God Bless America -_-
Video after the link
http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605#.TwTFotTeDJIl
QuoteA young Oklahoma mother shot and killed an intruder to protect her 3-month-old baby on New Year's Eve, less than a week after the baby's father died of cancer.
Sarah McKinley says that a week earlier a man named Justin Martin dropped by on the day of her husband's funeral, claiming that he was a neighbor who wanted to say hello. The 18-year-old Oklahoma City area woman did not let him into her home that day.
On New Year's Eve Martin returned with another man, Dustin Stewart, and this time was armed with a 12-inch hunting knife. The two soon began trying to break into McKinley's home.
As one of the men was going from door to door outside her home trying to gain entry, McKinley called 911 and grabbed her 12-gauge shotgun.
McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO that she quickly got her 12 gauge, went into her bedroom and got a pistol, put the bottle in the baby's mouth and called 911.
"I've got two guns in my hand -- is it okay to shoot him if he comes in this door?" the young mother asked the 911 dispatcher. "I'm here by myself with my infant baby, can I please get a dispatcher out here immediately?"
The 911 dispatcher confirmed with McKinley that the doors to her home were locked as she asked again if it was okay to shoot the intruder if he were to come through her door.
"I can't tell you that you can do that but you do what you have to do to protect your baby," the dispatcher told her. McKinley was on the phone with 911 for a total of 21 minutes.
When Martin kicked in the door and came after her with the knife, the teen mom shot and killed the 24-year-old. Police are calling the shooting justified.
"You're allowed to shoot an unauthorized person that is in your home. The law provides you the remedy, and sanctions the use of deadly force," Det. Dan Huff of the Blanchard police said.
Stewart soon turned himself in to police.
McKinley said that she was at home alone with her newborn that night because her husband just died of cancer on Christmas Day.
"I wouldn't have done it, but it was my son," McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO. "It's not an easy decision to make, but it was either going to be him or my son. And it wasn't going to be my son. There's nothing more dangerous than a woman with a child."
Castle Doctrine....tainted.
I am glad that she was armed and able to protect her baby. :)
:cheers: Good shootin', mom.
We had a case here a couple of months ago where a chick shot a burglar in the face with a 12 gauge and killed him. No charges were filed. :cool:
Good for her. A happy ending for everyone!
""I have two guns, one for each of ya.""
:cheers:
Quote from: Caliga on January 04, 2012, 07:28:53 PM
We had a case here a couple of months ago where a chick shot a burglar in the face with a 12 gauge and killed him. No charges were filed. :cool:
That'll do the trick
Yeah, she probably saved her life and/or her baby's life, but still the trauma of killing someone has to be tough on her. Too bad it took the cops so long to get there - she was on the phone with the dispatcher for over 20 minutes. But you'd think in that time the two creeps assaulting her home would realize that the woman has called 911 and wouldn't have hung around so long.
So apparently her husband was in his 50s, and they had been married 2 years. Wtf America?
Quote from: KRonn on January 04, 2012, 08:42:55 PM
Yeah, she probably saved her life and/or her baby's life, but still the trauma of killing someone has to be tough on her. Too bad it took the cops so long to get there - she was on the phone with the dispatcher for over 20 minutes. But you'd think in that time the two creeps assaulting her home would realize that the woman has called 911 and wouldn't have hung around so long.
I'm guessing they weren't the smartest criminals in the world.
Quote from: KRonn on January 04, 2012, 08:42:55 PM
Yeah, she probably saved her life and/or her baby's life, but still the trauma of killing someone has to be tough on her. Too bad it took the cops so long to get there - she was on the phone with the dispatcher for over 20 minutes. But you'd think in that time the two creeps assaulting her home would realize that the woman has called 911 and wouldn't have hung around so long.
Something isn't right about her story--hopefully this turns out to be a positive as people notice and get her and her child the help they need.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 04, 2012, 08:45:12 PM
So apparently her husband was in his 50s, and they had been married 2 years. Wtf America?
Oklahoma.
Why is everyone assuming that she was protecting her baby? For all we know, the intruders may have just wanted to rape her.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 04, 2012, 08:45:12 PM
So apparently her husband was in his 50s, and they had been married 2 years. Wtf America?
Jealous hmm?
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 08:57:20 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 04, 2012, 08:45:12 PM
So apparently her husband was in his 50s, and they had been married 2 years. Wtf America?
Jealous hmm?
This isn't Ed we're talkin about.
I'm probably just projecting. :(
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 08:59:10 PM
I'm probably just projecting. :(
You know anything about those Russian brides?
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 08:57:20 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 04, 2012, 08:45:12 PM
So apparently her husband was in his 50s, and they had been married 2 years. Wtf America?
Jealous hmm?
What sensible person wants a teenager? (Note: dps fails on the sensible bit.)
You can present indulgence of your own fetishes as the minimum requisite for sexual competence, and they're usually thin.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 08:57:20 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 04, 2012, 08:45:12 PM
So apparently her husband was in his 50s, and they had been married 2 years. Wtf America?
Jealous hmm?
Hardly. A 50 year old guy marrying a 16 year old--apparently without even a kid involved--that is abuse imo. Someone should have stepped in (like say, the representatives of the state marrying them).
