Associate
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2016
- Posts
- 28
The charade seems to be sending out some weird messages and raising many questions. The main issue is that it's OK to **** children as long as they don't look like children???
So what does the law protect children having sex from? Is it physical damage or mental damage? What if this guy was a Brown Person from Rochdale, would everyone still be this sympathetic to the guy?
If that's the message you get from this, I'd suggest a bit of self reflection.
You have to judge the event, not the reflection of the event.
A man went on a night out. Late at night, in a taxi rank by a bar he met a woman of legal age. They talked, went to a party, and had sex. Until events of the following weeks, this is what happened to him. All of his decisions are based on this information. This happens literally thousands of times every week.
The issue is that it has since come to light that the girl was underage. However, he had no reason whatsoever to even consider that she was underage. Several police officers and taxi drivers confirm this, and had no doubts she was of legal age.
You are basing your judgement on the fact that you KNOW she was underage during the event. However, having read the sentence above, what changes about the part in bold? Yes she was underage, but was it reasonable to think that he'd know that? Not at all.
Let's consider a truly ridiculous scenario. You go around to a friends house and he hands you a TV remote. He tells you to turn on the TV, so you press the power button. This is the event, your decisions and actions all make sense in that regard.
A couple of weeks later you get arrested. Through some electronic trickery your friend has arranged it so when someone presses the power button, a bomb explodes. Many people are killed.
By logic such as yours, you should be charged with murder? Obviously not. You had no knowledge of any crime, and it wouldn't be reasonable to expect that you might be committing a crime. There's no difference here.