Never been a fan of prosecuting a tragedy like this. Not a crime imo

Unless the crime is violent, self-defense isn't applicable. In this case, charges shouldn't have been brought due to the circumstances.

This is criminal law 101. Surely you understand killing someone isn't a legal defense for a nonviolent crime.

The girl agreed to have, in her words, "consensual sex". Her mother knew about it.

Regardless, she shouldn't be prosecuted. It's clearly an accident involving tragic use of a safe word.

I'll let Merriam Webster explain this

i fail to see how sticking your dick into a child, who by legal definition did not provide consent, is somehow not an act of physical force that harms someone.


had she said "no", you would agree that it was a violent act, yes? so your argument hangs on her giving consent, which, legally, she did not give. the government decided by statute that all children are deemed to have said "no" to sex with an adult.

this is every bit as much rape, and a violent crime, as any other form of rape.

Even if you don't sexually assault them, drugging someone is assault.

Your definition fails the logic test because if we assume you are correct, a girl in the same circumstances who is 17 years, 364 days old would be a victim of violence until the stroke of midnight. Or a girl in my state (where consent can be given at 16) would not be a victim of violence, and yet over state lines a few miles away she would suddenly have violence committed against her.

Neither the law or logic recognizes this as the meaning of the word "violence". Violence is not statutory, it's based on facts and reason. Let me repeat: the concept of violence is not statutory, like statutory rape is. But we have ideologues in this thread, so the rule of law and reason be damned.

That's a pretty sure sign that you've lost the argument.

For instance, down thread someone called this man a pedophile. Then I posted the definition of pedophilia, which is attraction to prepubescent children, "generally age 11 or younger." So, anyone who believe this man was a pedophile is probably wrong. He might have been, but this case does not illustrate that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

Unsurprisingly, the same poster who is confused about the actual meanings of the words she is using cannot put them together in to a sound argument.

But do continue. It's hilarious to see someone claim using facts is a way to lose an argument.

...selected to limit a word's usage only to that which supports your argument...

...that ain't facts.

For example, this habit people have of proclaiming thems logical and factual -- and thus superior -- can be described as violent or a violation of the very notions of logic and fact.

Not to mention superiority.

See how far you get with lethal self-defense against statutory rape. After all, if it really is violence, you should have no problem at all arguing your position.

No reasonable person would believe this.

..."reasonable person" somehow, as used within a court of law or without. Nor of the facts of this particular case.

I encourage you to widen your reading beyond the dictionary, to help you develop a broader, more nuanced -- and, I'd argue, more useful -- understanding of the discussion.

Legal consent is when someone else gives permission for yourself. Legal consent isn't consent.

but I think they mean that there's no one to prosecute.

The one who should be is dead and the one left alive should not be in court.

And his only response was to say that it couldn't have been self defense.

Using the word "sex" to refer to rape is part of rape culture. It's why so many reflexively start talking about laws, forgetting all about ethics, when discussing the idea of middle aged men fucking sixteen year old girls.

And in many places the age of consent is 16. Since this happened in America it was OBVIOUSLY RAPE AND HORRIBLE. But, if it happened in Belgium, Denmark, Germany, England, Switzerland, Japan, China etc. etc. etc. etc. it would be obviously fine.

In this case you are actually the one conflating legality with ethics.

I am a longtime lurker, redqueen, and I admire many of your posts, but here the outrage is misplaced. The young woman should not be punished for a dangerous sex act going awry. I'm sure the trauma she feels is punishment enough, and that grown man knew what he was doing.

Calling this a consensual sex act is accurate, not some sneaky attempt to work rape culture into DU culture.

Right. That's it for me today.

Have a good weekend y'all. I've had more of this shit than I can take.

The age of consent is arbitrary. We chose 18, but many other intelligent and civilized places chose 16, the age of the person in this story. So, ethically it is a very ambiguous matter, not clear cut as you insist.

A person does not magically become savvy on their 18th birthday. You seem to believe they do, but that is conflating laws with ethics, the exact same thing you said about the other poster.

