Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
14 year old gets taser.Can't spanked the Kid.Bring them to the police for a good taser.
hoopty
Member UncommonPosts: 788
Police say a 14-year-old Tucumcari girl is recovering at an Albuquerque
hospital after being shot in the head with a Taser dart by the Tucumcari police chief.
According to reports, Stacy Akin and her 14-year-old daughter were arguing over a cell phone Thursday and she drove her daughter to the Tucumcari Police Department for help.
While out front of police headquarters, the 14-year-old girl ran off and was later found at a park by Chief Roger Hatcher.
Hatcher said when he got out of his vehicle and called to her, she ran in front of his patrol car across a street without looking for traffic.
Hatcher said he attempted to catch up to the girl by foot was unable to do so and believes he had no choice but to fire a Taser dart to stop her.
The girl's parents are outraged and are questioning whether excessive force was used by police. The Article can be found at.
www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212245521.shtml
More about other related Tasers
specials.msn.com/A-List/Police-Tasering.aspx
Where is Social Service when something like this goes wrong?Got to love the USA, how Screwed up they are..Parent Spank a kid.The Parent goes to jail..Police Taser the Kid. The Law is above the Spanking..
Edit Fixed links
Some people rob you at gun point..Others will rob you at "Ball Point Pen"
Comments
Yeah that pig should be spit roasted along with the rest of the herd claiming that she got what she deserved...
The only way I could understand him is if she had been severely retarded and was running into traffic.
Now she has permanent brain damage.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
I'd say she had brain damage before she was tasered.
She abused her mother - which is a crime.
She took explicit photos of herself at 14 and sent them to another person - which is also a crime, infact, it's 2 crimes. (Edit: Actually, it's 3 crimes and yes they are sex offender crimes. Possesion of child pornography, producing child pornography, and distributing child pornography)
She attempted to evade the police - which is also a crime.
So let's put this all into perspective - an abusive sex offender was tasered at a public park while trying to escape police custody.
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
And to make it fun:
"So let's put this all into perspective - an abusive african american-hispanic-illegal alien sex offender was tasered at a public park while trying to escape police custody by running into traffic waving a Semi-automatic rifle she could barely carry"
lol in all seriousness though, i can see this going both ways. She was evading police so i can see how it was in there right, although she is under age and wasnt a threat to anyone else but herself and the people driving down the streets she was running through. Also her getting hit in the head, was most likely bad aim, i mean regular street cops do not have that good of aim, especially with a taser.
Playing: EVE Online
Favorite MMOs: WoW, SWG Pre-cu, Lineage 2, UO, EQ, EVE online
Looking forward to: Archeage, Kingdom Under Fire 2
KUF2's Official Website - http://www.kufii.com/ENG/ -
She abused her mother? How explicitly? She obviously didn't abuse her mother well enough if her mother wasn't sent to the hospital. I'm guessing she told her mother to go "fuck off" and refused to give her the cell phone; that's definitely worth a lobotomy right there.
OH NOEZ. A 14 year old girl took explicit photos of herself and sent them to her BF. Holy fucking shit that's terrible: Teenage girls do that all of the time and even in my late twenties I can recall wanting to look at naked pictures of teenage girls when I was a teen; it's completely natural and these fucked up laws enforced by sheep like you are insanity.
A 14 year old girl taking naked pictures of herself voluntarily and sending them to her bf is a sex offender... seriously.. how fucked up are you people. People were mating and having children in their teens well before the existence of civilization: The desire to mate and natural human curiosity might be federal offenses, but they are a passage of life and you crazy sons of bitches aren't going to change human utility functions with your insane morals based on religious doctrines and not reasoning.
A 14 year old girl has permanent brain damage, because a police man saw it fit to detain her by shooting a metal dart into her brain and giving her shock treatment that has made her an invalid.
Congratulations.
Edit: Btw, any real father would try to kill that police officer, or at least give him the same treatment he gave his daughter. People have really become sheep nowadays.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Just to think if there was a problem with a Donut shop you will have every tom,dick and harry responding with there guns in hand..Really..Is a 14 year old faster than the Police chief in running? Or was the Police Chief over weight and could not run??So the taser was faster to put her down..Where was the back up crew? Maybe the back up were eating there Donuts.
Some people rob you at gun point..Others will rob you at "Ball Point Pen"
Look, if a cop can't catch up to a 14 year old they have no business being an officer.
This comes from the standpoint of one who has been through the first parts of the academy. We ran and ran and ran.
