Florida teen fights expulsion and criminal charges for same sex relationship

klippert said:

I am a homophobic man!

Click to expand...

^^^^^I correct this for you klippert, you didn't need to state more.^^^^^

In the first place an arrest warrant does not state all the facts, nor are they always accurate, this one obviously doesn't and wasn't. They are nothing more than an arrest warrant, a document that is basically this person is guilty as some law enforcement agency or agent sees it. If all arrest warrant proved a person's guilt, revealing all of the facts relevant to a case, we wouldn't need any trials. Sadly arrest are made, warrant are issues even when the law enforcement personal know the person isn't guilty or there is not enough real evidence to make the arrest or it happens to be a witch hunt.

We know very little about the true facts in this case. We don't know if the younger girl was entrapped into saying what is stated on the arrest warrant. Nor do we know the number of hours she may have been subjected to interrogation by the sheriff, sheriff deputy or even the prosecutor. We don't know if the younger girl was informed she could have her own legal counsel, which in my opinion based on past legal precedent she had a right to. Nor do we know if her interrogation was recorded and if not why not.

The same goes for Kaitlyn Hunt although it seems she waved her rights to council, we have no idea what really transpired, nor do we know if she was really informed as to the seriousness of the charges which were going to be brought against her, charges which I'm sure were already decided upon. We don't know if her interview was recorded and if not why. We don't know how many hours she was subjected to interrogation. The reading of Miranda Rights does not relieve the interviewing agent or agents of following the law, many defendant's confessions or statement are held by the courts as inadmissible because they were illegally obtained even though Miranda Rights were given. As a matter of fact many people do confess to crimes they didn't commit under intense interrogations. To top that off we live with a justice system that allows our law enforcement agents to outright lie during an interrogation.

Not only have you quoted a right wing publication, you've quoted one which is anti LGBT, one who's author for this article is obviously homophobic. You, at least in my opinion, have already judged Kaitlyn based on an article by an extreme right wing internet publication which itself has judged Kaitlyn guilty only by what her arrest warrant claims and conclusions the author has made without proof or knowledge, along with the fact she lesbian, I'm sure if he had his way all LGBT individuals would be either dead or in prison.

By you underlining this passage from that article, "The New York Times, long the nation's gay paper, has in either, a fit of absence of mind or nostalgia for classic journalistic practice published the actual arrest report." you infer that somehow The New York Times, a respected newspaper, agrees with this article, which they do not, nor are they in the business of convicting anyone without a trial, unlike the wonderful American Thinker.

No matter what you say, no matter what your wonderful source says, Kaitlyn is being prosecuted because she's lesbian. The younger girls parents, the sheriff and the prosecutor are only pursuing this case because it was sex between two girls. The record speaks for itself, the sheriff and the prosecutor have never brought any charges in any opposite sex relationship where a high school girl or boy was eighteen and the younger girl or boy was fourteen or fifteen. And I assure you, sex between opposite sex high school girls/boys eighteen and high school girls/boys fourteen and fifteen happens and at a far greater rate than same sex couples. So if this is to somehow protect the younger children there surely should be some girls/boys already in prison from this county.

"I feel for this girl...but this is turning out to be a bit more than "puppy love"." Your quote klippert. You come to this conclusion based on a biased article, an article which does nothing to seek the truth, in one publication, one which happens to be full of hate speech, not just for LGBT people but for anyone who happens not to believe as they do. To top that off the article had little to do with Kaitlyn and more to do with bashing lesbians and gays. I don't know you klippert but you're not LGBT nor are you even LGBT friendly, you my dear boy are homophobic.

I'd like to know how Kaitlyn's dilemma is anything but two girls in love, puppy love or not. Let me take that back Kaitlyn's dilemma is all about HATE!

StarrOftheNite said:

>sr71plt

most states have exceptions to adult/minor relationships which involve people who are within a fewe years of each other, or which started when both parties are minors.

this is not pedophilia, which is a mental illness, not a crime.

Click to expand...

