Guess It's Good For Sam That He Doesn't Live In Texas

Man, 43, gets life for sex with 14-year-old girl at Alamo

No word on what they give a 42-year-old man for having sex with a 17-year-old.

Comments

[FreedomOfSpeech]

Sam Adams should resign.

That said, there's a huge difference between sex between someone in their 40s and a 14 year old and with a 17 year old--the latter is legal in some states, the former is legal in none.

There is a huge difference between someone who is 14 and someone who is 17.

So, keep on making false analogies--I love it when the right marginalizes itself.

[Max]

Oh, so it's okay because the kid was three years older than a 14-year-old. Why, that's "legal in some states". So it's all good.

Got a news flash for you FoS: it ain't legal in our state.

Quite honestly, I don't see a whole lot of difference between a 14-year-old and a 17-year-old - particularly not when a guy in his 40's is involved.

That's just perverse. And if you want to call it a false analogy, I've no problem with that. It shows you're just as sick as Sam.

[dg]

I guess the rules are complicated.... Maybe you have to be in your thirties, while still being the Mayor - while the minor is your babysitter. Maybe then it is OK.

[FreedomOfSpeech]

Max,

We still don't know that Sam Adams had sex with Beau Breedlove when Breedlove was 17.

Sam Adams' behavior is troubling, but it's not clear he committed a crime.

The fact that you see no difference between pre-pubescence and post-pubescence is just odd.

Fortunately, the law is smarter than you are--it treats cases differently depending on the age of the minor. If the minor is 16 or 17, it's Sexual Abuse in the Third Degree, a Class A Misdemeanor. If the minor is 13, it's Rape in the Second Degree, a Class B Felony.

[Right Is Wrong]

If Sam lived in Texas what he did with Beau Breedlove would not have been a crime, even if it occurred when Breedlove was 17. 17 is the age of consent in Texas.

As Ted Piccolo says, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Max]

Ah. Didn't know you're a lawyer, FoS. No wonder your outlook's so screwy. You are correct: it's not clear that Sam committed a crime. That's why he's under criminal investigation at this juncture.

The story cited, however, clearly indicates a probability that sexual contact did occur involving a minor (and I've not seen Sam threatening legal action against WW). It really doesn't matter to me whether Sam's guilty of rape, sexual abuse, felony, or misdemanor. The fact that as a 42-year-old guy he did it at all is sleazy. That he lied about it is worse. That he got his paramour to lie as well (classic in child-abuse cases, btw), that he used these and other lies in an attempt to destroy another contender (Robert Ball), and that he has continued this pattern of manipulation and deception are really the key issues here.

The fact that the age of consent varies from state to state is irrelevant, RiW. The age of consent in this state is one of the relevant issues.

That I picked up on an article in which a pedo gets life and appended "No word on what they give a 42-year-old man for having sex with a 17-year-old" as a humorous aside in no way negates the egregiousness of Sam's conduct, which calls into question his judgement, ethics, and integrity.

As noted above, the age of consent in this state is one of the relevant issues.

[FreedomOfSpeech]

But max, your little sub headline says "It's good for Sam he doesn't live in Texas". As RIW pointed out, it's clear that if this did occur in Texas it wouldn't be a crime.

I agree with you that what Sam did was sleazy, and I also agree that he should resign, and he seems to keep digging his hole deeper.

But you keep making statements that don't make any sense. Then you try to deny that what you wrote means what it says. That's okay, though, because Republicans seem to value that sort of thought process, so I'm sure you're wildly popular. I notice that you have hundreds of comments posted on your website on a regular basis, which is a testament to the clarity of your thinking.

[Max]

Oh, your logic is overwhelming. Thus far, I don't recall "trying to deny" much of anything. I wrote a subhead that said: "It's good for Sam he doesn't live in Texas"

You appear to be suggesting that unless I've thoroughly researched each individual state's sets of laws regarding age of consent, pedophilia, and other issues, then I have no right to type a line such as the above. That's just silly.

Golly, if BeauLita had been a year younger, then Sam would have been wrong, even in Texas. Oh, gee. What a horrible mistake to have made.

Most people get it; folks like you want to niggle.

"I notice that you have hundreds of comments posted on your website on a regular basis, which is a testament to the clarity of your thinking."

Yes, oh, such a killing point. Have you bothered to check the stats? On visits, I just dropped from Oregon 1 to Oregon 2 in the BNN rankings. And oddly enough, you keep dropping by.

Maybe that's because I actually have a blogsite, while idiots like you and your little RiW buddy seem to have diddle.

Where are all the hundreds of glowing comments on your site?

I'm hearing crickets.