Okies might have the parents permission thing for under 18's.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 04, 2012, 09:07:21 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 08:57:20 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 04, 2012, 08:45:12 PM
So apparently her husband was in his 50s, and they had been married 2 years. Wtf America?
Jealous hmm?
Hardly. A 50 year old guy marrying a 16 year old--apparently without even a kid involved--that is abuse imo. Someone should have stepped in (like say, the representatives of the state marrying them).
I will concede I'd prepared to make marriages in minority unlawful. But I don't think it quite steps to the level of abuse based solely on the fact of an age difference.
Quote from: DGuller on January 04, 2012, 08:56:11 PM
Why is everyone assuming that she was protecting her baby? For all we know, the intruders may have just wanted to rape her.
What 20 something male is going to want to steal a baby? And I doubt there was much to steal.
Which still certainly justifies her shooting the guy though.
Maybe they were gonna eat it. Or sell it. The important thing is they didn't get away with it.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 09:04:16 PM
You can present indulgence of your own fetishes as the minimum requisite for sexual competence, and they're usually thin.
You also have to deal with teenage angst and attitude. Let alone sexual incompetence and immaturity.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 04, 2012, 06:41:53 PM
"I've got two guns in my hand -- is it okay to shoot him if he comes in this door?" the young mother asked the 911 dispatcher. "I'm here by myself with my infant baby, can I please get a dispatcher out here immediately?"
Are police dispatchers notoriously tough in Oklahoma? I would think an officer would be more help in that situation.
:huh:
:berkut:
More info
http://www.news9.com/story/16448996/accomplice-charged-in-blanchard-shooting-death
QuoteBLANCHARD, Oklahoma -
Dustin Stewart called 911 after a home invasion ended in gunfire. Stewart told a dispatcher he fled the scene when his friend Justin Martin made his way into a Blanchard home.
"My name is Dusty Stewart and I think it was my friend that got shot."
Stewart told the dispatcher, "I don't know what he was trying to do. I stood at the fence and told him to come on and I don't know what he did."
A mother inside the home pulled the trigger killing Justin Martin.
Now, the Grady County District Attorney's office is charging Dustin Stewart with murder.
Sarah McKinley, the mother of a three-month-old boy also in the home, spent several minutes on the phone with 911 before she shot and killed Martin.
McKinley told the dispatcher, "This guy is up to no good, my husband just passed away and I am here by myself with my infant baby."
McKinley explains Martin repeatedly knocked on the door before the dispatcher asks, "Are your doors locked?"
McKinley replies, "Yes, I have two guns in my hand. Is it okay to shoot him if he comes in this door?"
The dispatcher said she could not tell her to do that.
Before police arrived, McKinley says she made the split second decision to protect her three month old.
When police arrived, they say they found Justin Martin wearing a glove on his left hand and holding a knife.
At the same time, Stewart reported to police he did not know what happened but court documents show Stewart told police he and Martin devised a plan to burglarize the residence.
Stewart told investigators Martin knew Sarah McKinley's 58-year-old husband recently died of cancer and they expected to find prescription pain pills in the home.
Grady County First Assistant District Attorney James Walters said the admission provides enough evidence to prosecute, "resulting from that Mr. Martin lost his life and I believe the statutes are very clear under these facts that felony murder is appropriate."
Prosecutors say they have no reason to believe McKinley knew the intruders.
Stewart now faces a first-degree murder charge. He is due back in court tomorrow for a bond hearing
The family of Justin Martin e-mailed the following statement:
thanks for your concern and understanding. Here is what we are able to say at this time.
Our family is working through this as best we can. We don't have many details about how and why this happened, but we do know that much of the speculation and rumors are not consistent with the Justin his many friends, family and community knew him to be. We believe that as the police work through this, a truer picture of Justin will be painted, and we'll be able to grieve in peace. This is a terrible ordeal for everyone involved, and we're praying for everyone dealing with the aftermath.
Co-conspirator felony murder. :bleeding:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 04, 2012, 10:00:42 PM
Co-conspirator felony murder. :bleeding:
Yeah, I kinda understand it when an innocent bystander is killed during the commission of a felony...but when one of the felons themselves is killed by the victim, charging the other participants with his/her "murder" is really rather silly.
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 04, 2012, 10:02:45 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 04, 2012, 10:00:42 PM
Co-conspirator felony murder. :bleeding:
Yeah, I kinda understand it when an innocent bystander is killed during the commission of a felony...but when one of the felons themselves is killed by the victim, charging the other participants with his/her "murder" is really rather silly.
I support it here. These guys find out a guy dies and decide to arm themselves with knives and break into the home to get any meds left behind? They need to be taken off the street for a very long time. The girl has done half the job for us, we need to finish it, and I don't think attempted burglary is going to be enough.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 04, 2012, 10:14:44 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 04, 2012, 10:02:45 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 04, 2012, 10:00:42 PM
Co-conspirator felony murder. :bleeding:
Yeah, I kinda understand it when an innocent bystander is killed during the commission of a felony...but when one of the felons themselves is killed by the victim, charging the other participants with his/her "murder" is really rather silly.
I support it here. These guys find out a guy dies and decide to arm themselves with knives and break into the home to get any meds left behind? They need to be taken off the street for a very long time. The girl has done half the job for us, we need to finish it, and I don't think attempted burglary is going to be enough.