Judging by the information in this story, calling this a consensual sex act is obviously and irrefutably accurate. If you have some information about the case that we do not, or some philosophical reason why consent at 18 makes complete sense and consent at 16 makes none, by all means share them.

Otherwise, your posts here contain no chain of thought, no logical connections, just a belief in the magical age of 18.

Just admit you were a tad wrong and soon you'll feel better.

...and does a real disservice to the very notion of "logic."

By law as currently written, a minor cannot consent to sex with an adult.

Cannot.

That's the logic.

No what-ifs, no "but she (or he) said okay." No "but I disagree with the law." None of it.

A minor cannot consent to have sex with an adult.

An adult having sex with a child is a rapist.

And there's no such thing as "not-that-bad rape" or "sort of okay rape," as some would argue.

That debate was over a long time ago, when laws about minors, sexual activity, and consent were established.

It may upset you to be on the losing side of that debate. But if you are able to apply some genuine logic to the topic, I'm confident you'll soon feel better -- and reason more effectively -- too.

This is a result of the fact that while ethics are often ambiguous, laws must strive to have clear cut lines.

So, for like the 6th time, if the ethics of this are so obvious, why is it that in so many countries that are generally MORE progressive than ours sex between a 16 year old and a 40 year old is not necessarily rape? That is the heart of my point, and you still have not addressed it, because redqueen said it wasn't true even though it is.

If the ethics of this are so obvious, why is it that in so many countries that are generally MORE progressive than ours sex between a 16 year old and a 40 year old is not necessarily rape?

If the ethics of this are so obvious, why is it that in so many countries that are generally MORE progressive than ours sex between a 16 year old and a 40 year old is not necessarily rape?

If the ethics of this are so obvious, why is it that in so many countries that are generally MORE progressive than ours sex between a 16 year old and a 40 year old is not necessarily rape?

See, I can repeat myself too! But my repetitions are a tad superior, because the point stands up to scrutiny.

...is not at issue in this case.

Your advocacy here for older men having sex with young girls, while not superior in logic, is indeed beyond my ability to comprehend.

Thank god.

And advocacy? What a weak attempt at slandering me with a straw-man. From my earlier post just down thread:

I have great faith that nigh 100% of 40 year old men who pursue 18 year olds are manipulative creeps. But they are not pedophiles, and they may not be rapists.

...you don't understand the notion of consent at issue here. That in fact you are bringing a highly personalized view of the topic to this discussion:

So it wouldn't be fine in Japan (with, perhaps, the curious exception of Nagano Prefecture).

but i can't figure out why people would join for the purpose of advocating for lowering the age of consent.

Eye roll

Would that make you happy? Actually no need to respond. I already know the answer.

Flawless logic.

How should the deceased man pay for his crime?

In Nevada it would be perfectly legal, unless one of the participants was a school district employee or it was gay sex. I'm assuming that Arizona is the same.

what the fuck did I just read?

And I'm sure it will happen again.

Notice how they call the pedophole rapist "her boyfriend".

Rape culture is alive and well.

Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger.

So, this case did not involve pedophilia.

The age of consent in many developed countries is 16, which isn't surprising when you consider that there is no obvious answer to the question of when a person is old enough to make decisions about sex. 16-20 all make about as much sense to me.

I have great faith that nigh 100% of 40 year old men who pursue 18 year olds are manipulative creeps. But they are not pedophiles, and they may not be rapists.

I'm not sure why you feel a need to insist that any and all sex between middle aged people and teenagers is pedophilia and rape.

But I am sure that it isn't actually so.

A 43 year old having sex with a 16 year old is criminal. He was a stupid criminal and now she is going to pay for it with a ruined life. I hope the jury has more sense then the DA.

And yes, she is a girl - a 16 year old girl who was in a statutorily non-consensual sexual relationship. The deceased rapist is the one who should be in jail, but at least he won't be around to rape again.

If I was on this girl's jury, I would nullify that shit in a heartbeat.

your derp is showing.

is sick.

People like you scare me.

Nice rhetorical dodge, using "raped against her will" in place of "forcible rape", BTW.

Fuck the dumb.

so tired of this dumb shit.

Literally sickened.

I always throw up before I do battle.

