My understanding is the Man admitted to doing this. I guess I am taking him at his word
My position is this
If what the guy says is true, then MHO is, it is a crime.
Can you cite the law you think he broke?
let me preface my conditions first
If he (as admitted)achieved some sort of sexual satisfaction or interaction (admitted fetish), then
(dont know the exact name) Illegal sexual contact with a minor.
Just because this isnt intercourse, or fellatio, doesnt mean a sexual event did not happen.
Cite the exact law and we’ll see what constitutes a sexual event. I’ll bet anything that what he did doesn’t cut it.
Im no lawyer. Im a parent. I really dont give a rats ass about the law. If that was my daughter, you can bet I would be pursuing it.
Tell ya what, you seem to be a student of the law books.
Please tell me how someone with a sexual fetish admits what he is doing, with other peoples young kids, which appeases his fetish, isnt sexual in nature according to the law.
Remember, he admitted to the practice.
This board cracks me up with its Cite Fetish
EDIT: I believe I also prefaced all my statements with, “My Opinion”
See post #60 again.
Allow me to attempt to clarify **dngnb8’s **point.
See my post here. Nothing illegal about cartwheels right? But if some creep aproaches my daughter (who isn’t a minor anymore and is in a wheelchair, but play along with me here) and asks her to do cartwheels for him, there’s going to be a problem.
And I would venture to guess that when the cops showed up asking me why I was threatening the creep, and I told him what went down, I’d have the cop’s sympathies - right or wrong.
answered with post 61 and 63
It is you wanting me, a parent, to cite “exact” laws on a message board.
JMHO, fail debate technique failed.
BTW, it seems you dont know what JMHO means. I shall translate
Just My Humble Opinion.
EDIT Seems some people might not understand Fetish. I linked the definition once I shall cut and paste noe
3: Something, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification.
This is the key component of the definition. If the man in this discussion is getting sexual gratification with his interaction with these minor girls, what crime do you think he has committed?
Forgive me, I dont have the “exact” name
OK, consider this.
I walk into the police station and turn myself in for shoplifting. I explain to the police how I was walking by a store and saw a table full of stuffed animals for sale, and I took one. Now, overcome with guilt, I wish to be punished.
The police check out the store, and there, sure enough, is the table I described… and the sign I missed seeing, which says, “Free Stuffed Animals!”
Have I committed a crime?
Because the law doesn’t criminalize something that is merely “sexual in nature.”
And as to the “Cite Fetish,” you do get that when someone is arrested and tried, it has to be for an actual crime, not just a vague sense that they did something that oughta be illegal.
^ You may have clarified your own point, but you have not clarified dngnb8’s point. His point had nothing to do with someone being threatened or how the cops would be sympathetic to it in your imagination.
I know what an opinion is, and I know what it is for you. For you it is a way to make a claim and feel that it’s okay to not back it up. You opined that someone broke a law, yet you don’t know what the laws are and don’t care what the laws are. That makes no sense. What the law is is not a matter of opinion.
No.
Did these girls have a sign that said, Please Use Us for your Fetish? Were they of the age to give that sort of approval?
Your apples to oranges comparison makes a great fruit salad, but doesnt change my opinion
I backed it up sir. Im sorry it isnt to your satisfaction. I linked the definition of a fetish. The Man admitted to his fetish and the girls are underage.
Just because I dont have a degree in law where I can name the “exact” law, doesnt mean I am wrong.
Im sorry that isnt enough for you, but you sure havent shown the man shouldnt be convicted simply because I dont know every exact name of the laws on the books.
For instance, I know that there is a law against how to change lanes, I dont know the name of the law. Does that mean someone is innocent if they break it?
Your fail rebuttal has failed sir
No, you haven’t. You’ve even made excuses that you don’t have to because you said it was “just an opinion.”
So what? That doesn’t back up that a crime was committed.
Non-sequitor. I never inferred that.
Convicted of what? It’s not my job to cite every law and show how his actions don’t fit any of them. You made the claim, the onus is on you.
Yes I have. Seems we agree to disagree here.
Doesnt mean one wasnt commited. There is evidence through confession, evidence based on accepted definition. Sorry that isnt enough for you.
No, you just asked for the “exact” law name. Not sure about you, but I dont have the law books committed to memory about exact names.
On the contrary, you asked for EXACT law name. Ive given examples of infractions without knowing the law name.
Thus, your rebuttal for wanting the exact law name is fail. What I have given are facts
Fact 1: He admitted to interacting with the children on a fetish
Fact 2: American Heritages definition of Fetish has a sexual definition
Fact 3: The children are underage of consent for sexual contact.
So, an adult, interacts with a child based on a sexual fetish (FACT), and you think that isnt illegal? My elementary understanding of the law tells me that something illegal happened. Sorry I dont know the exact name of the law
No. My example was intended to illustrate that even though the poor person confessing to the police THOUGHT he had committed a crime, he really didn’t.
I offered this up because you seem to be very hung up one how important what he thought was.
You are welcome to your opinion, but I am confident that the actions taken do not constitute a crime, and any extant charges will be dismissed before any trial.
Of course it’s not enough. A dictionary definition of a fetish and a confession is not enough to show that a crime was committed. You claim you have an elementary understanding of the law, so you have to know this.
Oh brother. :rolleyes: You’re on the internet! Several links have already been supplied in this thread. You claimed that he had Illegal sexual contact with a minor, and your evidence is what? That asking kids to wear socks is sexual contact because it’s a fetish? Use the internet and show that acts that are non-sexual in nature become sexual once one admits to being turned on by it.
You’re claiming that non-sexual acts can count as being sexual acts based on them being labeled fetishes. The onus is on you to prove it.
Bingo. Correct. That isn’t illegal.
I have a more than elementary understanding of the law.
A man with no history of kiddie crimes is in the park. He sees some young boys and he starts throwing them a football he’s brought along with him. He later admits to a friend that every time he plays ball with boys, it turns him on. Has he broken the law?
dngnb8, it kind of looks like you did not notice the entire discussion that happened between your first post in this thread and yesterday evening. We know the guy said he has a fetish, we know he approached the girls for that reason. The law does not appear to cover this creepy situation (at least the part that didn’t involve him staring at and circling the two girls). If the guy did not do anything illegal, it does not become illegal because he said his motivation was a sexual fetish. It looks like this conduct is not covered by any type of sexual contact with minors or things of that nature because he didn’t touch them or expose himself or anything like that.