Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Problem of my own (:

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Start here....

    (9) The other person is a minor, and the offender is the other personís athletic or other type of coach, is the other personís instructor, is the leader of a scouting troop of which the other person is a member, or is a person with temporary or occasional disciplinary control over the other person.
    Your second point was the right one.

    If he had the authority to tell someone to leave the Youth Group, he was in a position of authority.
    Not everything that makes you mad, sad or uncomfortable is legally actionable.

    I am not now nor ever was an attorney.

    Any statements I make are based purely upon my personal experiences and research which may or may not be accurate in a court of law.

    Comment


    • #17
      Thanks for the responses. Anyone else notice this is in the Maryland Law board but is from an Ohio poster?

      Originally posted by CarynG View Post
      I'm arguing that "we can take this relationship to a romantic level...when it's legal" IS equivalent to soliciting a minor for sexual activity when an emotional connection is allowed to continue, and when the discussion about the relationship has included points on what kinds of physical contact have to wait for later. Paying lip service to the fact that the act isn't legal NOW doesn't make it any less of a solicitation.
      I see what you're saying. I think whether or not there is a crime depends on the sense of the words they're using and their present/future intentions.

      If the sense of "can" is "are allowed to and will (likely)" then I think saying "we can **** each other when you're 18" would probably violate the statute. If they seem to be scheming to have sex later, I could see it violating the statue.

      A statement like "we can only have a relationship when it's legal" could be taken to be stating a legal fact, but not a plan/desire/intention, or a legal fact and a plan/desire intention. Of course, I'm sure there is a lot of other stuff that would testify as to which theirs is!

      At the same time, and this admittedly goes beyond the topic at hand, I wonder if that statute could be challenged as it seems to be preventing planning of legal adult sex as well as restricted minor-adult sex. It seems that if a minor and adult planned to have sex at a later date when the minor is an adult, then consummated the act, their sex would be legal, but the planning of it wouldn't be. The minor who becomes an adult has to consent to the sex as an adult, even if it was planned as a minor. Admittedly, I haven't read the case law, but this seems to possibly be a hole in the law on which a conviction could be challenged.

      Originally posted by cyjeff View Post
      Start here....

      Your second point was the right one.

      If he had the authority to tell someone to leave the Youth Group, he was in a position of authority.
      I can see an argument for that, but it isn't black and white like if the elder teenager were, say, the younger's teacher.

      Youth Leaders vary in their "officiality" and authority from church to church. Some may be employed officials of the church who are in their 40s and control all aspects of the youth group. This would probably qualify under that definition. Some are more like older siblings who might direct the topics of conversation and provide guidance and support, but not actually have any authority - even to kick a teenager out of the youth group.

      So I'm not sure if he would qualify under the law - it would depend on the way the youth group is structured at her church.
      Last edited by glassell; 06-12-2009, 07:36 PM.

      Comment

      Working...
      X