalus

So then what about married 18 yr olds with children? I know that nowadays it is difficult to raise a family when you are 18, but 50 years ago that was not the case at all. Were they undeveloped brain-wise? Did that somehow negate the decisions they made as not responsible?

What do you even mean by "normal brain development"?

Brain development is the process of permanent neural pathways forming in the brain. Most of this happens in early childhood but continues and typically finishes in the early 20s.

This does not mean they can or cannot do certain things, especially things that an adult would do, like go to school, live on their own, raise a family etc.

This does not mean they cannot be responsible.

This does not mean that people under 21 are unable to make choices, but it does imply that the choices they make may not be the same as a fully developed brain would make. This is all I am saying.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Brain development is the process of permanent neural pathways forming in the brain. Most of this happens in early childhood but continues and typically finishes in the early 20s.

This does not mean they can or cannot do certain things, especially things that an adult would do, like go to school, live on their own, raise a family etc.

This does not mean they cannot be responsible.

This does not mean that people under 21 are unable to make choices, but it does imply that the choices they make may not be the same as a fully developed brain would make. This is all I am saying.

Care to back this up with a scientific study of some kind?

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Brain development is the process of permanent neural pathways forming in the brain. Most of this happens in early childhood but continues and typically finishes in the early 20s.

This does not mean they can or cannot do certain things, especially things that an adult would do, like go to school, live on their own, raise a family etc.

This does not mean they cannot be responsible.

This does not mean that people under 21 are unable to make choices, but it does imply that the choices they make may not be the same as a fully developed brain would make. This is all I am saying.

Yeah, it does look like there is some additional changes that occur past a median age of 15 into the early twenties, but there are also some brain chemistry changes that occur well into your thirties. At least it looks that way from reading a few papers since I asked (I wasn't trying to be a troll, I'm honestly curious). It appears most brain structure and chemistry changes that a person goes through finishes at about puberty. After that date, the structure does continue to develop, but at a drastically reduced rate from that experienced during puberty. And the type of changes are pretty interesting, too. It appears that first there is an overproduction of synapses, receptors, and function, followed by an elimination of those features. http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~raha/CogSci600_web/Readings-S05/wainwright4.pdf

But the idea that brain structure changes are a primary driver in the choices that a person will or won't make is something I have difficulty with, purely from a developmental point of view. It's also likely that those structures will change based on the experiences a person has, too. So it is someone's experience that likely drives the process.

A person's experience changes throughout their life. A decision made by a 45 yr old is likely to be different from that made by an 18 yr old, or by a 16 yr old. Indeed, a decision made by an 80 yr old is also going to be different. Brain chemistry and structure changes then, too - but not in a way that helps that argument. Brain size and volume shrinks after the early 20's. That doesn't mean that a 45 yr old is going to make worse decisions than a 20 yr old.


That doesn't clarify anything as to when someone is capable of making "good" decisions. It's an incredibly difficult question, and I doubt if there is actually any right answer to it.

[jammies]

I think we can all agree that age 39 you should know enough to make the decision that sleeping with some teenager after first getting her drunk is very, very wrong. Even if there are 15-16 year olds that are mature enough to make adult decisions, the law is there to protect others that aren't that mature, and it seems better to err on the side of caution and punish those that definitely *should* know better.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

If your standard is having a fully mature brain, your not an adult until somewhere between 25 and 30.

Sure, if the scientific literature bears it out. That can still differ from the "legal" definition of adult, however.

I think you misunderstood my post, though. I was responding to Thor's question, not making a statement on how the legal age should be determined.