Statutory

lejaders · Post by **lejaders** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:41 pm

maybe they cam to Canada where the legal age of consent is 14?

Laurin_B · Post by **Laurin_B** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:53 pm

I agree, Kellylen, but the intent of stat rape laws is prevent contributing to the deliquency of a minor or corrupting innocent youths. I don't think any of that is in play in this situation. I also don't think the story is going to do anything with this. It just doesn't make sense from a plot point of view. That was my point.

Lurker · Post by **Lurker** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:36 pm

I think we can all agree that if Jonas were to face legal ramifications for this it would be utterly stupid. In the real world, the highly-vaunted — and supposedly infallible — law falls down on logic in this particular area all the time. It would be more stupid than if anyone really held TAAG up as criminals for kidnapping Jules or Bree in an attempt to save them.

hella · Post by **hella** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:38 pm

not only is it stat rape, but its actual rape on account of bree wasnt in a state of mind to legally give consent!

Lurker · Post by **Lurker** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:48 pm

hella wrote:not only is it stat rape, but its actual rape on account of bree wasnt in a state of mind to legally give consent!

Apparently she played Jonas for a fool, so I think she was probably the manipulator in this case.

sack36 · Post by **sack36** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:48 pm

We have no evidence that Bree was not in a state of mind to give consent. She was going in and out of lucidity when last we saw her interaction, but we hadn't seen anything to measure her progress for several days. Her lucidity seemed stable enough that she convinced Jonas she was back to her old self. That's circumstantial and hearsay at best, but is a more likely scenario than the full rape one.

ETA: Here's the pertinent California Law:

§ 261.5 Unlawful Sexual Intercourse: Any person 21+ who engages in sexual intercourse with a person under 16 (Felony or misdemeanor); or, any person who engages in sexual intercourse with any person under 18 and where defendant is more than 3 years older than victim (Felony or misdemeanor); or, any person who engages in sexual intercourse with any person under 18 and where defendant is not more than 3 years older than victim. (Misdemeanor).

Languorous Lass · Post by **Languorous Lass** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:58 pm

Thank you, sack! That info clears things up considerably.

And Lurker, I have to disagree with you once again on the Bree issue. I think the girl's pretty screwed up right now, and not in a position to manipulate anybody or to give consent.

Laurin_B · Post by **Laurin_B** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 2:01 pm

Ok, this is the kind of thing I wanted to avoid. I think everyone can appreciate your concerns, but these kinds of accusations getting thrown around in only going to lead to trouble.

Edited: Because I'm a grammatical moron.

Lurker · Post by **Lurker** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 2:03 pm

Susan: Thanks for getting that.

Lass: Well, she convinced Jonas that she was able to. Granted, he was blinded by romance, but I still think she'd have needed to at least appear in a sound state of mind in order for that to happen. I don't think he'd be that blinded. At least I hope not.

As for whether she's capable of manipulating anyone, she's already been doing it since November without being brainwashed by the Illuminati. You can't trust her. Ever.

Languorous Lass · Post by **Languorous Lass** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 2:30 pm

Laurin_B wrote:Ok, this is the kind of thing I wanted to avoid. I think everyone can appreciate your concerns, but these kinds of accusations getting thrown around in only going to lead to trouble.

What kind of thing, Laurin? What accusations? Were you referring to my post?

If so, I was making no "accusations" -- merely making a statement of opinion about the facts.

To Lurker -- you're displaying that bitterness about Bree again that I really don't understand. Remember, she's a fictional character, not a real woman.

Laurin_B · Post by **Laurin_B** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 2:57 pm

When you say you think she's unable to give consent, you imply that there was some sort of coersion involved. This defines rape.
Honestly, though, my comment wasn't directed at you. I understand your opinion, and you may be right about Bree not being in a state of mind to give consent. My comment was directed at hella. Flat-out calling it rape is pretty incindiary, and is only going to lead to trouble. That fact of the matter is we still don't know for sure what happened that night, and so until we do, I think those kinds of accusations are uncalled for.
But no, nothing directed at you. Honestly, I like how careful you've been around the subject.

archangelica · Post by **archangelica** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:00 pm

Lurker wrote: As for whether she's capable of manipulating anyone, she's already been doing it since November without being brainwashed by the Illuminati. You can't trust her. Ever.

Bree tells lies.

Lurker · Post by **Lurker** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:00 pm

Languorous Lass wrote:If so, I was making no "accusations" -- merely making a statement of opinion about the facts.

That's the thing, though: We don't know what the facts are. Unless Jonas was acting really, really impaired, Bree must have at least appeared to be cognizant and lucid again. You'd think Daniel would have said something if she had still been acting as child-like as she was in the video where she was banging her head against the wall and laying a beat down on the stuffed animals.

While he did suggest that Jonas may have been taking advantage of her, if she were altogether child-like, one would think he would have gone straight into beating the crap out of him, not vlogging about it. He seemed to emphasize more that she's "not our Bree" rather than that she's acting fragile.

Until we hear otherwise, I'd like to assume the best of Jonas in this case. Or at least assume that he was being halfway sensible. Same for Daniel.

Languorous Lass wrote:To Lurker -- you're displaying that bitterness about Bree again that I really don't understand. Remember, she's a fictional character, not a real woman.

And that is the only solace I have where her character is concerned.

Anyway, I'm bitter for good reason. As feral as I get where she's concerned, she's really done all the things I've pointed out about her.

ApotheosisAZ · Post by **ApotheosisAZ** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:13 pm

sack36 wrote:Here's the pertinent California Law:

§ 261.5 Unlawful Sexual Intercourse: Any person 21+ who engages in sexual intercourse with a person under 16 (Felony or misdemeanor); or, any person who engages in sexual intercourse with any person under 18 and where defendant is more than 3 years older than victim (Felony or misdemeanor); or, any person who engages in sexual intercourse with any person under 18 and where defendant is not more than 3 years older than victim. (Misdemeanor).

This applies if the cabin is located in California.

Lass, doesn't the Mann Act apply if the cabin isn't in California?

Languorous Lass · Post by **Languorous Lass** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:16 pm

Laurin_B wrote:When you say you think she's unable to give consent, you imply that there was some sort of coersion involved. This defines rape.
Honestly, though, my comment wasn't directed at you. I understand your opinion, and you may be right about Bree not being in a state of mind to give consent. My comment was directed at hella. Flat-out calling it rape is pretty incindiary, and is only going to lead to trouble. That fact of the matter is we still don't know for sure what happened that night, and so until we do, I think those kinds of accusations are uncalled for.
But no, nothing directed at you. Honestly, I like how careful you've been around the subject.

Thanks, Laurin.

ApotheosisAZ wrote:Lass, doesn't the Mann Act apply if the cabin isn't in California?

Gah. I have no idea. Criminal law isn't my field.