Teenager Sex With Cop's Daughter Leads To Arrest

reply to post by Y2KJMan


but he went overthere with weapons a uniform and hand cuffs there for he was a cop not a parent and thats where the problem comes from if he had walked over talked to the dad that proubly would have settled it but he had to play captian baddass and scare some little kid

Originally posted by zerbot565
reply to post by maybereal11

 

i was under the notion that concent was the term used for ADULTS having sex no matter age difference with in the legal boundry.


edit

so is it then this way , minors can have sex with eachother if they have their parents promission ?
what is the legal terms of minors having sex between minors

edit on 28-9-2010 by zerbot565 because: silly legal question

Nope..Parental consent does not supercede general consent.

IT IS ILLEGAL FOR MINORS TO HAVE SEX....WHATEVER THE AGE OF EITHER PARTY OR PARENTAL CONSENT.

Now...it isn't often enforced and age is taken into consideration by a judge when it is enforced.

SEE MY POST AND LINKS AT THE TOP OF THE PRIOR PAGE...

BTW - I am not passing judgement, my youth was riddled with illegal activity, but I am stating the laws on the books.

reply to post by m0r1arty


face palm no that would be rape as it dosent matter what he/she is mentaly but the age of the person and sadly even if you tried to charge said mentaly disabled person with said rape the case would be dropped or lowered in punishment or atleast death penalty would be off the table splitting hairs man and badly

reply to post by KilrathiLG


Yet using grammar, punctuation and common sense,

Pretty sure the law is strong with me.

-m0r

Explanation: OK.. Time to clear up some things...

1st OL'll repost the original link I came across, as all my quotes are from it and I really want to give kudos to the original author and the original source because this is sorta long and I apologize profusely to both them and to ATS and I highly recommend that my fellow members VISIT the ORIGINAL source for the FULL STORY OK!

Boy wants officer to go to jail for fake arrest. (By Sean Webby Posted: 09/24/2010 05:04:35 PM PDT Updated: 09/25/2010 12:01:26 AM PDT) [mercurynews.com]

Both kids were cited and are considered equally innocent until proven guilty!

After the boy's parents complained to San Jose police's internal affairs unit about the officer's behavior, both teens ended up criminally cited by police for having underage sex.

They weren't caught in the act ...

The controversial intervention began soon after the officer found out that his teenage daughter had sex with the boy when he visited her during a baby-sitting job.

When the officer found out, he rode his motorcycle at the end of his shift -- straight from work -- to the boy's house, a few blocks from his own home.

The officer trespassed the boys parents house and also assaulted [by cuffing] and slandered [twice in OL's opinion] the boy personally!

Then the officer made him drop a Sprite and placed handcuffs on the boy.

He said when the officer first approached him he began yelling and called him "a piece of (expletive)."

The grainy 5-minute, 36-second video shows the officer standing near the handcuffed boy and sternly telling him that it was "not a good thing that the person you had sex with is a cop's daughter" and that "the district attorney will probably file charges. ... A cop's daughter is not somebody you mess around with. You're stupid."

As he was off duty and on a personal mission that he pretended to be on duty for without getting the boys parents privately attained permission prior to this FAKE arrest he was clearly illegally impersonating an officer of the law! [spurious... yep but I'm throwing my whole bucket load at this ]

After lecturing the boy for minutes, the officer unlocked the handcuffs and quietly told the parents he was not going to arrest their son after all. He just wanted to scare him, he said, and he handed the parents an arrest card that he suggested they put up on the refrigerator to make sure the boy did not forget.

But the Villarruels say that the officer had no permission to intervene with their son, pretend to arrest him or come into their home.

"We thought he was there to arrest our son,'' the boy's mother said. "He was in full cop mode the whole time."

Tony Boskovich, an attorney representing the boy's family, said. "What right does he have to use his uniform, his gun, his handcuffs if all he is is a dad?''

Personal Disclosure: And here is me spinning the lawer for the cops words in reply...

1st the original untouched version...

Terry Bowman, the lawyer representing the officer, said: "Most people can understand how this father felt and why he did what he did. It is a shame if the young man's parents lose sight of the importance of the message because they have chosen to focus on what the girl's father was wearing."