Nothing attempted about it, and in Okla. 1st degree burglary already carries 7 to 20, with a mandatory minimum to serve 85% before being eligible for parole.
Quote from: garbon on January 04, 2012, 08:59:53 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 08:57:20 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 04, 2012, 08:45:12 PM
So apparently her husband was in his 50s, and they had been married 2 years. Wtf America?
Jealous hmm?
What sensible person wants a teenager? (Note: dps fails on the sensible bit.)
Not gonna deny it. Besides, being sensible about love means you end up like either Mono or CdM.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 04, 2012, 10:20:14 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 04, 2012, 10:14:44 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 04, 2012, 10:02:45 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 04, 2012, 10:00:42 PM
Co-conspirator felony murder. :bleeding:
Yeah, I kinda understand it when an innocent bystander is killed during the commission of a felony...but when one of the felons themselves is killed by the victim, charging the other participants with his/her "murder" is really rather silly.
I support it here. These guys find out a guy dies and decide to arm themselves with knives and break into the home to get any meds left behind? They need to be taken off the street for a very long time. The girl has done half the job for us, we need to finish it, and I don't think attempted burglary is going to be enough.
Nothing attempted about it, and in Okla. 1st degree burglary already carries 7 to 20, with a mandatory minimum to serve 85% before being eligible for parole.
I'd feel more comfortable with a murder conviction. :)
Quote from: dps on January 04, 2012, 10:37:32 PM
Not gonna deny it. Besides, being sensible about love means you end up like either Mono or CdM.
Tell me you aren't pursuing a teenager. :frusty:
Also, Mono and CdM are perhaps the least sensible about love.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 04, 2012, 10:44:37 PM
Quote from: dps on January 04, 2012, 10:37:32 PM
Not gonna deny it. Besides, being sensible about love means you end up like either Mono or CdM.
Tell me you aren't pursuing a teenager. :frusty:
Also, Mono and CdM are perhaps the least sensible about love.
That's one hell of a value judgement.
Sounds like the law actually worked well here but
Quote
"You're allowed to shoot an unauthorized person that is in your home. The law provides you the remedy, and sanctions the use of deadly force," Det. Dan Huff of the Blanchard police said.
Brings to mind a lot of situations where things will be a lot less right than in this case...
Quote from: alfred russel on January 04, 2012, 10:14:44 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 04, 2012, 10:02:45 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 04, 2012, 10:00:42 PM
Co-conspirator felony murder. :bleeding:
Yeah, I kinda understand it when an innocent bystander is killed during the commission of a felony...but when one of the felons themselves is killed by the victim, charging the other participants with his/her "murder" is really rather silly.
I support it here. These guys find out a guy dies and decide to arm themselves with knives and break into the home to get any meds left behind? They need to be taken off the street for a very long time. The girl has done half the job for us, we need to finish it, and I don't think attempted burglary is going to be enough.
Well, in my "world of justice", they'd both deserve execution anyway.
Question about felony murder: Is there a sort of time limit between the committing of the first felony and the homicide? Say two guys try to break into this house with knives. The woman threatens them with a gun. First guy wisely decides to run off. Second guy stays behind for some amount of time before kicking in the door and getting shot. How long a time period does it take for the first guy to no longer be tied to the second guy for the murder?
Quote from: alfred russel on January 04, 2012, 10:44:37 PM
Quote from: dps on January 04, 2012, 10:37:32 PM
Not gonna deny it. Besides, being sensible about love means you end up like either Mono or CdM.
Tell me you aren't pursuing a teenager. :frusty:
His wife was like eighteen when they started dating.
Reading the story I've come to the conclusion that Dustin Stewart is pretty damn stupid. Why the hell did he tell the police what he and his friend were planning to do? If he had said nothing it would have been much harder to prosecute him. His friend caught a pretty big fish though.
The teen mother married to the geriatric does seem weird though.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2012, 11:49:16 PM
Reading the story I've come to the conclusion that Dustin Stewart is pretty damn stupid. Why the hell did he tell the police what he and his friend were planning to do? If he had said nothing it would have been much harder to prosecute him. His friend caught a pretty big fish though.
The teen mother married to the geriatric does seem weird though.
50's isn't usually geriatric, but then it is Oklahoma.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 11:47:34 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 04, 2012, 10:44:37 PM
Quote from: dps on January 04, 2012, 10:37:32 PM
Not gonna deny it. Besides, being sensible about love means you end up like either Mono or CdM.
Tell me you aren't pursuing a teenager. :frusty:
His wife was like eighteen when they started dating.
And from what he provided early on of their relationship is why you shouldn't chase after them so young.
But I provided powerful counterarguments. For why you should.
You're posting from your Kindle again, aren't you? :P
Quote from: Ideologue on January 05, 2012, 01:16:11 AM
But I provided powerful counterarguments. For why you should.
You're posting from your Kindle again, aren't you? :P
Yes, you should have seen the errors I fixed. -_-
Anyway, I also rebutted your claims earlier.
Eh, I don't know anyway. I got rotated out of the line.
White trash. Not sure why anyone would be rejoicing the survival of her genes.
QuoteStewart told investigators Martin knew Sarah McKinley's 58-year-old husband recently died of cancer and they expected to find prescription pain pills in the home.