We chased K9's through tackle course, we ran, and ran. We had to be physically fit, mentally prepared, and very social (later I found we also had to be crooks, so no go on that). I've been through the tasing section. It is not that bad. The current alternates in such a manner your body never adapts to (Though this one bull of a dude did manage to walk seven steps or so. Which was amazing). It's not nearly as traumatic on an adult as it would be a 14 year old child.
Use of excessive force on a minor.
As for the possession of child pornography. Really now man.
Law needs compassion, not just punishment. There are unlying issues here in this girls home.
We have forgotten that law was build with the scales of justice and compassion. Now it's just PUNISH which is exaclty what is bull. Bottomline that guy should be able to run down a perfectly fit 14 year old. Even if she was an all state runner. There is no excuse. If she was 25 feet away (I believe max range on a taser dart round, police issue.*) he could of run her down
Either way to play devils advocate.
If she was endangering others (Traffic could mean 1 car that was 50 feet away, simply to trump a charge), causing panic. I fully condone the use of stop methods.
However if she was not in any real direct danger (As in being in a park) then there is no excuse
The officer should not see trouble in the least as he would of followed the books. However if it was in a "safe" zone. Then he should be evaluated and re-trained in the use of taser darts. Which in minors has been shown to cause nerve damage.
As for you who think americans can't spank their children. You can. You have a certain level of control, however from one who has been "spanked" as a child there is a degree where it's an ass kicking. Which is abuse. Please read and learn laws. Some states dictate martial disipline as being a better method than calling the authorities. Some states there are severe regulations on it due to the fact "Spanking" IN ALL COUNTRIES is often just an excuse word of "Beating the shit out of your kid".
She abused her mother? How explicitly? She obviously didn't abuse her mother well enough if her mother wasn't sent to the hospital. I'm guessing she told her mother to go "fuck off" and refused to give her the cell phone; that's definitely worth a lobotomy right there.
OH NOEZ. A 14 year old girl took explicit photos of herself and sent them to her BF. Holy fucking shit that's terrible: Teenage girls do that all of the time and even in my late twenties I can recall wanting to look at naked pictures of teenage girls when I was a teen; it's completely natural and these fucked up laws enforced by sheep like you are insanity.
A 14 year old girl taking naked pictures of herself voluntarily and sending them to her bf is a sex offender... seriously.. how fucked up are you people. People were mating and having children in their teens well before the existence of civilization: The desire to mate and natural human curiosity might be federal offenses, but they are a passage of life and you crazy sons of bitches aren't going to change human utility functions with your insane morals based on religious doctrines and not reasoning.
A 14 year old girl has permanent brain damage, because a police man saw it fit to detain her by shooting a metal dart into her brain and giving her shock treatment that has made her an invalid.
Congratulations.
Edit: Btw, any real father would try to kill that police officer, or at least give him the same treatment he gave his daughter. People have really become sheep nowadays.
Watch the video, she physically abused her mother, in other words, she assaulted her mother - it doesn't matter whether she slaped her mother or kicked the teeth out of her mother's head - it's still abuse and is a CRIME. Also, she hurt her mother enough for her mother to seek help from the police.
Also, she sent explicit text messages and photographs to "older men".
She evaded a police officer - which is a crime.
It's a cops job to apprehend suspected criminals and she was a suspected criminal at the time he tased her. He probably didn't intend to cause her that much suffering since he used a non-leathal device - so it was obviously an accident.
The police have to follow the letter of the law despite who the offender is and turn that offender over to the courts to determine what is just. We call it justice.
I think you're a very confused person and you need to sort yourself out - you advocate the murder of people who, by accident, injure people; you advocate the distribution of child pornography; you advocate sex with minors; and you suggest that I'm "fucked up"?
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
You're still entirely clueless. She was so physically abusive to her mother that she let herself be driven to the police: It makes perfect sense. Do you have any idea what constitutes assault legally? Pushing, shoving... anything as minor as inadvertently swatting somebody when reaching for a cellphone. I'm not confused at all. I advocate all of those things and I also advocate sex between consenting minors who are physically capable of it, because your definitions are entirely vapid.
A magazine with a nude 16 year old is considered child pornography in the states, when you can find such images in some teenage European publications that are there to familiarize teens with their own bodies. A teenage girl sending naked pictures of herself isn't a child pornographer, but perhaps a distraught teen craving attention. People like you have become so attached to laws that were inspired by nothing but puritanical sentiment that you can no longer distinguish between what really is right and wrong, but merely what is a violation of a law and what is not.