[Take note that OL has replaced words and gramma with my OWN versions to prove a point! mirrors I think someone posted! ]

"Most people can understand how the boy's parents felt and why they did what they did. It is a shame if the policeman loses sight of the importance of the message... because he has chosen to deny them the right to discipline their own child 1st and foremost and in doing so he overstepped his ethical requirements and legal authority!"

When first interviewed for this story earlier in the week, police told the Mercury News that there was no specific written policy that dealt with officers investigating cases in which there is a personal conflict. The Mercury News has since discovered a policy that states officers "will avoid becoming officially involved in quarrels or disputes occurring in their own neighborhoods, unless the incident involves an immediate threat to human life."

There is also a section of the officer's code of ethics which states: "I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, animosities, or friendships to influence my decisions."

P.S. This is my POV as a potential parent [who has ZERO genetic progeny of my own, but I lived in a commune with lots of single mothers on the poverty line and it was basically my job to make sure things went smoothly for them and ESPECIALLY their kids... until u have lugged ya body weight in shopping manually and regularly for miles to feed starving kids in atrocious weather for like years don't you even DARE to broach the subject with me! I am "uncle" to more kids than even some school teachers ever encounter!]

Yes Mr officer come into my home and act all coppish, discipline my son as me & my wife watch helplessly on, and then you cop out [pun also intented! ] at the end with actually upholding the LAW... let's see how you feel now we are disciplining your daughter and our son and you and upholding the LAW at your expense!

reply to post by maybereal11


nah i just wanted that cleared ,
since there seams to be a gap in social taboo and the laws across the globe of whats counted for as an adult , minor and age of consent and consent ,

reply to post by m0r1arty

ohh the grammer nazis are comeing i think ill ues comlet bda seplling jsut 2 irrI.?!?! you im sorry i never learned to use punctuation and grammer welcome to my ignore list

reply to post by KilrathiLG


Try that in a court of law sweetheart.

Second line to keep me from profanities (or indeed underage titties).

-m0r

[Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2422(b)] forbids the use of the United States Postal Service or other interstate or foreign means of communication, such as telephone calls or use of the internet, to persuade or entice a minor (defined as under 18 throughout chapter) to be involved in a criminal sexual act. The act has to be illegal under state or federal law to be charged with a crime under 2422(b), and can even be applied to situations where both parties reside within the same state but use an instant messenger program whose servers are located in another state.[18]

[Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2423(a)] forbids transporting a minor (defined as under 18) in interstate or foreign commerce with the intent of engaging in criminal sexual acts in which a person can be charged. This subsection is ambiguous on its face, and only seems to apply when the minor is transported across state or international lines to a place where the conduct is already illegal to begin with. The United States Department of Justice seems to agree with this interpretation.

[Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2423(b)] forbids traveling in interstate or foreign commerce to engage in "illicit sexual conduct" with a minor. 2423(f) refers to Chapter 109A as its bright line for defining "illicit sexual conduct", as far as non-commercial sexual activity is concerned. For the purposes of age of consent, the only provision applicable is [Chapter 109A, 18 U.S.C. 2243(a)]. 2243(a) refers to situations where such younger person is under the age of 16 years, has attained 12 years of age, and the older person is more than 4 years older than the 12-to-15-year-old (persons under 12 are handled under 18 U.S.C. 2241(c) under aggravated sexual abuse). So, the age is 12 years if one is within 4 years of the 12-to-15-year-old's age, 16 under all other circumstances. This most likely reflects Congressional intent to not unduly interfere with a state's age of consent law, which would have been the case if the age was set to 18 under all circumstances. This law is also extraterritorial in nature to U.S. Citizens and Residents who travel outside of the United States.

thats the federal law on the books and i think if i rember correctly federal law is the law of the land not to versed on legal lingo but this seems to say that to consent to sex you have to be 18 but im not sure if im reading it right

www.newstrackindia.com... there ya go the cop was wrong and was suspended morality aside the police officer broke the law

"Applying force, applying handcuffs, threatening the young man with things such as rape in prison, he acted like a cowboy," Tony Boskovich, a lawyer for the boy's family, said.


"He lost it, he came in and he abused his authority," he stated.

reply to post by m0r1arty


So what if it was the other way around the girl had instigated the sex? So the young man was raped? Is this what you are trying to tell me. Your logic is off the wall on this subject.

abcnews.go.com...

this one has a video reply from the parents also worth watching and lets them tell how they felt when the cop did what he did to there son

reply to post by OmegaLogos


Given those details, it seems the cop failed to adhere to the law as well.