That bitch had a husband who was 40 years older than she? :lol:
And who apparently fucked her when she was 17, if not younger.
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2012, 02:38:47 AM
QuoteStewart told investigators Martin knew Sarah McKinley's 58-year-old husband recently died of cancer and they expected to find prescription pain pills in the home.
That bitch had a husband who was 40 years older than she? :lol:
And who apparently fucked her when she was 17, if not younger.
Apparently they were married when she was 16 and he was 56.
Awesome.
I reiterate, I don't see why people cheer on her not being removed from the gene pool.
Nothing wrong with a big age gap. The charging of the accomplice seems wrong though :mellow:
And I'm sure she's a lovely girl who'll raise her kid well :)
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2012, 08:50:54 AM
Awesome.
I reiterate, I don't see why people cheer on her not being removed from the gene pool.
Eugenics has more positive associations for your people than for most others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7dbdZlsR3Y
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2012, 10:04:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2012, 08:50:54 AM
Awesome.
I reiterate, I don't see why people cheer on her not being removed from the gene pool.
Eugenics has more positive associations for your people than for most others.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theblogismine.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F01%2FTeen-Mom-Kills-Intruder-After-911-Tells-Her-to-Do-What-You-Have-to-02.jpg&hash=aab0c26f65f6683a089c1cca33eb42358fbb919b)
Dead hillbillie home invader
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fresources0.news.com.au%2Fimages%2F2012%2F01%2F05%2F1226237%2F283636-dustin-stewart.jpg&hash=e7dd4127524a75214f8ce9f4f7a4132705818b39)
I don't know Marty. It sure looks like natural selection took out the right person in that exchange.
Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2012, 10:40:15 AM
I don't know Marty. It sure looks like natural selection took out the right person in that exchange.
Yea, he talks smack about the victim yet the suspect gets a pass. Go figure.
You sure, I thought that was a pictured of the accused.
Marty is now chiding us for celebrating the fact a woman wasn't murdered. :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on January 05, 2012, 10:59:23 AM
You sure, I thought that was a pictured of the accused.
Marty is now chiding us for celebrating the fact a woman wasn't murdered. :lol:
Corrected :)
Quote from: 11B4V on January 05, 2012, 11:39:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 05, 2012, 10:59:23 AM
You sure, I thought that was a pictured of the accused.
Marty is now chiding us for celebrating the fact a woman wasn't murdered. :lol:
Corrected :)
You quoted his post verbatim. :huh:
She's cute. And strong. :)
Why are you people biting into Mart's troll sandwich? Sheesh.
Amazing and interesting that the second burglar was charged with the murder of his accomplice. I've never heard of such a thing, but hey, those kinds of laws would certainly get a lot more criminals off the streets a lot longer.
These fools were breaking into a home to try and steal prescription drugs. Couple of jokes these guys were. <_<
Can't blame a cancer victim for marrying a young girl I guess. They both knew what was going to happen.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 05, 2012, 12:21:39 PM
Can't blame a cancer victim for marrying a young girl I guess. They both knew what was going to happen.
Reminds me of young girls marrying 80-year-old Civil War veterans in the early 20th century to get a lifetime widow's pension.
http://dba-oracle.blogspot.com/2010/01/veterans-widow-benefits-help-widowers.html (http://dba-oracle.blogspot.com/2010/01/veterans-widow-benefits-help-widowers.html)
This girl married an 81-year-old veteran, gave him a son, and then after his death, married his grandson from a previous marriage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Martin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Martin)
Wow, becoming a father at 82? That guy sure had it in him (or, more precisely, her).
Quote from: DGuller on January 05, 2012, 01:23:03 PM
Wow, becoming a father at 82? That guy sure had it in him (or, more precisely, her).
I note that it may be the case that the kid was not his ... ;)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 05, 2012, 12:21:39 PM
Can't blame a cancer victim for marrying a young girl I guess. They both knew what was going to happen.
16? I stand by this being basically predatory. She was only a couple years older than Elizabeth Smart when she got married.
I assume he didn't have cancer at the time they married. I doubt she knew she would end up a widowed single mom at 18.
Look at the house she's living in. I think she saw a chance to move in to some decent digs and took it.
I think it was love :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2012, 01:46:10 PM
Look at the house she's living in. I think she saw a chance to move in to some decent digs and took it.
We need more people to see the practical sides of marriage. Then, we would have less divorce and a stronger middle class.
Quote from: Phillip V on January 05, 2012, 01:56:29 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2012, 01:46:10 PM
Look at the house she's living in. I think she saw a chance to move in to some decent digs and took it.
We need more people to see the practical sides of marriage.
No. We don't.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 05, 2012, 02:04:44 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on January 05, 2012, 01:56:29 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2012, 01:46:10 PM
Look at the house she's living in. I think she saw a chance to move in to some decent digs and took it.
We need more people to see the practical sides of marriage.
No. We don't.
"Love" is destroying us.
Quote from: Phillip V on January 05, 2012, 02:14:31 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 05, 2012, 02:04:44 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on January 05, 2012, 01:56:29 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2012, 01:46:10 PM
Look at the house she's living in. I think she saw a chance to move in to some decent digs and took it.
We need more people to see the practical sides of marriage.
No. We don't.
