Poll of the Day > 19 y/o KILLS his 16 y/o GF and her PARENTS cause they caught them having SEX!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

VioletMassacre posted...

Especially since this was a heat-of-the-moment murder, not something he planned. The risk of it ever happening again is pretty low.

Uh... I don't quite think you're right here.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Uh... I don't quite think you're right here.

Depends. It was probably a heat-of-the-moment murder for the dad. For the others, he was probably still hopped up in adrenaline and wasn't thinking clearly... It's possible his risk for this happening again is pretty low...
---

lihlih posted...

He killed the dad in the heat of the moment. He went back to kill the witnesses afterwards.

Nuh uh, he was just a scared little kid. He didn't know what he was doing. How do you know he wasn't just trying to shake their hands in apology? He tried to return the gun to them, but he was ever such a clumsy fellow. He needs love and time as we spend 3 or 4 years helping him see the error of his ways before giving him a chance to move on.

---

LinkPizza posted...

Depends. It was probably a heat-of-the-moment murder for the dad. For the others, he was probably still hopped up in adrenaline and wasn't thinking clearly... It's possible his risk for this happening again is pretty low...

I don't think adrenaline explains killing a girl you were just boning.

BlackScythe0 posted...

I don't think adrenaline explains killing a girl you were just boning.

It can affect your mental state... So, it probably can explain that since he may not have been able to think clearly...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Only is certain states, though. The thing is in certain countries, and even many states, this wouldnt be an issue or illegal.

All that's relevant to this topic is this state.

LinkPizza posted...

And the adult was only 19.

18 or 89 it makes no difference as he is still a adult.

LinkPizza posted...

Especially since it's only "illegal" because of the state...

So you acknowledge it is illegal in this state thus a 19 year old fucking a 16 year old would be rape in this state. Not sure why you're arguing against facts.

---

3 year difference doesnt seem too bad. but its funny how rules make society act. "puppets". that 19 year old should have known better though. Yea arv knows what its like being horny but like come on! you live in california girls over 18 will have sex with you for saying fuck trump.

---

wwinterj25 posted...

So you acknowledge it is illegal in this state thus a 19 year old fucking a 16 year old would be rape in this state. Not sure why you're arguing against facts.

Location being part of illegality could make one wonder about why it is illegal in the first place. Especially when location should not be relevant.

Also one's morality can be separate from laws. There are things condoned and some even legal in my country, that might still get you the death penalty in other countries. I may consider those things right or wrong, regardless of what other people or countries' laws say about those.

---

lihlih posted...

Statutory rape is a thing.

Yes it is. People saying rape like that clearly wants the reader to think of a violent crime. It doesn't take that long to type the word statutory.

lihlih posted...

Lol, you think a minor can give consent.

So then tell me what you think of the laws in Europe.

Fam_Fam posted...

a child

LMAO

Arcturusisnow posted...

@LinkPizza Give it up, dude. You are wrong fucking deal with it.

Lol.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

So you acknowledge it is illegal in this state thus a 19 year old fucking a 16 year old would be rape in this state. Not sure why you're arguing against facts.

"The law is always right".

So tell me why you hate Jewish people.
---

From statutory rape to triple homicide. Sounds like a sound choice.

---

lihlih posted... He killed the dad in the heat of the moment. He went back to kill the witnesses afterwards.

...he didn't take a break, go around the corner, get a cup of coffee, and then come back to murder the rest. That was still very much in the heat in the moment, even if the motives were completely different (in that you could argue self-defense in the case of the dad, whereas the others were him freaking out and trying to -- rather stupidly -- cover up for the previous slaying). We're talking a gap of minutes between kills and spur-of-the-minute "decision"-making. The second murder happened almost immediately after the first because the mother found him, and the longest gap was the third murder, which the article implies happened immediately after that. All three murders seem to have taken place within 3-5 minutes of each other.

LinkPizza posted...

Depends. It was probably a heat-of-the-moment murder for the dad. For the others, he was probably still hopped up in adrenaline and wasn't thinking clearly... It's possible his risk for this happening again is pretty low...

It was still heat of the moment. The mother caught him right after he'd shot the dad.

BlackScythe0 posted...

I don't think adrenaline explains killing a girl you were just boning.

