Could we please not drag Pete Townshend’s name through the mud anymore until there is at least more available evidence against him?
The problem is not if they had sex or not; my problem is this line from the article:
Like most cops, this one is too stupid to realize if a crime happened or not, so he is going to have to think for a “week or 2” till he can fabricate something to charge them with!! I can almost see him now:
“Hey Sheriff Andy, wheres the “BJ” box to check off on my ticket book?”’
“Well I don’t know,Barney we ain’t never had nothing like this happen in Mayberry before.”
“I guess as soon as I can think of something, I will just write it in on the back of the ticket , Sheriff Andy.”
“You do that , Barney, and keep up that mighty fine police work.”
Maybe the reason the cops have to think a “week or 2” is because what those kids did wasn’t a criminal act. It might have been in poor taste or in poor judgement, but no one forced anyone into anything, and they were both around the same age. I am sure plenty of people got a little head around the time they were 15 or 16. Then again from your response maybe some people are still waiting to get a little head.
In a regular conversation I’d agree with you. But in this situation we’re talking about a possible sexual assualt and (at least here) anyone under 18 is defined legally as a child.
Therefore, legally, they are children.
So what, pk, is your response to the point of this OP, which is that “we’ll figure out something to charge them with eventually” is a pretty piss-poor way to run a law enforcement operation?
Right? The consensus here is that something illegal happened, and it’s pretty clear that you agree with that consensus. So how is it that the entire Silver Lake PD can’t figure it out?
Against some potential defendants, delayed charges are justified – an investigation is required to determine who instigated, who cheered, who merely looked the other way and tried to study for that 1st period math final, etc.
But if what the primaries did here is so obviously illegal, why is it the Silver Lake PD can’t tell us what it was?
Or perhaps the reason is that depending on the details, it might have been one of a number of criminal acts and they need time to determine which is appropriate. Someone certainly committed a crime, even if only the crime of public lewdness, or indecent exposure. It may have been a sexual assault, or the spectators may have prevented the bus driver from stopping the performance. We have no idea, and chances are good that the police didn’t have any idea before doing some investigation either. Or do you think the police should arrest and charge people before the investigation? (There was no indication in the article that anyone had been arrested yet)
I’m still wondering how cheering on a bus equates to disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct. There was plenty of yelling on the buses I rode in junior high and high school, and no one was ever arrested.
WAG: Perhaps one night, while the First Amendment was asleep, it became illegal to show support for someone breaking the law?
Mr2001, I can easily envision a situation in which the cheering and carrying on could have been an attempt to intimidate/pressure one or both people into performing an act they were not comfortable with: imagene being a 15 year old boy surrounded by a group of your peers, all calling you a pussy and a faggot as you try to turn down oral sex? Imagene being a 15 year old girl surrounded by a group of your peers all shouting “suck his cock, bitch, suck his cock!” Mobs of teenagers can be scary, feral things, and it is reasonable for the police to investigate and see what happened. I’d hate to think that these kids were bullied into this and no one ever found out about it because of the attitude that there isn’t anything wrong with cheering someone on.
Certainly, if that was what happened, the spectators ought to be dealt with somehow. I’m not convinced that pressing charges is the right way to do it, though, unless the police are prepared to investigate every accusation of peer pressure and bullying.
I’m no expert on Massachusetts law.
However, the General Laws of Massachusetts appear to proscribe the conduct; Chapter 265: Section 23 provide in pertinent part:
This clearly permits charging the 16-year-old.
It’s unclear to me what crime may have been committed by those who cheered… but I would also point out Chapter 272: Section 35, which reads:
Now, this is just the statute – I don’t have the background with Massachusetts to know how case law shapes the statute. But based on this, it appears to me that at least both primary actors could be charged.
I hope, BURNER, that this information answers your seemingly mistaken impression about what the law requires.
- Rick
Backpack: $27
Lunch Money: $7
Newspaper: $1.00
Time spent grounded: 50 hours
Getting a blowjob that makes the news (while in high school): Priceless
DaLovin’ Dj
::: Poly points silently to DJ’s aunt and young female cousin, lurking in the corner of the thread and trying to stifle giggles :::
How come you found all that stuff out so quickly , but the cops in the article need 2 weeks to do it? If a bunch of people on a message board can figure out that what happened was in some way illegal and even find laws to back it up , why cant the local police seem to do it? After all , it didnt take us here at the SDMB 2 weeks to find something to charge them with.I hope if anyone reading this lives there that they never need help from the police. It will take them a month to figure out that armed robbery is a crime.