They are known as romeo and juliet laws, and they are designed to stop statutory rape from being used to prosecute two teenagers having sex, which sadly often goes on down in the hookworm belt, where the religious reich use it as a tool to try and stop teen sex. Statutory rape laws were designed to protect children from adult figures they had no defense against, not fellow teens. A 14 year old girl doesn't see an 18 year old senior as an adult figure,they see them as a peer. It wasn't supposed to make teen on teen sex illegal, but it is what the droolers do with it.

Kaitlyn Hunt update.

Here's the update someone asked about. The update is everyone was duped and this had nothing to do with sexuality but had everything to do with age.

http://supporthonesty.net/

Seems like the humanity will never respect persons that are different.

The evolution may have changed humanity but it will take an infinity before we are all treated like equals by everybody.

This is so sad and f*cked up.... how come stuff like this (usually always) happens in Florida? So embarrassed! SMH

sr71plt said:

The legal aspect of this case (and it can only be a case with the government prosecutors pursuing it--the original article is incorrect. The parents can't press criminal charges; the government does that) doesn't hinge on same-sex preference at all. One girl is 18 and the other is 15 (a juvenile who can't legally consent to anything like this; it started when one also was a minor but continued into her adulthood). This is a straight pedophile case. The authorities probably would have pressed charges just as quickly on an adult man (or woman) and juvenile girl (or boy).

The gay consideration should be given where it's the pure factor.

Click to expand...

John Doe said:

Pedophilia is the primary or exclusive sexual preference of an adult for prepubescent children. Unless the 15 year-old in this case is an extremely late bloomer this has nothing to do with pedophilia.

Click to expand...

sr71plt said:

*Sigh* This is a case of a legal adult messing around with a legal child. Your wearing blinders doesn't change the legal issue here.

Websters: "pedophilia: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object."

Legally in Florida, a fifteen-year-old is a child. Not a word about "prepubescent" in that definition.

Click to expand...

John Doe has it correct. Going by a dictionary definition to define pedophilia (though, if you notice, most dictionaries first and foremost define "child" as someone between birth and puberty; non-pubescent) is extremely poor; that is not the definition of pedophilia that the vast majority of the medical/scientific community uses. When accurately defined, pedophilia is focused on the sexual attraction to prepubescent children, especially the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children since there are child sexual abusers who do not meet the clinical diagnosis standard of being termed "a pedophile" (for example, actually having a strong sexual attraction to prepubescent children). See this scholarly source and this scholarly source or this Psychology Today source for samples of how the medical/scientific community defines the term (the first source, when referring to pubescents and whether they should be a part of the definition of pedophilia, is mainly referring to early pubescents and, despite what it states about the uncertainty with regard to classifying a sexual preference focused on infants, a sexual preference focused on infants usually is classified as pedophilia; sometimes termed nepiophilia or infantophilia). Like that first source notes, pedophilia is not a legal term (not usually anyway). When it comes to a legal adult committing a sexual offense on a prepubescent child or minor under the age of majority or consent, people are not charged with or prosecuted for pedophilia, which is a mental disorder; they are charged with or prosecuted for the act of child sexual abuse or something similar (such as statutory rape).

Considering that the age of majority and age of consent vary with regard to countries or states... If pedophilia were based on the age of majority or age of consent, it would imply that a person is a pedophile in one country or state but not in another, which is ridiculous. How can you have a mental disorder in one U.S. state, for example, but not in another? Defining pedophilia in such a way would also mean that we are suggesting that there is some significant physical and/or mental difference between, for example, a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old, that a person has a mental disorder for finding a 17-year-old sexually attractive but not for finding an 18-year-old sexually attractive, which is also ridiculous. Late teenagers are biological adults (mid teenagers, as well as any pubescent, can also be termed biological adults). Pedophilia, when accurately defined, is about sexual attraction to those without secondary sexual characteristics (or those who look like they are without them, such as early pubescents). People not getting that definition right is part of the problem in some of these cases. And, for goodness sakes, a lot of people in high school are 18 and date younger people who go to their high school, often because these people are all peers and started dating before one of them reached age 18.