Still, I can't see a judge really coming down on a father finding out some guy just did the deed with his 14 yr old daughter. Nobody should really be charged, but I think the boy still learned the lesson (as did the daughter), that hey, maybe what they did was NOT ok.....

So what if it was the other way around the girl had instigated the sex? So the young man was raped? Is this what you are trying to tell me. Your logic is off the wall on this subject.

Irrelevant which gender was which age...neither the boy or the girl are old enough for sexual consent, so BOTH broke the law (although since they are within 3 yrs of each other, it's a misdemeanor in CA).

reply to post by m0r1arty

I'm pretty sure anyone who takes advantage of a 14 year old (whether she thinks she is able to consent or not) should be having words with people in authority - be it teachers, cops or judges.

FYI its proven the female should be more mature then the male at this age. Thus your thinking is still off. I have a daughter and I am not this bad at trying to figure out that both children were in the wrong and this was handled very poorly by the officer. Hey one is 14 one is 15 they had sex. I had sex when I was 15 and my girlfriend at the time was 14. Wait wait I was smart and knew what condoms were. I understood what I was doing. I must have raped her the 20-30times we had sex when I was this age. Hold on she instigated it as well. Maybe I should go down to the local PD and let them know I was raped when I was 15. Though I was willing.

reply to post by ExCloud


Not my logic - what the trends are from the outcome of trials or panels that these kids will be put through if taken through the full judicial process

Read. The. Thread..

-m0r

seams a bit wierd looking at your "age of criminal responsibility" that you go to court and get punished at an age between 6-12, federal 10 for racketeering , conspiracy to overthrow the goverment , drug dealing , murder , stokmarket manipulation etc etc etc yet you cant have sex untill your 16-18 +3y ? , lol

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by OmegaLogos

 

hat hey, maybe what they did was NOT ok.....

I like how people can conveniently pass off a vague and ambiguous post as insightful.

How was it not okay? No one has quite explained that thoroughly yet and nothing comes to mind for me personally.

reply to post by m0r1arty


I read it and all I can really see is how you keep pointing out how the guy should be charged. How the officer was correct in his actions. I don't see this at all. We don't know who instigated the sex(I would assume her being as she invited him over well baby sitting if I read that correctly).

reply to post by ExCloud


Fine.

i'm not against the kids or anything to do with their actions.

In the Op it stated: "Police abuse of power yet again". The thread title also mentioned abusive cop in it's original form - I'm sure a mod will verify, at least personally, if asked.

I am calling the OP, acrux, on his assessment of the situation.

As always here on ATS there is a pile of waffle to plough through and this made me bring up certain entities that it appears many were lacking such as statutory rape and the age of consent.

What I'm saying is that this isn't a bad cop story - it's an everyday story of when certain members of a family start exploring their sexuality which contains a cop fresh from the job (and thus in uniform) as dealing with it.

It could have been done worse, it could have been handled better.

But given the full legal ramifications that could have occurred I think it was handled as best as could be for all parties concerned.

I think the cop hating which originally powered this thread has moved to a ridiculous conversation about individuals going through their pubescent years and how they are regarded in the eyes of the law as being consensual (not the argument I'm actually having, just important to stipulate current laws in that region - Juliet was 12 in the Shakespeare play) and not about 'abusive' cops.

I'll happily add to abusive cops stories every time I can - There was one recently about a pastor where I went nose to nose with an ignorant piece of flotsam over his opinion on what to do when encountering someone with a drawn gun.

This is not an abusive cop. This is a father doing a fine job of getting all parties concerned on an issue that could be life changing.

The fact that he may be sued over it goes to show why there is such an authoritarian and faceless police force these days as when someone can try to exploit a situation to their benefit they will - but to the loss of the rest of the community.

Enjoy the fascist state you are creating guys - because real people will stop being real the minute they find themselves in situations which will be used against them because of their standing.

It's almost like ATS push the NWO or whatever other weird oppressive theory you confine yourself to.

Also kudos to the extreme lack of education to many of the posters in this thread. I'm sincerely happy not to be associated with you in the real world were observation, spelling and being understood clearly matters.

You guys believe what you want to - it's clear that fact means nothing to you.

-m0r

Originally posted by KilrathiLG
abcnews.go.com...

I liked this line spoken by the commentator.

"The boy may have broken the law, but the police officer is NOT above the law either"