I know a lot of people this way.

My ex used to throw up before he rode his way to a Blue Ribbon.

It is OK.

I am done with this dumb and I am taking No Prisoners.

Democratic Men need to get on Board with the Woman Agenda or STFU.

Is a sicko I agree. But there is more to this story.

no exploitation going on.

How special.

I bet the prosecutor does. Thus the charge. The reason people like you don't get to make these decisions is because you would just react and not research.

The guy was a creep! But until more information is released we know nothing else.

what kind of details are you wanting Logical? do you need a video? think before you answer that.

it also says she has autism and schizophrenia. In addition to be legally underage.

The guy was a creep, yes, and a criminal taking advantage of a teenager with mental disability and mental illness.

I hope you don't ever act on your twisted idea of consensual sex with a girl like this.

Sorry.

Idiots usually do scare easily.

Autistic kids, and hey- maybe toddlers, if they agree to it?

That level of stupidity + rapey loudmouthedness merits a permanent dismissal by admin, IMO.

She is unable to give consent at her age -- it would be no different than a rapist convincing a 10 year old to say that the sex was consensual. It matters not what the victim says.

Apparently some other jury members didn't read the thread.


On Thu Jul 3, 2014, 11:41 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Didn't she say it was consensual? nt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5189434

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This young girl was a child with mental illness groomed and coerced into being the sex slave of a 43 year old man. Consensual? Rape apology on DU?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Jul 3, 2014, 11:48 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: QUIT USING THE ALERT SYSTEM ON POSTS JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THEM.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Enjoy your vacation, yo.
Please spend that time reflecting on the nature of 'consent' and 'rape' because you've got it somewhat wrong there.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Even if it's a dumb question, it's just a question and not hide-worthy, imo. Alerter's comments are a strong response.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Yes, this attitude is irritating, but the question is valid, and opens discussion.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

the issue of consent. Good alert, this is trolling. Thank you!

That's far more astounding to me, than the actual premise of the disruptor post.

One person posting shit like that? Ok, I can see that. Whole juries conflicted on whether it's a problem? Holy SHIT

Isn't there a notice in the instructions that enforcing the TOS is not the juror's job?

This is why the system is so fucked. Many don't know what their fucking job as a juror entails. Others simply refuse to do it.

And would the deceased still be a rapist in those states?

You and I may agree that the 43 year old had no business being in a relationship with her, but the law isn't quite as clear nationwide, alas.

What do you think?

I just think that in a case in which there is a 43 year old man engaging in extreme sexual activity with a 16 year old girl, who has mental illness, that the waters are clear enough for universal condemnation of the man and support for his victim.

He wouldn't be dead if he hadn't coerced her into having sex with him, and into choking him.

I didn't initially see the relevant bit because it wasn't in the HuffPo article. I had to go to the linked ABC article to find it.

Sadly it would be legal here.

Legally, I would prefer a nationwide standard for age of consent, and morally I would prefer that 43 year olds not screw 16 year olds.

fucked up in one news headline...

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Thu Jul 3, 2014, 12:46 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

It was the mother she was having the sexual conversations with, right?????
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5189573

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This poster has been shitting up this thread with rape apology and is now blaming the rape victim's mother for having a birds and bees talk with the victim! Because lord knows she wouldn't babe been rape if the mom didn't fill her daughter's head with evil sex-talk, right?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Jul 3, 2014, 12:52 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Then alert on the post that has the offense.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nothing hide worthy in this post. I'm sorry.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: this message is part of a series that should all be hidden.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The alerter is alert stalking. They need to stop. This post has NOTHING against the TOS, it's likely someone on the jury will disagree with me, so the alerter will feel "righteous" in their alert. All I need to do is look at the alerter comments where they ask me to judge this posters activities in this thread, that's not what my role is as a juror. This whole thread and the attacks by some involved make DU suck. Dear alerter stop alert stalking, get over yourself, and relax. Good lord.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

her in a closet 24/7?
But yeah, blame the mom, blame the girl. Not the dead 43 year old who probably taught her, not too well, to strangle him.

