Legal or moral issue age of consent

[Acera]

So you leave out an important detail and I am the knucklehead. I see. Hyperbole aside, a 16 year old boy could get into real trouble for having sex with his 13 year old girlfriend, even though they are only 3 years apart.

No, I did not leave out an important detail. It addressed everything I wanted it to at the time. Said I did not realize that you would need so much more. And no, I would not call you a knucklehead as I don't use that term very often.

So as a person who always wants to use the specific legal detail (no hyperbole), and considers nothing else in most instances you post on here about, how do you see in the following quote of the Texas law applies to your statement about 'real trouble'???? Do you have a legal (you know ex-police speak) type definition of 'real trouble' I can't seem to find that.............

Because from my understanding the situation you present is clearly defined in Texas Law and would pose no 'real trouble' legally. I can only assume you mean that they can be charged and then would have to present the defense (just as a person can be charged with possessing a suppressor in Texas but the fact that there is a affirmative defense to prosecution if you have the federal stamp so usually it is not charged if you have the stamp.).

Sec. 21.11. INDECENCY WITH A CHILD. (a) A person commits an offense if, with a child younger than 17 years of age, whether the child is of the same or opposite sex, the person:
(1) engages in sexual contact with the child or causes the child to engage in sexual contact; or
(2) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person:
(A) exposes the person's anus or any part of the person's genitals, knowing the child is present; or
(B) causes the child to expose the child's anus or any part of the child's genitals.
(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the actor:

(1) was not more than three years older than the victim and of the opposite sex;

(2) did not use duress, force, or a threat against the victim at the time of the offense; and
(3) at the time of the offense:
(A) was not required under Chapter 62, Code of Criminal Procedure, to register for life as a sex offender; or
(B) was not a person who under Chapter 62 had a reportable conviction or adjudication for an offense under this section.
(b-1) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the actor was the spouse of the child at the time of the offense

I guess you could nit pick like he was 13 years and 5 days, and she was 16 years and 15 days so technically more than three years difference as it would be 3+10 days older, but it is just as likely that she would be less than 705 days (365x3) older and still both be considered 13 and 16.

........being a dad of a 19 yo daughter. If a guy that much older was hitting on my daughter, you bet i would have a conversation with him. imo its just wrong.........

I would think a conversation would be in order with your daughter first, remembering that at that age she should be able to make those decisions on her own (and it takes two to tango). Since you may still control the purse strings for her college, car, roof, eats, etc. you might have a better shot with her dumping him as opposed to the other way around. Not sure if you always count on being able to intimidate the guy into changing his course of action. If he does, great. If he tells you to mind your own business or something along those lines, what you going to do??? Makes you think...........

 

[Acera]

Referencing back to some stuff around post 53.

How many folks on here in their mid to late twenties can identify what this building used to be??????

Don't see these things anymore...............

 

[Sugar Land]

Foto Mat

 

[hkusp1]

I'm a firm believer in minding my own business. He's not doing anything illegal, besides have you talked to an 18 y/o girl lately? if he wants to punish himself like that then let him.

 

[jordanmills]

Hi everyone I have a dilemma yesterday I gave a coworker a ride home and he asked if I could pick up his girlfriend and we get to her house and she looks young I mean very young and I asked him how old she is and he says she 18 going on 19 and he is 38-40YRS. I think the age of consent is 17 but is he in violation of the law? I thought there was a provision that if you wanted to have fun time with someone younger than you, you had to be within a certain age? Should I mention something to him if he is in violation of the law or just keep out of his business?

He's an adult, she's an adult, nobody is being forced into anything. It's none of my business or yours.

 

[jordanmills]

MYOB

Why would the law care who has fun time?

It is NOT unlawful for a person to have sex with a 17 year old regardless of age difference.

Under state law. As I understand it, if the act comes into federal jurisdiction, it's 18, with no "romeo and Juliet" clause.

 

[Acera]

Under state law. As I understand it, if the act comes into federal jurisdiction, it's 18, with no "romeo and Juliet" clause.

You sure about that?? From my understanding it is under 18, as in a minor, and there has to be 'criminal sexual act.' So it has to occur where the act is a criminal activity already for it to be in play. Not real sure, but I think the Feds defer to each states laws to determine if what happened can be prosecuted at a federal level. So it generally is not a crime by itself, it is one they can add on to other charges.

 

[RetArmySgt]

Under state law. As I understand it, if the act comes into federal jurisdiction, it's 18, with no "romeo and Juliet" clause.

The UCMJ defines it at 16. Below that is Unlawful Carnal Knowledge.

 

[txbikerman]

No, I did not leave out an important detail. It addressed everything I wanted it to at the time. Said I did not realize that you would need so much more. And no, I would not call you a knucklehead as I don't use that term very often.

So as a person who always wants to use the specific legal detail (no hyperbole), and considers nothing else in most instances you post on here about, how do you see in the following quote of the Texas law applies to your statement about 'real trouble'???? Do you have a legal (you know ex-police speak) type definition of 'real trouble' I can't seem to find that.............

Because from my understanding the situation you present is clearly defined in Texas Law and would pose no 'real trouble' legally. I can only assume you mean that they can be charged and then would have to present the defense (just as a person can be charged with possessing a suppressor in Texas but the fact that there is a affirmative defense to prosecution if you have the federal stamp so usually it is not charged if you have the stamp.).


I guess you could nit pick like he was 13 years and 5 days, and she was 16 years and 15 days so technically more than three years difference as it would be 3+10 days older, but it is just as likely that she would be less than 705 days (365x3) older and still both be considered 13 and 16.





I would think a conversation would be in order with your daughter first, remembering that at that age she should be able to make those decisions on her own (and it takes two to tango). Since you may still control the purse strings for her college, car, roof, eats, etc. you might have a better shot with her dumping him as opposed to the other way around. Not sure if you always count on being able to intimidate the guy into changing his course of action. If he does, great. If he tells you to mind your own business or something along those lines, what you going to do??? Makes you think...........

She was raised right. I dont think that i will ever have to seriously consider what i would do. Yes we still do control the purse strings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[ZX9RCAM]

With guys like me around, I sure am glad I never had kids or a sister.....

 

[Sugar Land]

Me too.

 

[TxDad]

With guys like me around, I sure am glad I never had kids or a sister.....

Perv.

lol