Page 2 of 4

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:41 pm
by lejaders
maybe they cam to Canada where the legal age of consent is 14?

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:53 pm
by Laurin_B
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.

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:36 pm
by Lurker
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.

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:38 pm
by hella
not only is it stat rape, but its actual rape on account of bree wasnt in a state of mind to legally give consent!

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:48 pm
by Lurker
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.

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:48 pm
by sack36
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).

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:58 pm
by Languorous Lass
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.

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 2:01 pm
by Laurin_B
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.

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 2:03 pm
by Lurker
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.

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 2:30 pm
by Languorous Lass
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.

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 2:57 pm
by Laurin_B
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. :)

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:00 pm
by archangelica
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. :lol:

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:00 pm
by Lurker
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.

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:13 pm
by ApotheosisAZ
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?

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:16 pm
by Languorous Lass
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. :smt102