Believe me: I didn't suggest anything; like most Americans, you are and you don't even realize it. Yes, I also think that people who injure children due to sheer incompetence, sadism, etc. should be subject to the same treatment and I was merely conveying how people have become farm animals when fathers can no longer (or are unwilling to) retaliate for violence against their own children by a police officer.
A child running from a police officer who has done nothing wrong beyond disobedience and does not pose a threat is not a criminal, yet the laws would make her as such..... has common sense abandoned you entirely (or any sense for that matter)?
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
So you don't like how the police handled this situation and you still want to grant them the authority to determine what's right and wrong? I'd much rather have them follow the letter of the law and allow the courts to decide right and wrong.
In this thread you've advocated assualt, murder, sex with minors, vigilantism, child pornography, and granting the police more authority than they can be trusted with - I think it's you that have lost your senses.
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
Well I've read the article and all I have to say is that they should get the case to the courts for excessive use of force.
And that's why though a proper police station needs also at least some personel with some psycology expertise.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
The orange part is entirely a non sequitur. The rest is you regurgitating what you stated in the previous post without any kind of justification.
Friend, you're either trolling, or you've never had any senses to lose.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
We need a culture that understands the consequences of the taser.
Stop!
STOP! OR I WILL EMPLOY THE TASER.
(the suspect stops)
The only problem with tasers is that they work.
We need a society that has officers who don't think tasers are always a simple, safe(biggest misconception) and, quick solution to everything.
"A stupid idea to you is the memory of a lifetime for me"
I know that the girl was a bit odd and such, but not anyway for a Police Officer to have shot her in the head with a Taser Dart. Those things hurt bad as hell, worse when it results in the head.
Dude...
The orange part is entirely a non sequitur. The rest is you regurgitating what you stated in the previous post without any kind of justification.
Friend, you're either trolling, or you've never had any senses to lose.
You advocated assualt when you made flippant remarks and belittled the physical abuse that this girl caused to her mother and, also, when you said "or at least give him the same treatment he gave his daughter" when refering to the accidental injury the officer inflicted with the taser dart. Also, may I remind you that the abuse is obviously what made the mother seek police assistance to begin with.
You advocated murder and vigilantism when you said "any real father would try to kill that police officer"
You advocated sex with minors by suggesting that minors have the right to consent when you said "People were mating and having children in their teens well before the existence of civilization" I'd also point out that in this situation the teen was sending sexual material to older men.
You advocated child pornography when you said "OH NOEZ. A 14 year old girl took explicit photos of herself and sent them to her BF." Also, "A magazine with a nude 16 year old is considered child pornography in the states, when you can find such images in some teenage European publications..." It's wrong to take naked pictures of children under the age of consent and nobody has the right to consent for that child, not even the child his/herself.
You advocated granting the police, not the courts, the ability to determine right and wrong when you said "People like you have become so attached to laws that were inspired by nothing but puritanical sentiment that you can no longer distinguish between what really is right and wrong, but merely what is a violation of a law and what is not." Agian I'll make my point that the police should not been given the ability to determine right and wrong and should only be trusted to recognize when a law is broken and detain the offender - the justice system determines right and wrong. The police can not be trusted with determining and dispensing justice and again I'll remind you that the police are who we rely on to apprehend criminals.
As I said before you need to sort yourself out and do some thinking with your brain.
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
You don't run from the cops, but you also don't shoot a 14 year old girl in the head with a taser, just because you're too much of a fat ass to catch her. That is all.
If there was any real physics abuse the woman would have called the police, not driven her daughter to them.
Also your points on child porn are null, a teen is not a child. As you said any photos below the age of consent, this view can't work because America(and some other western countries) already have terrible ages of consent which make no sense, they are based off the morals and beliefs of some people who wish to push their view onto another and yes this is completely different than child rape because a teen is quiet a bit more able to make their own decisions. Who are you to tell the girl what she can and can't do with her body anyways?
The idea of the teenager is imposed by western culture more than anything else. These years used to be the ones where younger people were able to experiment and make mistakes so they could learn and form the individuals that they are. Own new society seems to like preventing this however and this has create new generations of lazy people who don't even leave their parents until well into their 20s. People who can't think for themselves and people who know nothing on even the simpliest of subjects. People are quick to blame the education system, liberal media, capitalist economy or other things as such, but the implementation of the teenager can truly be the root cause of many modern problems.