"Love" is destroying us.
Doesn't really seem practical considering that someone can always drop you and they can take steps to prevent you from getting half.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 05, 2012, 11:58:35 AM
Why are you people biting into Mart's troll sandwich? Sheesh.
Hungry.
I find it interesting that people will complain about states with 18 as the age of consent having it too high, then wring their hands over someone marrying a 16 or 17 year old (unless you want to make a case that the age at which one can get married should be higher than the age at which one can give consent).
Who here is complaining that that age of consent is to high?
Quote from: dps on January 05, 2012, 03:12:57 PM
I find it interesting that people will complain about states with 18 as the age of consent having it too high, then wring their hands over someone marrying a 16 or 17 year old (unless you want to make a case that the age at which one can get married should be higher than the age at which one can give consent).
Well, there are two things here:
(1) A large age gap appears particularly glaring where the younger partner is very young; and
(2) Marriage is supposed to be a reasonably long-term committment. In most people's lives, there is the feeling that there ought to be a time of fooling around and dating casually before one leaps into making it, so that one is fully informed (assuming of course they decide to marry at all).
Add these two together and an older person marrying a very young person immediately as they become "legal" looks like a bad idea, thus worth social disapproval.
Quote from: Malthus on January 05, 2012, 03:22:05 PM
Quote from: dps on January 05, 2012, 03:12:57 PM
I find it interesting that people will complain about states with 18 as the age of consent having it too high, then wring their hands over someone marrying a 16 or 17 year old (unless you want to make a case that the age at which one can get married should be higher than the age at which one can give consent).
Well, there are two things here:
(1) A large age gap appears particularly glaring where the younger partner is very young; and
(2) Marriage is supposed to be a reasonably long-term committment. In most people's lives, there is the feeling that there ought to be a time of fooling around and dating casually before one leaps into making it, so that one is fully informed (assuming of course they decide to marry at all).
Add these two together and an older person marrying a very young person immediately as they become "legal" looks like a bad idea, thus worth social disapproval.
Yeah, I agree. I'd say that casual sex requires less foresight than committing to someone for life.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 05, 2012, 03:18:53 PM
Who here is complaining that that age of consent is to high?
Everytime that age of consent laws are brought up around here, pretty much everybody who has posted on the subject has agreed that 18 is too high. The arguments have usually been between those who feel that about 16 or so is about right, and those who argue for a lower limit.
If one's worldview requires committing for life prior to sex, that somewhat alters the decision-making process.
Quote from: dps on January 05, 2012, 03:36:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 05, 2012, 03:18:53 PM
Who here is complaining that that age of consent is to high?
Everytime that age of consent laws are brought up around here, pretty much everybody who has posted on the subject has agreed that 18 is too high. The arguments have usually been between those who feel that about 16 or so is about right, and those who argue for a lower limit.
I assumed it was a stab at the Polanski supporters.
I think generally shielding young people from making decisions until they reach maturity just makes them postpone reaching that maturity, as it's those decisions and their consequences that make one grow.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 05, 2012, 03:43:08 PM
I think generally shielding young people from making decisions until they reach maturity just makes them postpone reaching that maturity, as it's those decisions and their consequences that make one grow.
Yes, and the consequences tend to get more severe when you get older. For most things anyway.
Quote from: dps on January 05, 2012, 03:36:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 05, 2012, 03:18:53 PM
Who here is complaining that that age of consent is to high?
Everytime that age of consent laws are brought up around here, pretty much everybody who has posted on the subject has agreed that 18 is too high. The arguments have usually been between those who feel that about 16 or so is about right, and those who argue for a lower limit.
Nothing I payed much attention to.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 05, 2012, 03:43:08 PM
I think generally shielding young people from making decisions until they reach maturity just makes them postpone reaching that maturity, as it's those decisions and their consequences that make one grow.
Yah, New Jersey's 2-year "safety" delay of driver's license for youths from age 16 to 18 resulted in skyrocketing traffic accidents/fatalities in the age 20 group.
Quote from: Malthus on January 05, 2012, 03:22:05 PM
Quote from: dps on January 05, 2012, 03:12:57 PM
I find it interesting that people will complain about states with 18 as the age of consent having it too high, then wring their hands over someone marrying a 16 or 17 year old (unless you want to make a case that the age at which one can get married should be higher than the age at which one can give consent).
Well, there are two things here:
(1) A large age gap appears particularly glaring where the younger partner is very young; and
(2) Marriage is supposed to be a reasonably long-term committment. In most people's lives, there is the feeling that there ought to be a time of fooling around and dating casually before one leaps into making it, so that one is fully informed (assuming of course they decide to marry at all).
Add these two together and an older person marrying a very young person immediately as they become "legal" looks like a bad idea, thus worth social disapproval.
I'd agree with this, but go further. I've never encountered a 16 year old married to a 56 year old. I'd be appalled if I did. I can't imagine any parent agreeing to that. Making some assumptions, I'd think this girl came from a poor family background, and the man found her easy to influence and control. I'm going to guess that they didn't have a very deep relationship, and he kept her cut off to a degree from the world at large (which would obviously disapprove). For him it wasn't about anything other than control and sex, for her staying in the relationship was probably about security (both with him as a provider, and the potential for abuse she split). She was on a path to having no future (hopefully now people will notice, and get her help).
A 16 year old is just a kid. She had no way to hold her own in a relationship with a 50+ year old.
Quote from: dps on January 05, 2012, 03:36:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 05, 2012, 03:18:53 PM
Who here is complaining that that age of consent is to high?
Everytime that age of consent laws are brought up around here, pretty much everybody who has posted on the subject has agreed that 18 is too high. The arguments have usually been between those who feel that about 16 or so is about right, and those who argue for a lower limit.
Obviously 16 (and younger) are going to have sex, and a big problem is criminalizing relationships around the cutoffs. But when the other party is in their 50s, things are different.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 05, 2012, 03:43:08 PM
I think generally shielding young people from making decisions until they reach maturity just makes them postpone reaching that maturity, as it's those decisions and their consequences that make one grow.
Huh? "Go ahead, 16 year old, marry that 56 year old guy. Then, in 20 years, when you have learned the consequences - that it was a bad idea - you will know better next time, and hopefully grow" ?
I agree that people making their own decisions is horrible.
Quote from: Malthus on January 05, 2012, 04:06:50 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 05, 2012, 03:43:08 PM
I think generally shielding young people from making decisions until they reach maturity just makes them postpone reaching that maturity, as it's those decisions and their consequences that make one grow.
Huh? "Go ahead, 16 year old, marry that 56 year old guy. Then, in 20 years, when you have learned the consequences - that it was a bad idea - you will know better next time, and hopefully grow" ?
You'd still have a lot more of your life ahead of you to recover than if you'd married the guy at 30. If you're gonna make a mistake, do it young.
I also don't see how the chick having casual sex with the old guy is better than her getting all the extra security for herself and her kid that marriage provided.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 05, 2012, 04:09:23 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 05, 2012, 04:06:50 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 05, 2012, 03:43:08 PM
I think generally shielding young people from making decisions until they reach maturity just makes them postpone reaching that maturity, as it's those decisions and their consequences that make one grow.
Huh? "Go ahead, 16 year old, marry that 56 year old guy. Then, in 20 years, when you have learned the consequences - that it was a bad idea - you will know better next time, and hopefully grow" ?
You'd still have a lot more of your life ahead of you to recover than if you'd married the guy at 30. If you're gonna make a mistake, do it young.
??? What are the chances she finished high school, and now she has a kid and is a single mom at 18. Without some real help, her future looks very bleak.
Quote from: Malthus on January 05, 2012, 04:06:50 PM
Huh? "Go ahead, 16 year old, marry that 56 year old guy. Then, in 20 years, when you have learned the consequences - that it was a bad idea - you will know better next time, and hopefully grow" ?
If it took 20 years for it to appear to be a bad idea I say that 16 year old had pretty good judgement compared to alot of people in their marriage choices.
Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2012, 04:12:36 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 05, 2012, 04:06:50 PM
Huh? "Go ahead, 16 year old, marry that 56 year old guy. Then, in 20 years, when you have learned the consequences - that it was a bad idea - you will know better next time, and hopefully grow" ?
If it took 20 years for it to appear to be a bad idea I say that 16 year old had pretty good judgement compared to alot of people in their marriage choices.
Yeah how long is the average marriage today?
Quote from: alfred russel on January 05, 2012, 04:11:42 PM
??? What are the chances she finished high school, and now she has a kid and is a single mom at 18. Without some real help, her future looks very bleak.
Ok so how would that be different by marrying a 17 or 18 year old? I thought the age difference was the disturbing thing here not the very fact she is getting married at 16.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2012, 01:46:10 PM
Look at the house she's living in. I think she saw a chance to move in to some decent digs and took it.
I hope you are joking. I never know with you.
To be fair if you're marrying a 50 year old as a teenager there's a good chance you're not getting educated anyway. and are probably going to get knocked up. so really, she's not further behind. Hopefully she at least got some life insurance and a paid for home.
i still agree it's "icky", though.
Quote from: dps on January 05, 2012, 03:36:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 05, 2012, 03:18:53 PM
Who here is complaining that that age of consent is to high?
Everytime that age of consent laws are brought up around here, pretty much everybody who has posted on the subject has agreed that 18 is too high. The arguments have usually been between those who feel that about 16 or so is about right, and those who argue for a lower limit.
I said it before and I will say it again. PLEASE DIE IN A FIRE. Preferably with your entire family. Kthxbye.
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2012, 04:14:03 PM
I hope you are joking. I never know with you.
What is wrong with the house? Looks pretty good for a teenager to own. Not that I recomend this method of property acquisition :P
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2012, 04:15:23 PM
Quote from: dps on January 05, 2012, 03:36:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 05, 2012, 03:18:53 PM
Who here is complaining that that age of consent is to high?
Everytime that age of consent laws are brought up around here, pretty much everybody who has posted on the subject has agreed that 18 is too high. The arguments have usually been between those who feel that about 16 or so is about right, and those who argue for a lower limit.
I said it before and I will say it again. PLEASE DIE IN A FIRE. Preferably with your entire family. Kthxbye.
And LaCroix was attacking me for being mean to you. :lol: God, you are such an ass.
Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2012, 04:12:36 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 05, 2012, 04:06:50 PM
Huh? "Go ahead, 16 year old, marry that 56 year old guy. Then, in 20 years, when you have learned the consequences - that it was a bad idea - you will know better next time, and hopefully grow" ?
If it took 20 years for it to appear to be a bad idea I say that 16 year old had pretty good judgement compared to alot of people in their marriage choices.
It no doubt "appeared" to be a bad idea on day 1.
Do not mistake length of marriage with worth. The notion here is that a 16 year old marrying a close to 60 year old is going into an extremely unequal match, of the 'keep 'er pregnant and ignorant' variety, and that because of saddled with kids etc. it is gonna take her a long time to realize it was a bad deal and work up the gumption to pull away.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 05, 2012, 04:17:52 PM
And LaCroix was attacking me for being mean to you. :lol: God, you are such an ass.
leave the poor guy alone. probably found a wrinkle or something :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 05, 2012, 04:09:23 PM
You'd still have a lot more of your life ahead of you to recover than if you'd married the guy at 30. If you're gonna make a mistake, do it young.
Presumably if you are 30 you would not be marrying someone 70 to escape mommy and daddy - and if you are, you are more of a self-concious gold-digger.
Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2012, 04:13:53 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 05, 2012, 04:11:42 PM
??? What are the chances she finished high school, and now she has a kid and is a single mom at 18. Without some real help, her future looks very bleak.
Ok so how would that be different by marrying a 17 or 18 year old? I thought the age difference was the disturbing thing here not the very fact she is getting married at 16.
At least the 17 or 18 year old probably wouldn't be dead of lung cancer, and could provide some child support. The relationship would have a low chance of working out, but probably better than marrying a 56 year old.
Marriage at 16 is a very bad idea. Marriage at 16 to a 56 year old only makes it worse.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 05, 2012, 04:11:42 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 05, 2012, 04:09:23 PM
You'd still have a lot more of your life ahead of you to recover than if you'd married the guy at 30. If you're gonna make a mistake, do it young.
??? What are the chances she finished high school, and now she has a kid and is a single mom at 18. Without some real help, her future looks very bleak.
You're starting from the premise that the choice is between not making the mistake and making it. I'm talking about choosing between making it at 16 or 30. Different thing. Obviously it would be better not to do it at all.
Hell, maybe the old guy got her away from a father who beat her or something. We don't know. Possible it wasn't a mistake at all.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 05, 2012, 04:26:39 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 05, 2012, 04:11:42 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 05, 2012, 04:09:23 PM
You'd still have a lot more of your life ahead of you to recover than if you'd married the guy at 30. If you're gonna make a mistake, do it young.
??? What are the chances she finished high school, and now she has a kid and is a single mom at 18. Without some real help, her future looks very bleak.
You're starting from the premise that the choice is between not making the mistake and making it. I'm talking about choosing between making it at 16 or 30. Different thing. Obviously it would be better not to do it at all.
Hell, maybe the old guy got her away from a father who beat her or something. We don't know. Possible it wasn't a mistake at all.
That's lesser of two evils (possibly) but still a mistake. I fully agree we should look down on scum like that.
Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2012, 04:13:53 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 05, 2012, 04:11:42 PM
??? What are the chances she finished high school, and now she has a kid and is a single mom at 18. Without some real help, her future looks very bleak.
Ok so how would that be different by marrying a 17 or 18 year old? I thought the age difference was the disturbing thing here not the very fact she is getting married at 16.
I think it is the age difference (and I'm not really against big age differences but that seems extreme - especially at an age where the difference between like 14 and 16 is vast). She can't have really made an "informed" choice about her marriage - and there's the whole crazy power imbalance between her and her grandfather. :P
Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2012, 04:13:53 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 05, 2012, 04:11:42 PM
??? What are the chances she finished high school, and now she has a kid and is a single mom at 18. Without some real help, her future looks very bleak.
Ok so how would that be different by marrying a 17 or 18 year old? I thought the age difference was the disturbing thing here not the very fact she is getting married at 16.
It's like a cheap Chinese restaurant menu: one from column A (too young) and one from column B (huge age difference). They go together to make a meal designed to provide marital indigestion. :D
[The fortune cookie reads "You are 18, have no education, and a baby. Any idiot can guess your likely fortune."]
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 05, 2012, 04:26:39 PM
You're starting from the premise that the choice is between not making the mistake and making it. I'm talking about choosing between making it at 16 or 30. Different thing. Obviously it would be better not to do it at all.
Hell, maybe the old guy got her away from a father who beat her or something. We don't know. Possible it wasn't a mistake at all.
I don't think there is a worse age to get married and have a kid than 16-18. Marry at that age and have a kid (the wrong guy is almost redundant) and you've closed off so many opportunities. At least at 30 you have your education and a career going, and you know how the world works. I assume this girl was on a path to welfare for the foreseeable future.
The solution to 16 year olds being abused shouldn't be to marry 50+ year old men about to die of lung cancer.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 05, 2012, 04:22:45 PM
At least the 17 or 18 year old probably wouldn't be dead of lung cancer, and could provide some child support. The relationship would have a low chance of working out, but probably better than marrying a 56 year old.
Marriage at 16 is a very bad idea. Marriage at 16 to a 56 year old only makes it worse.
