>Americans will defend this
He knew the law.
>>71009748
This American hates cops and anything to do with laws and regulations.
Please don't assume.
>>71009748
>Pencil box
My sides
Government is full of femanist faggots whats new?
>>71009748
It seems unfortunate although clearly he was not married to the girl and he must have known the law. Silly boy.
>>71009748
Sick fuck, i hope he's still rotting in prison
in most states you can have sex with a girl who is 16-18 as long as you are under 21
That's what he gets for statutory rape
>>71009748
holy shit stop posting this fake pic
Do the crime do the time.
There really needs to be a +/- 1 or 2 years exception for that law. I get that the line needs to exists, and should, but this is just stupid.
>>71010182
Most states have a two year rule, or the age of consent is lowered to 16.
>>71010182
>I get that the line needs to exists
Logically justify it.
I dare you.
>>71010138
>5'7
lmao
m
a
o
>>71010182
Pretty sure Australia has this.
If you're 19, you can sleep with someone 2 years younger than yourself. So once you turn 20 you can't sleep with someone below the age of 18.
>>71010313
As civilised, Western countries we need to have boundaries set. It's the way our law system works man.
With out boundaries people would just do stupid as fuck shit, because no one can be trusted.
>>71010527
>>71010396
>>71009793
>>71009748
>Straya
Not even once.
>>71010527
>As civilised, Western countries we need to have boundaries set.
Our civilized western society never needed this shit before the 20th century, so you're full of fucking shit.
I said LOGICALLY justify it. Don't make up bullshit or use memes. Justify these laws.
I can absolutely 100% guarantee you cannot. For a simple reason. The laws were invented by women, and women are illogical at all times. This is why they were originally banned from voting.
>>71009748
he'll never stick his pencil in her box again
>>71010654
HUEHUEHUE
>>71010670
Is it okay for a man to have sex with an 8 or 12 year old?
The point is the line has to be drawn somewhere.
>>71010677
Topkek
>>71009748
Wait...is that Linus?
>>71010752
Strawman
>>71010795
How is that a strawman? Could you answer his question, please?
>>71010683
>>71010763
>>71010752
Australians have shit for hands, ignore and report all Australian posters.
>>71009748
The one state without romeo and juliet laws?
>>71009748
>tfw lost my virginity at 17 to a 21 year old woman
>>71010835
Brazilians have shit for brains.
>>71010752
>Is it okay for a man to have sex with an 8 or 12 year old?
Yeah. Why wouldn't it be? Logically.
Bear in mind that grown women have the brains of children, before even trying that bullshit "mental maturity" argument.
Like I said, that's why they weren't allowed to vote back in the day.
>>71010182
civilized 1st world countries all have such exceptions. It's literally just the US which is fucking retarded.
which is apt because you are all retarded.
>>71010835
No that's India.
>>71010752
>Is it okay for a man to have sex with an 8 or 12 year old?
Sure. At one point there weren't any age of consent laws in America. Girls could fuck the second they were married off.
>>71011159
Don't be disgusting, fucking 8 years old was never okay in Western society, not even in the worst parts of your shit country.
>>71010987
Don't let me even get started on obvious reason of anatomy and body structure - a girl is very likely to get crippled after it.
However, it is not the reason. The true reason for that people under certain age should never have sex at all is, well, that 12-14 year-olds are dumb as fuck, doesn't matter whether it is a girl or a boy. Just take a look at the youth - those little faggots are buying into any shit around them leaves a strong mark on their future personality. Sex deceives them and affects their immature world-view. There are many things little fuckers should not do and sex is just one of those.
tldr - it is a degeneracy
>>71011211
>fucking 8 years old was never okay in Western society
Prove it. History shows otherwise.
>>71011244
>a girl is very likely to get crippled after it.
I've seen plenty of video evidence proving otherwise.
>>71009748
I don't think that's a big deal
>>71011244
>that 12-14 year-olds are dumb as fuck, doesn't matter whether it is a girl or a boy. Just take a look at the youth - those little faggots are buying into any shit around them
Also, this applies to 99% of the adult population as well, hence why we have the current politicians and media/entertainment we do.
You're applying a standard to children that also applies to adults as though it does NOT apply to adults, which is why these laws are so fucktarded in logical concept.
