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.).
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.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
........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...........
Last edited: