Teen caught for sex with mannequin

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by KidCanada

I dunno, im gunna have to go with rouge on this one. Until the act is commited, it doesnt warrent the tag that goes with it.

And he's not getting a label until he's convicted.

Would you want your wife/gf/little girls living next door to this kid?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by FireFly

There is a huge difference between smoking a joint and 'busting a fatty' and ****ing a mannequin in the middle of an open store.

It wasn't a store.

Smoking a joint isn't all that bad, but should your actions get worse, it would be nice to have a way to catch you when you become a drug kingpin and start selling crank to schoolchildren.

[KidCanada]

Originally Posted by FireFly

And he's not getting a label until he's convicted.

Would you want your wife/gf/little girls living next door to this kid?

No, i would not....but i would not like them living next to potential drug dealers either, but what can you do about that?

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Today's Special.... Justice.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Well, it happened in an arts center, so maybe the kid claims it was a conceptual performance. Arts centers have all sort of crazy shinguard. He could probably get a Canada Council grant if he lived north of the border.

As for the mannequin, poor choice. Should have gone with a CPR dummy. Now there's some good lovin'.

[Kjesse]

CPR Dummy.... hah!

At least its functional.

If he messed up the mannequin the most he might have done criminally wrong likely involves some sort of property damage offence.

This guy has some serious problem though. Labelling him a sex offender seems a little serious, but at the same time as a society you'd want to have a handle on weirdos like that.

Must have involved some sort of drugs. That's the only way to explain behaviour like that outside some serious mental issue.

What the courts should do with people like that presents a difficult problem.

But he'll achieve notoriety in his hometown, and I expect the punishment he'll get, whatever the courts do, will be rather harsh.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Must have involved some sort of drugs. That's the only way to explain behaviour like that outside some serious mental issue.

News reports suggest that was not the case.

What's more likely is that Plentyhorse isn't all that bright. Unbright is as unbright does. Being unbright and 18 with hormones in overdrive.

With an obsession apparently with that particular mannequin. The mannequin had been found in various states of dishevelment in weeks leading up to the eventual in flagrante delecto.

What the courts should do with people like that presents a difficult problem.

But he'll achieve notoriety in his hometown, and I expect the punishment he'll get, whatever the courts do, will be rather harsh.

Well now he's officially the Town Clown. Dangerous? I guess that remains to be determined, but I'd say he's just a goof with a youthful indiscretion.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Wow. Talk about over-reaction.

Are they both assaults?

As a female, (and look at it from the perspective of one,) you see a guy who's obviously a sexual deviant. Should his actions ever get worse, it'd be nice to know they have a way to catch the guy. Seriously though, if the guy is convicted, he has to report that to potential employers anyways. "Oh you know, I was convicted of indecent exposure once... No sir, I wasn't having sex with my girlfriend... it was a mannequin at the Bay."

Come on! The guy is a sexual deviant. People who watch kiddy porn are on the list too, even if they've never touched a little kid. You saying because it's a 'minor' sexual offense they shouldn't be on there?

Okay I see where you are comming from, but what if this guy had been caught having sex with his girlfriend in public instead? Probably still could/would be convicted of indecent exposure, but is he a sex offender? Seems to me he'd be a pretty normal guy, but if we aren't allowed to difereniate between serious and minor sex offences then this seemingly normal guy who likes to have consentual sex with his legal age girlfriend would have to be labeled as a sex offender, and presumably his girlfriend would as well.

Sometimes it isn't black and white.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Come on! The guy is a sexual deviant. People who watch kiddy porn are on the list too, even if they've never touched a little kid. You saying because it's a 'minor' sexual offense they shouldn't be on there?

There still is a victim in the world of child pornography that is where the difference lies. There still is a kid on the other end of the computer who is being assualted, and the guy in your hypothetical situation is paying to watch a child being abused. He is equivalent to the person abusing the child.

Who has really been hurt (physically) by some very lonely boy deciding to have sex with a mannequin?

But when did Mannequins get nipples?

[troutman]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093493/

Mannequin (1987):

Just because Jonathan's fallen in love with a piece of wood, it doesn't make him a dummy.
Some guys have all the luck!
When she comes to life, anything can happen!

Cast overview, first billed only: Andrew McCarthy.... Jonathan SwitcherKim Cattrall.... Ema 'Emmy' Hesire

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Delgar

CPR Dummy.... hah!

At least its functional.

"Son, that's a pretty unsual method of clearing the airway..."