Then there is a fundamental lapse in our legal system.
The definition of his admitted fetish. And his admission of guilt. Gee, where could I get the notion
Broad based. Im claiming the arrested parties admission that the acts committed were part of a sexual fetish.
Broad brush elsewhere please
I believe I have. You do not accept his admission of what he has done as proof. I do.
I know you do. When someone admits that they are participating in a sexual fetish with children not old enough to consent, that seems illegal.
Had he sat on the bench, and did not interact with the girls I would agree with you.
However,
He approached them and asked them to perform an action.
This action granted him sexual satisfaction
They were not of the age to consent to participate in his sexual satisfaction.
JMHO, he interacted with these girls, on a sexual level.
The issue that his satisfaction comes from a tool not generally accepted as sexual in nature to you and I, isnt the point. It is to him, and that is the qualifying event.
That’s all you want for evidence that a crime was committed? An admission that something occurred?
I don’t think I read any cites that said he claimed he was guilty of something, but it doesn’t matter if he had. This has all been explained to you already.
You’re claiming more than that; you’re claiming a crime was committed.
Again, this has been explained to you. Lots of people admit to things without those things being crimes- it doesn’t even matter if the person thought it was a crime.
Are you saying that it is legal for an adult to interact with children with sexual purpose or intent?
That has been the basis of my opinion so far. If someone can prove to me his “Fetish” wasnt sexual, you have convinced me
Read the first three quotes I provided in post #82. You said “then there is a fundamental lapse in our legal system” if a dictionary definition and a confession aren’t enough to show that a crime was committed. What you’re now saying above is a huge moving of the goal post and an entirely different statement altogether.
Uggh. Re-read what I wrote! Then pay attention to the conversation.
I’m fine at math, but what is and what isn’t the law isn’t a matter of adding together numbers.
The first part of your last post (where you moved the goal post was this:
I wouldnt discount it. It is part of the information I have provided you, not the sole part.
You haven’t provided the “sole” part. That would be the part where you show that non-sexual acts become sexual one’s based on one’s level of arousal.
You know what he asked you. I’ll repeat it for you:
Show me where the law agrees with you.
You’ve already gone beyond “opinion.” Regarding whether or not a crime was committed, you stated:
There is evidence through confession, evidence based on accepted definition.
It’s up to you to prove it and not claim that a confession is evidence of a crime.
A failure of your showing what crime was committed.
Repeating yourself doesn’t make you right and this isn’t a matter of opinion. The fetish can be of a sexual nature and not be a crime. How many times do the same things need to be explained to you?
He asked them to put on clothes of his request that he brought. Had those clothes been g-strings and fishnet stocking with halter tops, would you consider this different?
At that point, he interacted with them with sexual intent.
I know he did. You’ve been shown the laws and they fail to show his acts were criminal. If you think he is guilty of violating another law, it’s up to you to cite it.
When the state of Florida prosecutes someone, they cannot point to the American Heritage dictionary as the source of the described criminal violation. They must be able to point to a law.
In this case, the police apparently wanted to charge him with something, even though I supsect they knew the charges were unsustainable.
The law in Florida requires more than simply a sexual element in someone’s head. It requires a sexual element in what he does.
To put it succinctly: the sexual element must be objective, not subjective.
Not what I said. Sexual purpose and sexual interaction are two different things. A man can look at kids for a sexual purpose and not commit a crime. If he has a “sexual interaction” with them, he’s committed a crime. Providing socks is not sexual interaction.
So what youre saying is, the definition of a word isnt allowable unless it is defined in the statute?
Happens all the time.
I surely dont shave it.
Well, finally we have made the step. Our prior discussions distinctly kept the sexual part off the charts, it is now a part of the conversation.
Im going to focus my response on the text I turned red, but I think it will address all in time.
I wasnt aware that sexual interaction with kids had categories. It begs the question, at what point does the interaction of a sexual nature become illegal with kids.
In this case, the interaction was direct with purpose of sexual satisfaction, without permission, and with people unable to consent to sexual interaction.
What is the line that must be crossed for this sort of interaction to be illegal?