I do agree with you that the law is important and should be the only tool the police have(they don't get to make a personal view of it). Laws can be idiotic, unjust or used as tools to actually harm the public.
"A stupid idea to you is the memory of a lifetime for me"
So a trained policeman cant keep up with a 14 year old..?
Then, he shoots her in the head with a taser?
Yeah, we all love the police alright, theres no single way to make this sound good imo.
You advocated assualt when you made flippant remarks and belittled the physical abuse that this girl caused to her mother and, also, when you said "or at least give him the same treatment he gave his daughter" when refering to the accidental injury the officer inflicted with the taser dart. Also, may I remind you that the abuse is obviously what made the mother seek police assistance to begin with.
You advocated murder and vigilantism when you said "any real father would try to kill that police officer"
You advocated sex with minors by suggesting that minors have the right to consent when you said "People were mating and having children in their teens well before the existence of civilization" I'd also point out that in this situation the teen was sending sexual material to older men.
You advocated child pornography when you said "OH NOEZ. A 14 year old girl took explicit photos of herself and sent them to her BF." Also, "A magazine with a nude 16 year old is considered child pornography in the states, when you can find such images in some teenage European publications..." It's wrong to take naked pictures of children under the age of consent and nobody has the right to consent for that child, not even the child his/herself.
You advocated granting the police, not the courts, the ability to determine right and wrong when you said "People like you have become so attached to laws that were inspired by nothing but puritanical sentiment that you can no longer distinguish between what really is right and wrong, but merely what is a violation of a law and what is not." Agian I'll make my point that the police should not been given the ability to determine right and wrong and should only be trusted to recognize when a law is broken and detain the offender - the justice system determines right and wrong. The police can not be trusted with determining and dispensing justice and again I'll remind you that the police are who we rely on to apprehend criminals.
As I said before you need to sort yourself out and do some thinking with your brain. *
Indeed the physical abuse was so severe that she was driven to a police station. Hint: You should try * By Jove, you're right: I'm sure he accidentally used the taser instead of his gun. What a silly mistake.I'm sure her mother wasn't overreacting at all, given that her daughter complied enough to actually get in a her with herand be driven to the police station. Are there visible injuries on the mother, or perhaps she is bleeding internally?
Yes, I advocate what you call murder and vigilantism. Both of your definitions are vapid, however,since they are entirely based on the assumptions that the American justice system is just and effective ( which it isn't ).
Again that's natural behavior. Did I ever type that a 14 year old should be allowed to have sex with an older man? Nope. I did say, however, that people were mating and having children at that age implying that if she were to have sex withsomebody her age safely, then I would condone it. There are other states with various laws of consent ( and countries ),so a minor in one state could be an adult in another. I also condone an adult having sex with a minor ( by your definition )if that minor is older than 13 AND physically capable as well as the age difference not being severe andassuming that safe sex is practiced. Many lives have been ruined, because of morons looking at the laws and not thedetails themselves; an 18 year old who is but a few days older than a 17 year old could very well be committing acrime in one state, but not another. What happens exactly when the age of consent varies? You need to start doing somethinking of your own, which you obviously haven't been.
Nope. That's your inference. It isn't, however, what was implied: You assume that I would admit unrestricted authority to police officers based on my beliefs that laws are irrational, when the point was that relying entirely on the laws and not the intuitive sense of what's right and wrong based on common sense is unintelligent and possibly detrimental. Not all legislation in America has the best interests of it's people in mind. Take the illegal status of marijuana: Why has a drug that is both less deadly and addictive than alcohol been made illegal and hunted down by authorities? Tobacco lobbyists. Why have some vaccinations been made mandatory that are actually not even necessary? Pharmaceutical lobbyists. America is run by the minority who pay money to the government, not the people themselves. America has a representative democracy, which is far removed from a real democracy and places the powers in a minority.
Please take your own advice.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
You advocated assualt when you made flippant remarks and belittled the physical abuse that this girl caused to her mother and, also, when you said "or at least give him the same treatment he gave his daughter" when refering to the accidental injury the officer inflicted with the taser dart. Also, may I remind you that the abuse is obviously what made the mother seek police assistance to begin with.
You advocated murder and vigilantism when you said "any real father would try to kill that police officer"
You advocated sex with minors by suggesting that minors have the right to consent when you said "People were mating and having children in their teens well before the existence of civilization" I'd also point out that in this situation the teen was sending sexual material to older men.
