Male Dem won't be charged for public oral sex on teen man

Do you understand 56 years old and 17 Dave?

Funny how you hide behind the law to not call this guy a pedo (by one year) but want to dismiss the public indecency laws.

Another typical liberal.

 

This is my main point of contention. I don't think the case as described in the article would lead me to believe the results would be different for the majority of people. No witness. The cops didn't see anything. And they stopped of their own free will and volition after five minutes. I don't think it is unusual that the powers that be decided a successful prosecution was not in the cards. Other people may have a different opinion. Personally given the personal and professional fall out thus far I think the maximum deterrence effect has been achieved.

 

Here is a woman engaged in consensual sex with adults in her own home arrested after the fact and charged with a crime:

This wasn't with someone underage, it wasn't on a roadside, it was entirely consensual, and no one involved wanted her charged.

Do you think if this were a politician or someone connected the charges would stick?

 

Indeed, sadly Larry Craig was a confederate to our cause, but did you notice the liberal tolerance? I'd have figure they'd welcome him with open arms, instead they tried to destroy him, odd how all that works eh?

 

Zosiasmom the article clearly says the woman was a teacher and the people she had sex with were students. As was stated previously in this thread in the jurisdiction where the case in the OP occurred the age of consent is 16 UNLESS the other party is someone in a position of authority, ie teacher, priest, etc. You have to know the law where you live before you unzip. It is a hazard of federalism.

 

A politician is not an authority figure? Furthermore, his laws did state that he was forbidden from public sex, public nudity, and lewd conduct, thus he broke the law. For how long (5 minutes) is besides the point. He is not being charged whilst she is being charged.

 

What is with you liberals and your inability to.comprehend the LAW on public indecency?

And why defend this obvious PEDO?

 

Zosizsmom, I'm sure if the teenager in question was a house page then the politician in question would be seen as an "authority figure." As it stands the teenager went on line looking for sex with older men and hooked up with a complete stranger.

In your teacher story the perpetrator was charged with something quite specific...

So no a politician would not be convicted of that specifically. They are not teachers.

Also this was not some random teacher from across the state they found on Craigslist while looking for sex. It was THEIR teacher.

Link.

 

We the people elected him to represent us. Like it or not, there are specific codes of conduct--no different than the military, teachers, or other "authority" figures have. He is to abide the rule of law and uphold the Constitution. He should also represent the people with character and dignity.

Receiving blowjobs from 17 year olds in rest stops is none of the above.

So was he.

I'm not arguing he should be charged with sex with a student. If he had sex in a public place and this was acknowledged by the teen then he indeed broke the law, no differently than this lady broke the law.

Both were involved in cases that dealt with consensual sex, but ...they still broke the law and one is being punished, not the other.

So...that's not my point. My point is that the law, no matter how stupid, was violated. In one case, in spite of the consensual nature and the age of the students, an individual received the maximum sentence and in the other case the individual was told to not do it again.

People go to jail for breaking stupid laws all the time...unless they are rich or connected.


Link.[/QUOTE]

 

Obviously, he cannot be convicted of a crime else he would have been. Had he not been a politician the story might be different. Lord knows us common folk get charges upon charges and then more charges.

 

I don't think anyone in this thread has contradicted any of that.

She was charged with at least 16 counts. We are talking a CONVICTION involving a second degree felony and multiple victims vs an aborted five minute misdemeanor that no one witnessed and had no victims. They are not the same.

By law those students couldn't give consent. It was deemed by the good people of Texas to be a second degree felony. Please see my avatar. The solution is not to rail against this sleazy politician. The solution if you really want one is to go to Texas and change the law.

 

I do hate pedos yes. Guilty as charged. Unlike you.

LOL I already did but if you want to embarass yourself further while defending this pedo no problem!

Indecent Conduct in a Public Place (or Private Place)

Minnesota Statutes Section 617.23, subd. 1 creates a misdemeanor crime for a person who willfully and lewdly exposes the person's body or their private parts, procures another to expose private parts, or engages in open or gross lewdness or lascivious behavior - in a public place or any place where others are present.

The evidence:

The 17-year-old told police he responded to the ad and agreed to meet Gauthier at the rest stop around 11 p.m. He told police they walked to a wooded area behind the rest stop and were back there for "five minutes" having oral sex before being spooked by the chance of being spotted.

THATS PUBLIC GENIUS.

Now what? What's your next defense of this pedo?

Go ahead

 

Who is a "pedo?"

 

If you haven't figured it out by now Jeb you never will.

 

=> age of consent is 16.

 

I think you need to figure out what a pedophile is...

Link.

I see no mention of anyone 13 or younger in this thread.

 

Stop making excuses for an obvious pedo.

This child couldn't even vote yet

 

56 year old and a 17 year old is a pedophile. Legally no but morally, absolutely.

I don't expect you to ever understand.

 

Remember my "Newton's Third Law of Politics"? One day....perhaps decades from now, the incremental and concerted loosening of social mores is going to be met with an equal and opposite dynamic...

The hedonistic, free-for-all, shock-at-all-costs crowd will be howling bloody murder when...beginning in local municipalities and spreading to states and ultimately to DC.... a return to puritanicalism rears it's equally ugly head.

and worse than that, they make me...and individualist/tribal anarchist.... somewhat understand the concerns held by social conservative collectivists....horrors

 

My link was to a MEDICAL website not a legal website. It's science not legalese or some screwball religious nut doctrine... I don't expect you to ever understand.

 

You know...that is so true. When I was growing up I would look at my very, very, very conservative mother and argue with her about tolerance and that rock music wouldn't turn me into a drug addict or slut and she would say that it was a slow steady creep and to give it another decade or so.

I'm now the one looking around and just shaking my head at the proliferation of sexual images and the lack of restraint in media. I made a thread on fashion ads with women selling lipstick with their throats slashed or abuse and sexual cruelty to a mental patient to sell white shirts...it's like even I, someone who never met a guitar player she didn't like, am saying: yeh, I'm done with this...

 

Charged with what? Did you even read your own story? Apparently not, though I'm not surprised.