There's a lot going on in that moment. He was in the middle of having sex when the dad attacked him, chased him out, and was chasing him, hitting him. That's going to be an agitated emotional state. I'm wondering if he wasn't confronted by the mother right after he shot the father whether he would have killed the other two. The whole thing is tragic, and people naturally want an eye-for-an-eye over it, but the justice system is supposed to be fucking better than that.

wwinterj25 posted...

18 or 89 it makes no difference as he is still a adult.

Again, it makes a lot of difference since a 18 or 19 year-old's still-developing brain is going to function much differently from that of a fully-developed adult's brain, which is why the major/minor system -- which just picked a number out of thin air -- doesn't make a lot of sense.

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Location being part of illegality could make one wonder about why it is illegal in the first place. Especially when location should not be relevant.

The bigger and weirder issue is people fixating on the AOC aspect rather than, you know, the murders. Whether the killer was 19 or 15, he would have been attacked, he would have been chased, and he would have killed. The real issue is whether America, as a so-called "civilized" society thinks it's okay to embody the barbarity acceptable hundreds of years ago or join the rest of the developed world in mandating reasonable sentencing where justice is more reformative than strictly punitive.

And honestly, considering that the parents invited him to stay at their home knowing that he was in a relationship with their daughter (unless Ducky *really* fucked up this story), they didn't seem all that bothered by the age gap themselves. After all, if you're against a relationship, you don't let that person stay in your home.

---

Zeus posted...

After all, if you're against a relationship, you don't let that person stay in your home.

That really depends on the situation. Parents can be at a real loss about how to keep their child around and allow more than they should or even want, just to keep their child happy and not depressed.

---

wwinterj25 posted...

All that's relevant to this topic is this state.

Which is why this is dumb A change is are is just that. Its not like they get better at making decisions in a different state

wwinterj25 posted...

18 or 89 it makes no difference as he is still a adult.

Actually, it does. For example, an 89 year old wouldnt be covered under the Romeo and Juliet laws. And 19 means that could have gone to high school together. So, yeah. It makes a difference

wwinterj25 posted...

So you acknowledge it is illegal in this state thus a 19 year old fucking a 16 year old would be rape in this state. Not sure why you're arguing against facts

Because its dumb. Thats been the whole point. It literally shouldnt be rape, regular or statutory Thats why
---

Zeus posted...

There's a lot going on in that moment. He was in the middle of having sex when the dad attacked him, chased him out, and was chasing him, hitting him. That's going to be an agitated emotional state. I'm wondering if he wasn't confronted by the mother right after he shot the father whether he would have killed the other two. The whole thing is tragic, and people naturally want an eye-for-an-eye over it, but the justice system is supposed to be f***ing better than that.

Yes it wasn't really his fault. Maybe the mum startled him with a scream and he jumped making the gun go off.


---

Sega9599 posted...

Yes it wasn't really his fault. Maybe the mum startled him with a scream and he jumped making the gun go off.

Thats not what Zeus is saying, though
---

LinkPizza posted...

Thats not what Zeus is saying, though

Yes Zeus is saying he's a kid, emotional, reacting impulsively, and as such deserves a much much shorter sentence.

mrduckbear posted...

Johnson then went up to the girl's bedroom to find a scared Shelly who begged him not to kill her but shot her as well so there would be no "witnesses

Look at this. Can we really blame him? He was just reacting in the heat of the moment, and what's the first immediate reaction when you do something wrong? Hide the evidence. Therefore he's not really a criminal, more a victim of circumstance. Not saying he's right, course no! But as Zeus said, are people factoring agitation into the equation? I think once they do, we'd see a lot more sympathy for the troubled young boy. His mind isn't fully developed yet to know right from wrong.

---

Sega9599 posted...

Yes Zeus is saying he's a kid, emotional, reacting impulsively, and as such deserves a much much shorter sentence.

No. He was explaining how adrenaline could still be the reason he killed the girl. Nowhere does what he said in the part you quoted mention anything about it not being his fault Especially when you take in what he was replying to

Sega9599 posted...

Look at this. Can we really blame him? He was just reacting in the heat of the moment, and what's the first immediate reaction when you do something wrong? Hide the evidence. Therefore he's not really a criminal, more a victim of circumstance. Not saying he's right, course no! But as Zeus said, are people factoring agitation into the equation? I think once they do, we'd see a lot more sympathy for the troubled young boy. His mind isn't fully developed yet to know right from wrong.