You may expect to be insulted back. Fuck The Dumb. Tired of it.

you will think tired before this is all over. you will pray for tired.

why they would charge her- and as an adult- under these circumstances is beyond me.
Why we would try and fault the mom when there's a dead piece of shit in the middle of this- who caused it all- all is beyond me.

C'mon, you know why. It's tradition. It's reflexive. It's patriarchy in action.

And Duers blaming the Mom, fuck that. Kids who are vulnerable need to know this stuff. Moms who do not discuss things are courting trouble.

twisting the law to circumvent the lack of ethics and morals is the core problem of what is wrong with a lot of what goes on in this world.

amoral sociopaths running amok wreaking havoc and it is all legal.

Not just this case but, economically and ecologically it is happening.

and her mom is aware of this. This took place in her home and after he was dead she cut him with razor blades thinking it would revive him. Good luck with that defense, she will probably be convicted on manslaughter.

If she was aware that her autistic, underage, daughter, was having sex with a 43-year old man, and she did nothing to stop it, it seems she's at least guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Perhaps she has mental issues as well.

Wonder if the guy even knew she was 16, she listed herself as 19 on her online profiles and if the mother knew of the relationship he may have never even questioned if she was under 18.

And evidently, was still ok with the relationship. She should at the very least, be relieved of custody of her daughter.

It says it happened in the mother's home. But, of course, that doesn't mean she knew about it beforehand.

I really can't see her being convicted if she has a competent lawyer.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2544221/Girl-16-charged-murder-strangling-boyfriend-43-kinky-sex-game-cutting-razor-blades.html

Ash was declared dead at 5.45 pm on Saturday after emergency services were called by Burlew's mother, Tracey Woodside to their Phoenix apartment.

Woodside told police that she left her 16-year-old daughter, who suffers from schizophrenia and autism, alone with Ash and returned when Burlew phoned her to say that the 43-year-old man had been hurt.

According to Glendale police, Burlew told them that she and Ash would often get involved in auto-erotic asphyxiation games prior to having sex.

Woodside told police that when she arrived at her home she was met by her daughter who led her into a bedroom where she was confronted with the sight of Ash fully clothed, save for unbuttoned pants.

I wish that HuffPo had mentioned it, rather than leaving it to the reader to click through to the underlying article.

We would not see statuatory rape raised as a defense of murder.

If the boy had a good lawyer OF COURSE the issue of statutory rape would be raised in his defense. He's under age of consent.

with posts asking "What about the men?!?!?!!"

Is it just an insistence on desperately trying to create the impression of "gender wars" here?

I'm not sure she should be prosecuted. If she is not considered to be mentally ill by medical professionals, then I'm not sure she should not face some sort of prosecution. She was not of age to give consent but that does not give her the right to kill the guy, sex games or not. She was in control of the situation so self-defense is not an issue in this case, that is if the reporting is accurate.

She was in control of the situation at that moment.

I'm not denying she was a victim in this relationship. I'm just saying that does not give her a get of jail free card on her actions that included the death of a person.

If the guy hadn't died, he should have been charged with statutory rape.

However, he did die, so now there's a murder that wasn't committed during any kind of self-defense. So, of course the only other person in the room is going to be charged.

Given the limited bit of info in the article, I'd say she might be incompetent to stand trial, and even if she is, the second degree murder is too strong of a charge. The dead guy evidently consented to what she was doing, and it went wrong. Tragic accident.

nt

He is a bit dead...

They did that a lot in the Middle Ages.

Excuses, excuses...

What a shit headline.

I read some of the history behind this and she listed herself as 19 on her online profiles. The guy may have never known she was under 18 and since the mother knew of the relationship he may have never questioned it.

With a 43 year old man, and she's being tried as an adult?

There is no justice.

Sick.

Speaking of 'best candidates', the District Attorney and prosecutor (assuming they arent one and the same) are insane and prime candidates for a prosecutorial misconduct investigation.

I only know a tiny bit of what happened, but from what we have been told, I don't think she should be punished.

If dude wasn't dead, he needs to be sent to prison.

It is always the adult's responsibility to say not to sex with a child. Regardless of the age of consent or the law.