I'm sure when you read this article you will notice this also.......a quote from the man's Defense Attorney:
“If there was contact, sexual contact, it was consensual, the relationship of the people involved,” said Castro. “All that came into consideration.”
Ok, now let me get this straight....the man was "in a relationship" with a 14-yr-old, got into trouble for that which lead to probation. Then was "in a relationship" with a 13-yr-old, and got in trouble for that AND breaking his probation.....and his Defense Lawyer states that the consensualness ( I do realize that isn't a word...but if they can be absurd then so can I and make up words to fit into my tirade!) of the relationships were taken into consideration as a reasoning for such a light sentence????WTF???? Consensual???? At 13 and 14? I mean yeah, sure I know it happens, and there are those out there that think there is nothing wrong with it......but it IS against the law, they were both minors and therefore not able to have consensual relationships with a grown man....or am I just going off the deep end here for no reason???
mm
No comments:
Post a Comment