You advocated child pornography when you said "OH NOEZ. A 14 year old girl took explicit photos of herself and sent them to her BF." Also, "A magazine with a nude 16 year old is considered child pornography in the states, when you can find such images in some teenage European publications..." It's wrong to take naked pictures of children under the age of consent and nobody has the right to consent for that child, not even the child his/herself.
You advocated granting the police, not the courts, the ability to determine right and wrong when you said "People like you have become so attached to laws that were inspired by nothing but puritanical sentiment that you can no longer distinguish between what really is right and wrong, but merely what is a violation of a law and what is not." Agian I'll make my point that the police should not been given the ability to determine right and wrong and should only be trusted to recognize when a law is broken and detain the offender - the justice system determines right and wrong. The police can not be trusted with determining and dispensing justice and again I'll remind you that the police are who we rely on to apprehend criminals.
As I said before you need to sort yourself out and do some thinking with your brain. *
Indeed the physical abuse was so severe that she was driven to a police station. Hint: You should try * By Jove, you're right: I'm sure he accidentally used the taser instead of his gun. What a silly mistake.I'm sure her mother wasn't overreacting at all, given that her daughter complied enough to actually get in a her with herand be driven to the police station. Are there visible injuries on the mother, or perhaps she is bleeding internally?
So it's ok to strike somebody so long as you do it in such a way that they don't require medical attention? Think about what you are saying here and the ramifications of it.
Yes, I advocate what you call murder and vigilantism. Both of your definitions are vapid, however,since they are entirely based on the assumptions that the American justice system is just and effective ( which it isn't ).
Again that's natural behavior. Did I ever type that a 14 year old should be allowed to have sex with an older man? Nope. I did say, however, that people were mating and having children at that age implying that if she were to have sex withsomebody her age safely, then I would condone it. There are other states with various laws of consent ( and countries ),so a minor in one state could be an adult in another. I also condone an adult having sex with a minor ( by your definition )if that minor is older than 13 AND physically capable as well as the age difference not being severe andassuming that safe sex is practiced. Many lives have been ruined, because of morons looking at the laws and not thedetails themselves; an 18 year old who is but a few days older than a 17 year old could very well be committing acrime in one state, but not another. What happens exactly when the age of consent varies? You need to start doing somethinking of your own, which you obviously haven't been.
It's not a question of being just physically capable of having sex. There are mental issues that need to be addressed also, a minor can too easily be forced into sexual activity by an unscrupulous adult, and thus, we have the age of consent.
Nope. That's your inference. It isn't, however, what was implied: You assume that I would admit unrestricted authority to police officers based on my beliefs that laws are irrational, when the point was that relying entirely on the laws and not the intuitive sense of what's right and wrong based on common sense is unintelligent and possibly detrimental. Not all legislation in America has the best interests of it's people in mind. Take the illegal status of marijuana: Why has a drug that is both less deadly and addictive than alcohol been made illegal and hunted down by authorities? Tobacco lobbyists. Why have some vaccinations been made mandatory that are actually not even necessary? Pharmaceutical lobbyists. America is run by the minority who pay money to the government, not the people themselves. America has a representative democracy, which is far removed from a real democracy and places the powers in a minority.
The police officers are the ones we employ to apprehend suspected criminals. You are saying that the police on the frontline should be the ones to determine right and wrong at the time they make their arrest because who else exept the police would be able to do it at the time the suspect is initially being detained? It's not up to cops to decide what is or isn't right - they are to arrest law breakers and let the court decide. Take your own paragraph above as an example: "I also condone an adult having sex with a minor ( by your definition )if that minor is older than 13 AND physically capable as well as the age difference not being severe andassuming that safe sex is practiced." Now, is the police officer the person to determine whether that child is physically ready for sex or should he arrest the man and let the courts decide?
Please take your own advice.
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
So it's ok to strike somebody so long as you do it in such a way that they don't require medical attention? Think about what you are saying here and the ramifications of it.
On the flip side if you push somebody, or force something from somebody's grasp that's assault, or if you merely slap somebody on the face with minimal velocity at impact that's equivalent to breaking their jaw and incapacitating them. The point is that she obviously wasn't that violent. A 14 year old of her size could easily have stymied her mother's attempts of getting her into the car. You like to infer things that tend to your argument, but otherwise not. I don't buy that she was a very violent girl and the report doesn't even suggest that.
It's not a question of being just physically capable of having sex. There are mental issues that need to be addressed also, a minor can too easily be forced into sexual activity by an unscrupulous adult, and thus, we have the age of consent.
