[Curtman]

DerbyX DerbyX:

An argument at trial but I think you'll find that it wouldn't hold water if they were in a relationship any different then you telling your GF you'll help her sister move if she'll "give you a little something extra in bed".

That's not a similar scenario. Sex for drugs is codependent, and its abusive. You should help your GF's friend move because its the right thing to do. She didn't sleep with the dealer to help him out. She did it because it would get her a fix, and he gave her heroin because she would be more dependent on it than with crack.

[DerbyX]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Here's something, a little old, but read it.

$1:

Parliament may prefer to retain an exemption from liability for those engaging in consensual sex with persons under the legal age of consent, where the difference in age is less than two years.

It specifically mentions maintaining the two year age differential clause when altering the age of consent. Are you telling me that that didn't happen when the age was moved to 16? Becuase you may be right on that count, but you're definitely wrong about it being a free-for-all when the age was 14. If I'm wrong, I only recently became wrong.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/researchpublications/prb993-e.htm

A quick google search? Don't bitch EVER when Andy or somebody does that with regard to economics.

UNDER the age of consent. AT the time of your citation the age of consent was 14, not 16. Did you not read that part?

All this says is that if you move the AOC to 16 they want the 2 year exception maintained for sexual activity under the age of consent.

You are wrong. At the time of your citation (2001) the age of consent was 14. The 2 year clause applied to those under the age, ie a 13 YO having sex with a 12 YO.

14 and older was OK. It did not say a 14 YO can only have sex with somebody 16 and younger.

16 is the age of consent. That is the law.

[DerbyX]

Curtman Curtman:

DerbyX DerbyX:

An argument at trial but I think you'll find that it wouldn't hold water if they were in a relationship any different then you telling your GF you'll help her sister move if she'll "give you a little something extra in bed".

That's not a similar scenario. Sex for drugs is codependent, and its abusive. You should help your GF's friend move because its the right thing to do. She didn't sleep with the dealer to help him out. She did it because it would get her a fix, and he gave her heroin because she would be more dependent on it than with crack.

At best your argument would be one made at trial but the police didn't think so because he was not charged under that law.

He might very well make the argument that she threw herself at him and offered sexual favours in order to get free drugs and thus that negates the dependency argument.

[Lemmy]

DerbyX DerbyX:

A quick google search? Don't bitch EVER when Andy or somebody does that with regard to economics.

That was pretty fucking rude. It's 10:00pm and I'm having a beer and watching the ball game. I don't have the research tools in front of me that I have at the office. I stand corrected. Are you happy?

[DerbyX]

Lemmy Lemmy:

DerbyX DerbyX:

A quick google search? Don't bitch EVER when Andy or somebody does that with regard to economics.

That was pretty fucking rude. It's 10:00pm and I'm having a beer and watching the ball game. I don't have the research tools in front of me that I have at the office. I stand corrected. Are you happy?

No offense intended dude (you know I respect you) but its not fair to attack Andy for doing that when you did. Even you have to admit your citation was rather hastily assembled and not even actual law but a recommendation.

My citing the age of consent being 16 isn't a mortality argument about a 24 year old dating a 16 year old. Its a legal argument which was my original point. She might have been 18 and the father might have done the same thing trying to save his daughter from the clutches of a drug dealer.

Would that have made a difference in your mind? Assume she was 19 and he was 28 with all other factors being the same?

[Curtman]

DerbyX DerbyX:

At best your argument would be one made at trial but the police didn't think so because he was not charged under that law.

He might very well make the argument that she threw herself at him and offered sexual favours in order to get free drugs and thus that negates the dependency argument.

That doesn't negate the dependency argument. That's how pimps become pimps.

[Thanos]

Regardless of all the legal details society is still the richer from his passing.

[DerbyX]

Curtman Curtman:

DerbyX DerbyX:

At best your argument would be one made at trial but the police didn't think so because he was not charged under that law.

He might very well make the argument that she threw herself at him and offered sexual favours in order to get free drugs and thus that negates the dependency argument.

That doesn't negate the dependency argument. That's how pimps become pimps.

Yes it would. This is a legal argument and there is no indication he was going to pimp her. There is no indication he didn't love her (providing drugs does not contradict this) and in fact every indication she loved him. She was cradling his body after her father murdered him. She kept going back to him.

You simply have not a made a case for the age exception under the law and I think the largest telling point should be the fact the police were not actively prosecuting him under that avenue. That is why the father took matters into his own hands, because what was happening was not illegal.

[DerbyX]

Thanos Thanos:

Regardless of all the legal details society is still the richer from his passing.

Would it be richer had a dirty skank drug addict been killed alongside her drug pusher boyfriend?

Who is to say he would not have kicked the habit and spent the rest of his life counseling and helping others beat their addictions?

The humanity in this thread speaks volumes.

[Thanos]

I keep forgetting the part where drug dealers and pimps are the only businessmen that you actually like.

[Curtman]

I never intended to make a case for this law. The law is broken, it encourages this kind of thing, and it needs fixing desperately. What was happening was illegal, and the police were and are powerless to do anything about it.

[DerbyX]

Thanos Thanos:

I keep forgetting the part where drug dealers and pimps are the only businessmen that you actually like.

John Wayne Gacy was a clown that preformed for children in hospitals ....

Sorry if I don't think vigilante murder for people who are only selling drugs is wrong.

Will you execute bartenders who push alcohol on people who then drive drunk and kill others?

[DerbyX]

Curtman Curtman:

I never intended to make a case for this law. The law is broken, it encourages this kind of thing, and it needs fixing desperately. What was happening was illegal, and the police were and are powerless to do anything about it.

Did you read what you wrote?

You don't intend to make a case for law but then you claim what was happening was illegal although you mean should have since the reason the police were powerless was because it was not illegal.

You are making a case for law. No law was being broken which is why the police weren't doing anything. Its not like the police knew it was illegal but thought, meh.

[Curtman]

Absolutely. It's illegal to sell drugs. It's illegal to sell drugs to minors. It's illegal to have sex with minors. It's illegal to give drugs to minors in exchange for sex. Nobody could stop him except dad. But there's a hundred more just like him.

[DerbyX]

Curtman Curtman:

Absolutely. It's illegal to sell drugs. It's illegal to sell drugs to minors. It's illegal to have sex with minors. It's illegal to give drugs to minors in exchange for sex. Nobody could stop him except dad. But there's a hundred more just like him.

After all the people attacking you for your connection to drugs do I need to point it out?

Its illegal to sell drugs. Not just to minors.
Its illegal to have sex with minors ... under the age of consent. She was not.
Its illegal to give drugs to minors in exchange for sex. Its illegal to give drugs to minors PERIOD. She was still not a minor.

What the father did was murder. He was convicted of it and will be again since the original conviction was overturned on a technicality.

How many people here consider you the same sort of scum based on your connection to the drug trade? Do they have any sympathy for your reasons/excuses why you aren't like this guy?