And again, no one is saying it wasnt his fault killing them. Killing them was wrong, and he has to be out away for it. Low effort trolling. Be a better troll of thats all you going to do on this board
---

Zeus posted...

He was in the middle of having sex when the dad attacked him, chased him out, and was chasing him, hitting him. That's going to be an agitated emotional state. I'm wondering if he wasn't confronted by the mother right after he shot the father whether he would have killed the other two.

LinkPizza posted...

No. He was explaining how adrenaline could still be the reason he killed the girl.

He argues that maybe additional facts such as a confrontation with the mother and his emotional state may have agitated the state. He's looking at it rationally, rather than emotionally. He may have a point which I've started to consider. I said of course what he did was wrong. I don't understand why we need to argue. Nobody said he deserves no prison time at all. Maybe I was wrong about fault, it is his 'fault'. But do other people share some responsibility?
Look at below:

Zeus posted...

And honestly, considering that the parents invited him to stay at their home knowing that he was in a relationship with their daughter (unless Ducky *really* f***ed up this story), they didn't seem all that bothered by the age gap themselves. After all, if you're against a relationship, you don't let that person stay in your home.

Yes maybe they allowed it seemingly giving permission and then the dad overreacted, removing the permission and attacking him. Perhaps this played a big part, sense of betrayal, confusion and whatnot.

LinkPizza posted...

Low effort trolling. Be a better troll of thats all you going to do on this board

We're discussing and sharing here.

---

Sega9599 posted...

He argues that maybe additional facts such as a confrontation with the mother and his emotional state may have agitated the state. He's looking at it rationally, rather than emotionally. He may have a point which I've started to consider. I said of course what he did was wrong. I don't understand why we need to argue. Nobody said he deserves no prison time at all. Maybe I was wrong about fault, it is his 'fault'. But do other people share some responsibility?

While he's looking at it rationally, he's not saying the kid is not at fault for the murders. Because the kid is. In the end, he still killed everyone. That's the fact of the matter, and he has to go to prison for murder either way.... And the only person that share responsibility is the father for attacking (hitting) him. So he could claim self-defense for the that one. But the mother and daughter do not get any blame for their part... But you originally tried to say his post was shifting blame off of him, which is not was his post was about. It was explaining how his mental state could have been why he decided to kill the other two. But your post said, "Yes it wasn't really his fault." Which would be shifting blame, which is not what his post was necessarily about. And based on his other posts, it's highly unlikely that it was...

Sega9599 posted...

Yes maybe they allowed it seemingly giving permission and then the dad overreacted, removing the permission and attacking him. Perhaps this played a big part, sense of betrayal, confusion and whatnot.

I already said I think the dad overreacted...

Sega9599 posted...

We're discussing and sharing here.

Only now do you sound like sharing. You other post is still very trolly. And your whole personality has been like this since seeing you again... But I don't remember much about you personality before... So maybe it's always been like this...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Only now do you sound like sharing. You other post is still very trolly.

A man can reconsider, can he not?

LinkPizza posted...

But you originally tried to say his post was shifting blame off of him, which is not was his post was about. It was explaining how his mental state could have been why he decided to kill the other two. But your post said, "Yes it wasn't really his fault." Which would be shifting blame, which is not what his post was necessarily about.

This sounds like diminished responsibility. He is culpable, but not fully responsible. 'Blame' lies in there somewhere.

LinkPizza posted...

I already said I think the dad overreacted...

That ties in with diminished responsibility. That was the link. I'm not educating or letting you know that the dad overreacted. I'm explaining the link.
Do you think the kid overreacted to the dad?

LinkPizza posted...

And your whole personality has been like this since seeing you again... But I don't remember much about you personality before... So maybe it's always been like this...

I don't remember you either. You seem like an interpreter. Unneeded in my opinion, but maybe Zeus will thank you for the clarification. What do you normally post like?

Zeus posted...

It's telling of the American brutality system (because one can hardly call America's sentencing "justice", given how much longer we sentence people than other developed nations) that a remark intended to be facetious comes closer to mirroring that of normal developed nations, although I guess normal sentencing seems crazy for a nation whose sentencing practices have more in common with North Korea much of the time than most democratic, developed nations.