Still haven't addressed the differences in ages of consent by state, or even nation. So you're saying that minors in one state/country are more mentally developed than minors in another? What scientific basis do you have to suggest that any age below the age of consent implies that the individual is not capable of making such a decision? There are none and that is my point.
The problem is that it requires an analysis of the individual and since individuals mature at different rates, an age of consent makes absolutely no sense when it's 16-18 years of age while some people are already in college at that age.
Reread the paragraph, because you obviously didn't with that response: Both law AND common sense must be applied; not one, or the other. Again you assume that the American courts are competent and completely ignored the possibility of them being fallible. I'd rather a police officer abide by the law to the point where it isn't detrimental to the people, than have him/her act as a robot and enforce laws that could destroy somebody's life unnecessarily. In a nutshell: No, a combination, not one, or the other.
Please take your own advice. Please.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
So it's ok to strike somebody so long as you do it in such a way that they don't require medical attention? Think about what you are saying here and the ramifications of it.
On the flip side if you push somebody, or force something from somebody's grasp that's assault, or if you merely slap somebody on the face with minimal velocity at impact that's equivalent to breaking their jaw and incapacitating them. The point is that she obviously wasn't that violent. A 14 year old of her size could easily have stymied her mother's attempts of getting her into the car. You like to infer things that tend to your argument, but otherwise not. I don't buy that she was a very violent girl and the report doesn't even suggest that.
It's not a question of being just physically capable of having sex. There are mental issues that need to be addressed also, a minor can too easily be forced into sexual activity by an unscrupulous adult, and thus, we have the age of consent.
Still haven't addressed the differences in ages of consent by state, or even nation. So you're saying that minors in one state/country are more mentally developed than minors in another? What scientific basis do you have to suggest that any age below the age of consent implies that the individual is not capable of making such a decision? There are none and that is my point.
The problem is that it requires an analysis of the individual and since individuals mature at different rates, an age of consent makes absolutely no sense when it's 16-18 years of age while some people are already in college at that age.
Reread the paragraph, because you obviously didn't with that response: Both law AND common sense must be applied; not one, or the other. Again you assume that the American courts are competent and completely ignored the possibility of them being fallible. I'd rather a police officer abide by the law to the point where it isn't detrimental to the people, than have him/her act as a robot and enforce laws that could destroy somebody's life unnecessarily. In a nutshell: No, a combination, not one, or the other.
Please take your own advice. Please.
She was "physically abusive" to her mother. That means she assualted her Mom. You don't have the right to lay your hands on another person in an abusive manner. There is no justification for employing violence to solve a domestic problem and those that use violence are deemed criminals and must go to court.
It's up to each individual area's duly elected democratic representatives to determine the maturity level of their children and set an age of consent. They're in a far better position than you to determine what is legal for their area's children or not. If a child feels that they are an adult let that child petition the courts. Let me also estimate that the 14 year old in our case would never of been granted adult status under any circumstance.
Oh, I read the paragraph and understand it completely - you're putting the cart before the horse and I'm trying to explain the error in it, so here I go again - both law and common sense must be applied in a court of law but the rule of law needs to be strictly adhered to by police officers - they are not to determine on their own what is right and wrong, they're only to recognize a law breaker and apprehend that law breaker for the justice system to determine what is just. There is a paradox in your thinking that amuses me.
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
I remember posting this on here, but I cannot find my post, it looks like it was deleted!
--
Michael
She was "physically abusive" to her mother. That means she assualted her Mom. You don't have the right to lay your hands on another person in an abusive manner. There is no justification for employing violence to solve a domestic problem and those that use violence are deemed criminals and must go to court.
It's up to each individual area's duly elected democratic representatives to determine the maturity level of their children and set an age of consent. They're in a far better position than you to determine what is legal for their area's children or not. If a child feels that they are an adult let that child petition the courts. Let me also estimate that the 14 year old in our case would never of been granted adult status under any circumstance.
Oh, I read the paragraph and understand it completely - you're putting the cart before the horse and I'm trying to explain the error in it, so here I go again - both law and common sense must be applied in a court of law but the rule of law needs to be strictly adhered to by police officers - they are not to determine on their own what is right and wrong, they're only to recognize a law breaker and apprehend that law breaker for the justice system to determine what is just. There is a paradox in your thinking that amuses me.
I'm really getting tired of having to state my argument many times for you to ignore it, so I'm going to pull a Wickersham and just assume that everything you post is a troll and put you on ignore.
I hope for your own sake that they don't outlaw breathing.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.