Makes no sense to set a completely arbitrary line like this.
>>71010670
>Justify these laws.
Hard legal limits have to exist because there isn't enough legal capital to handle the millions of gray area cases that would happen every year.
>age for buying tobacco is 19 in some states and 18 in others
>hurr durr, an 18 year old can just cross state lines and buy it where it's legal like what's even the point lol so arbitrary
>blood alcohol content 0.08% while driving is illegal
>hurr durr it's not like somebody at 0.079% would be any less impaired, yet it goes from being legal to illegal?! omg so arbitrary
Whether it's location, time, or content, the more clear and strict a law is, the fewer resources will get wasted in courtrooms trying to prove one way or the other.
>number was X
>zero argument
>case closed
>>71011393
Yeah, but those 99% were dumber when they were younger. Perfectly, we should just measure intellect of the people and give them respective rights, but we don't have a proper method to measure one's intellectual capabilities nor a society which would accept such kind of a discrimination.
>>71011244
>that 12-14 year-olds are dumb as fuck
implying females become smart at 15. or 20. or 25. or
>>71009748
> tfw fugged when I was 14
Would I be on a sex offender list in America?
>>71011409
Why should "gray area" cases even be a thing?
The only laws that any logical meaningful reason to exist, are laws defending property rights.
i.e. prohibiting murder, theft, vandalism, etc.
Anything else should logically be handled privately, and allowing the government to involve itself is a waste of time, money, is annoying as fuck, and feminizes and weakens society because society starts becoming dependent. It fosters femininity and childish irresponsibility, hence how we end up with the current shit in Western culture.
You cannot maintain strength when you give your strength up to the state. That is a fact.
>>71009748
I'm from Virginia and it's really a problem exclusive to us for the most part. In most states the age of consent is 16. People get busted for this all the time and it ruins a lot of lives. I love my Commonwealth more than anything but for fuck's sake if we're going to have some carpetbagger DNC yankee shill from New York like Terry McAwful running the place the least he could do is change this.
>>71009793
Most people don't know the law, that's the problem. Like I said it's 16 in most other states and it's not exactly like there's signs everywhere saying what the age of consent is. Who in their right mind would assume that it's illegal to have sex with a 17 year old when you're 18?
>>71011530
>Yeah, but those 99% were dumber when they were younger.
Not really.
It's sorta like this-
children - typical adults - actually intelligent adults = crimson - scarlet - blue
If you're a dumbass, children might seem significantly dumber than you. But to those of us with actual intelligence, you're both just different shades of red(REtarDed).
>>71011662
This is a case of defending people's bodies, i.e. their most important piece of property.
Also
>implying there should be no laws against behaviors that put others at risk
"No harm, no foul" is retarded. I don't know why libertarians latched onto it.
>>71011834
>This is a case of defending people's bodies, i.e. their most important piece of property.
Actually, if said person consents to an act that you prohibit by law, you're the one violating bodily property rights.
>"No harm, no foul" is retarded. I don't know why libertarians latched onto it.
Because it's 100% true. Pay for the damage you do, not what might have been.
Otherwise we might as well start forcing every driver to pay out $100,000 hospital bills because their driving MIGHT have caused an accident at some point.
Fuck off right into a volcano, filthy do-gooding concerned mother faggot.
Your filthy ilk is why gun laws and Diana Feinstein are things.
>>71012165
>Actually, if said person consents to an act that you prohibit by law, you're the one violating bodily property rights.
>It's okay, officer. The three-year-old said "yes."
>Because it's 100% true. Pay for the damage you do, not what might have been.
Then it's cool to walk around with a case emitting ionizing radiation so long as you don't wind up causing anybody to develop cancer--which could be impossible to prove since it might happen 10 years from now and you only increased their odds.
You can also play russian roulette with a crowd of people and nobody's allowed to stop you because you haven't technically harmed anyone yet.
>lol it was an empty chamber this time, looks like they got lucky
>be american
>have consensual sex
>be arrested
>>71009748
land of the free really wants controls the sex, don't they?
>>71012869
>be western civilisation
>be a virgin
>be arrested for rape
>>71009748
mfw
>>71010179
'Sir we detected you were doing 62mph in a 60 zone, yeah we're gonna have to write you up for this one.'