PricelessT said:

John Doe has it correct. Going by a dictionary definition to define pedophilia (though, if you notice, most dictionaries first and foremost define "child" as someone between birth and puberty; non-pubescent) is extremely poor; that is not the definition of pedophilia that the vast majority of the medical/scientific community uses. When accurately defined, pedophilia is focused on the sexual attraction to prepubescent children, especially the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children since there are child sexual abusers who do not meet the clinical diagnosis standard of being termed "a pedophile" (for example, actually having a strong sexual attraction to prepubescent children). See this scholarly source and this scholarly source or this Psychology Today source for samples of how the medical/scientific community defines the term (the first source, when referring to pubescents and whether they should be a part of the definition of pedophilia, is mainly referring to early pubescents and, despite what it states about the uncertainty with regard to classifying a sexual preference focused on infants, a sexual preference focused on infants usually is classified as pedophilia; sometimes termed nepiophilia or infantophilia). Like that first source notes, pedophilia is not a legal term (not usually anyway). When it comes to a legal adult committing a sexual offense on a prepubescent child or minor under the age of majority or consent, people are not charged with or prosecuted for pedophilia, which is a mental disorder; they are charged with or prosecuted for the act of child sexual abuse or something similar (such as statutory rape).

Considering that the age of majority and age of consent vary with regard to countries or states... If pedophilia were based on the age of majority or age of consent, it would imply that a person is a pedophile in one country or state but not in another, which is ridiculous. How can you have a mental disorder in one U.S. state, for example, but not in another? Defining pedophilia in such a way would also mean that we are suggesting that there is some significant physical and/or mental difference between, for example, a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old, that a person has a mental disorder for finding a 17-year-old sexually attractive but not for finding an 18-year-old sexually attractive, which is also ridiculous. Late teenagers are biological adults (mid teenagers, as well as any pubescent, can also be termed biological adults). Pedophilia, when accurately defined, is about sexual attraction to those without secondary sexual characteristics (or those who look like they are without them, such as early pubescents). People not getting that definition right is part of the problem in some of these cases. And, for goodness sakes, a lot of people in high school are 18 and date younger people who go to their high school, often because these people are all peers and started dating before one of them reached age 18.

Click to expand...

Agreed. paedophilia is a nice sounding buzz word to whip stupid people into a frenzy. this case was always about homophobic parents. to be honest I can't be arsed trawling through examples, but there were enough examples cited at the time of couples of similar ages being busted and nothing like the punitive action that was seen here resulted from it. The difference? It was older boys with underage girls. I'm also reminded of the case fairly recently of Stacey Rambold, the Montana teacher who raped a 14 year old student, who subsequently killed herself. Nobody in the courtroom was calling him a paedophile and it took a national outcry to get his one-month sentence reviewed. I know it wasn't in Florida, but still - Homophobia is rife in the US and anyone stupid enough to think it wasn't the driving force behind this prosecution has got to be walking around with a bag on their heads.

Jeniinnylons said:

Here's the update someone asked about. The update is everyone was duped and this had nothing to do with sexuality but had everything to do with age.

http://supporthonesty.net/

Click to expand...

I normally would have taken this site with a grain of salt, but with the legal documents attached, and other links showing the evidence, it certainly sheds light on the case and proves itself credible.

It also shows how the lemming mentality applies to some of the less enlightened users of FB and other social media--they will believe anything they read, and they will follow a cause without knowing the real truth behind the case. That father's postings read like melodrama, which they were, and it turns out he had recent criminal charges against him for fraud! So of course, he could write a gut-wrenching tale and dupe the innocents into following his "cause". Oh, and buy a t-shirt while you're at it!

IMHO, the issues of GLBT and statutory rape take a back seat to the manipulative family behind this girl's so-called defense. She's lucky they even offered her a plea bargain after all that transpired! Witness and evidence tampering is not much appreciated in the eyes of the law.