But an older person probably has alot more property to leave her as well. A 18 year old who married and now has a kid is probably not going to be producing tons of income for child support anyway. Having kids as a teen is a pretty tried and true path to poverty and a bad life. That is the primary mistake here. If she did not have the kid she would be a 20-something widower or divorcee and then...big deal.
Quote from: dps on January 05, 2012, 03:12:57 PM
I find it interesting that people will complain about states with 18 as the age of consent having it too high, then wring their hands over someone marrying a 16 or 17 year old (unless you want to make a case that the age at which one can get married should be higher than the age at which one can give consent).
To be honest, I think that would be the most appropriate thing. Sex is certainly a lesser commitment than marriage.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 05, 2012, 04:47:58 PM
To be honest, I think that would be the most appropriate thing. Sex is certainly a lesser commitment than marriage.
Sex is a commitment 100x greater than marriage if it results in a child. A marriage is a pretty easy commitment to get out of.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 05, 2012, 04:47:39 PM
I don't think there is a worse age to get married and have a kid than 16-18.
How about 14-15? :P
Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2012, 04:48:55 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 05, 2012, 04:47:58 PM
To be honest, I think that would be the most appropriate thing. Sex is certainly a lesser commitment than marriage.
Sex is a commitment 100x greater than marriage if it results in a child. A marriage is a pretty easy commitment to get out of.
I'm no family lawyer, but I'm pretty sure you can't get rid of an unwanted marriage at the clinic.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 05, 2012, 04:50:02 PM
I'm pretty sure you can't get rid of an unwanted marriage at the clinic.
I am pretty sure getting divorced is a bit less of a deal than getting an abortion. Especially in Oklahoma.
But anyway my point was the kid is the really bad mistake here not a bad marriage. What is really holding you to the marriage if there are not kids? The law does not require you to cohabitate, just leave.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 05, 2012, 04:50:02 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2012, 04:48:55 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 05, 2012, 04:47:58 PM
To be honest, I think that would be the most appropriate thing. Sex is certainly a lesser commitment than marriage.
Sex is a commitment 100x greater than marriage if it results in a child. A marriage is a pretty easy commitment to get out of.
I'm no family lawyer, but I'm pretty sure you can't get rid of an unwanted marriage at the clinic.
You've never heard of a legal aid clinic? ;)
Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2012, 04:51:43 PM
I am pretty sure getting divorced is a bit less of a deal than getting an abortion. Especially in Oklahoma.
I've dated a few women who had abortions and the muss and fuss of the actual procedure is trivial.
Obviously the guilt and trauma are another issue.
Quote from: Malthus on January 05, 2012, 01:26:56 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 05, 2012, 01:23:03 PM
Wow, becoming a father at 82? That guy sure had it in him (or, more precisely, her).
I note that it may be the case that the kid was not his ... ;)
Since she married his grandson it was probably a scheme cooked up by all three of them.
I'm guessing that a 16 year old who marries a 56 year old and has a kid with him is actually more likely to graduate high school than a 16 year old who marries and has a kid with another 16 year old--the 56 year old can likely support them without her working, while the 16 year old, not so much.
I am not arguing that 16 years olds ought to be getting married, regardless of the age of their partner, just that if the age of consent for sex is 16, the age of consent for marriage ought to be as well.
15'll get you 25, but 16'll get you... lung cancer? felony murder? :huh:
Quote from: alfred russel on January 04, 2012, 10:44:37 PM
Quote from: dps on January 04, 2012, 10:37:32 PM
Not gonna deny it. Besides, being sensible about love means you end up like either Mono or CdM.
Tell me you aren't pursuing a teenager. :frusty:
Also, Mono and CdM are perhaps the least sensible about love.
Damn, that hurts. If anything, I'm the most sensible about it, because I traffick in the truth.
lol, I don't know what's more typical: more posts devoted to the young chick-old dude thing more than the actual shooting, or Marti hating on breeders again.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 05, 2012, 09:44:40 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 04, 2012, 10:44:37 PM
Quote from: dps on January 04, 2012, 10:37:32 PM
Not gonna deny it. Besides, being sensible about love means you end up like either Mono or CdM.
Tell me you aren't pursuing a teenager. :frusty:
Also, Mono and CdM are perhaps the least sensible about love.
Damn, that hurts. If anything, I'm the most sensible about it, because I traffick in the truth.
Hey, I stood up for you and Mono;
Quote from: mongers on January 04, 2012, 11:02:17 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 04, 2012, 10:44:37 PM
Quote from: dps on January 04, 2012, 10:37:32 PM
Not gonna deny it. Besides, being sensible about love means you end up like either Mono or CdM.
Tell me you aren't pursuing a teenager. :frusty:
Also, Mono and CdM are perhaps the least sensible about love.
That's one hell of a value judgement.
If anything, despite the act Mono puts on here, I suspect he's got quite a neat little domestic set-up.
I know you did, bro.
And yes, Mono's got it all worked out. I bet his wife is a fucking freak, too.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 05, 2012, 09:53:14 PM
I know you did, bro.
And yes, Mono's got it all worked out. I bet his wife is a fucking freak, too.
:hug:
Weird, I've never been attracted to Asian women; though then again the only ones I've ever spent much time was when I used to do some jobs for a Japanese investment bank and the women there were just rather impressive, highly educated, well dressed and with perfect RP accents.