Well, considering my aunt was the one who let me watch the R rated movies at her house when I was a young’un (“Revenge of the Nerds” about 50 times one year!), the ones I couldn’t watch at Grannies, and considering my cousin was cussin’ within months of learning to speak, I’m not too worried. It is a little wierd though . . .
Just so you know, my aunt maybe a devout a christian, but she can draw a pistol lightning quick, could probably haul bags of feed up a hill without breaking a sweat (while the same task would break me), and she most certainly will call “Bullshit” on a fellow should it be required. A babe in the woods she aint, bless her heart.
My wonderful cousin is in college and I won’t rat her out here, but let’s just say she has got a wild side too. She shares some of my driving skill issues, my fondness for a good time, and she also is fully aware of the R-rated world. She’s also studying genetics in school in a most impressive fashion. One interesting discussion we had recently was how she will reconcile her faith with the things they teach her about evolution inh college. I think I’ll start a thread about that soon . . .
Anyway, I’m more worried about them finding the posts where I reveal that I’m actually a top level super agent who risks his life daily to protect truth, justice, and good movies. I wouldn’t want them to worry about my safety, but I must think of the people before myself. Why just yesterday, I was nearly killed making sure the people attempting a “Perfect Strangers” reunion project were stopped. They broke like a twig at my hands, just like so many other diabolical plots in the past, but there were a couple of hariy moments.
Ooops, they just lit up the DJ signal in the sky. Gotta get to police headquarters, looks like Carrot Top has struck again . . .
DaLovin’ Dj
The powers of the SDMB are great indeed. If only the courts and the politicians would check with us first, the world would be a better place. Unfortunately, they tend to shy away from truth and reason, preferring instead sensationalism and grandstanding.
DaLovin’ Dj
The quote from Massachusetts law starts out “Whoever unlawfully”. Is “unlawfully” defined elsewhere in the statutes? IIRC, when Colorado tightened the laws against sex with minors a while back, exemptions were made for people who were close to each others age. A 16 year old would not be charged for having sex with a 15 year old, but a 21 year old would.
However, lewd conduct or indecent exposure charges would certainly seem appropriate here for the participants. The spectators? Got me there.
I would much prefer that the police take their time and get it right.
Sua
This Year’s Model:
As I said, I don’t presume to be an expert on Massachusetts law; perhaps an attorney licensed in that jurisdiction may add some light.
But a quick reading of the MA General Laws reveals that both adultery and fornication (sexual intercourse between a married and an unmarried person, and sexual intercourse between unmarried persons) are criminalized. (Chap 272, Sections 14 and 18). It is possible that these are the instances of “unlawful” sexual intercourse that Chap 265 Sec. 23 is referring to.
I defer, of course, to a Massachusetts attorney. This is not intended as legal advice or the practice of law.
- Rick
The legal term for a person under age 18 is a “minor”, not a “child.”
And Bricker (others among our bar contingent here too, but Bricker preeminently) can ferret out the most obscure bits of statute and case law faster than a speeding brief, more powerful than a steaming legislature, able to leap tall precedents at a single bound… Well, this is getting a bit much, but I am singularly impressed with his skills at locating pertinent law.
As Sua said, it’s best that the police take the time to do it right. There’s no need to charge immediately unless the persons are in custody, which doesn’t sound like the case here. Sounds like they’re still at school and the police know where to find them if charges are laid.
The police may have a very good idea what charges they want to lay, but they may want to run them past the local DA for his/her opinion as to what charges are most appropriate or can be proven.
Alternatively, if the facts are at all uncertain, the police may want to do some further investigation. From the facts given, I can think of one crucial factor that the police may think it important to investigate in some detail: was the act purely consensual, or was there any element of coercion, of either of the principals? A purely consensual sex act in public is one thing; a sex act in public where one of the parties felt coerced, possibly by the mob mentality of the onlookers, is something quite different on the seriousness scale.
Investigating that issue could take a bit of time, given the need to talk to all the witnesses and then to make the assessment of what charges the facts would support (again, possibly with the local DA’s involvement).
Given the potential long-term effects of charging individuals with sexual offences, don’t you think that the police should take the time to investigate it fully?