Again, the kid is 19 when we *know* that the rational part of a teen's brain isn't fully developed until they're close to 25, yet you want him to be eligible for parole when he's 60 or 70

Well Zeus, how much time do you think he should get? Yes I agree, he's only a kid with a brain that hasn't fully developed yet, but Link above didn't seem to acknowledge that when I posted it. If he got 15 years, he'd be out when he is 34. Enough time to still live a good live into his middle ages.

Should he get 25? Come out 44 with the best part of his life taken from him?

---

Sega9599 posted...

This sounds like diminished responsibility. He is culpable, but not fully responsible. 'Blame' lies in there somewhere.

No. Only for the father would blame not fully be his, as that could be an act of self-defense. For the others, he still takes the full blame. Just because he was most likely in an altered state doesn't change that...

Sega9599 posted...

That ties in with diminished responsibility. That was the link. I'm not educating or letting you know that the dad overreacted. I'm explaining the link.
Do you think the kid overreacted to the dad?

Yes. I have literally said that. In post #8, I said, "So, in this case, the dad punching him in an overreaction... And killing them all is definitely an overreaction, which I said earlier..." So, again, I think both overreacted. And again, it's ONLY not fully his fault for the dad. And only if it's self-defense, which he could claim since the dad did attack him. But for the others, no. Full responsibility is his... Unless more details come out that change something, that's just how it is...

Sega9599 posted...

I don't remember you either. You seem like an interpreter. Unneeded in my opinion, but maybe Zeus will thank you for the clarification. What do you normally post like?

I normally try to be nice to posters until they don't deserve it anymore. And I do interpret post when people don't understand, or intentionally try to twist words, like you did. You claim my interpretation was unneeded in your opinion, but you seemed to have twisted the words of Zeus, so I straighten them out... If you don't twist other's words, I wouldn't need to straighten them...

Sega9599 posted...

Yes I agree, he's only a kid with a brain that hasn't fully developed yet, but Link above didn't seem to acknowledge that when I posted it.

Because YOU never mentioned it. Zeus has mentioned it, but our conversation never had anything to do with his brain development, nor were any of you quotes from Zeus except this one about brain development... Again, you're trying to twist the conversation again. Hence why I believe you to be a troll...
---

Can't believe this guy fucked a kid, killed her and her parents and you all are arguing about the morality of fucking teenagers. Absolute insanity.

---

Jen0125 posted...

Can't believe this guy fucked a kid, killed her and her parents and you all are arguing about the morality of fucking teenagers. Absolute insanity.

Well, we already know hes going to jail for murder. Plus, the question posed was about that
---

LinkPizza posted...

Well, we already know hes going to jail for murder. Plus, the question posed was about that

Who cares dude? You're over here trying to defend having sex with 16 year olds. It's weird. And now people are discussing if it was a crime of passion. Give me a break. Men will do anything to defend men it's so strange lmao

---

Jen0125 posted...

Who cares dude? You're over here trying to defend having sex with 16 year olds. It's weird. And now people are discussing if it was a crime of passion. Give me a break. Men will do anything to defend men it's so strange lmao

Because its a 19 yet old having sex with a 16 year old. In most states, thats fine Thats why Im defending it Thats 2 people who could be in high school together
---

Jen0125 posted...

Who cares dude? You're over here trying to defend having sex with 16 year olds. It's weird. And now people are discussing if it was a crime of passion. Give me a break. Men will do anything to defend men it's so strange lmao

I thought defending the murderer is ridiculous, and you still manage to have such a toxic take on it that I disagree w/ you anyway.

The majority of the country, 16 is legal to begin with. In many more states, there are Romeo and Juliet laws covering a few years difference in age. CA happens to be one of the very few states where that was even a crime.
I even said that while CA law was out of step w/ the vast majority of the country, the step dad was justified in his reaction since it was illegal in this case.

But you feel the need to call the 3 yrs. younger person a "kid" and make it some sort of sexist conspiracy that people don't think a 3 year age gap is a big deal.

LinkPizza posted...

Because its a 19 yet old having sex with a 16 year old. In most states, thats fine Thats why Im defending it Thats 2 people who could be in high school together

You're being gross.

streamofthesky posted...

But you feel the need to call the 3 yrs. younger person a "kid" and make it some sort of sexist conspiracy that people don't think a 3 year age gap is a big deal.

People who are almost in their 20s have no business having sex with 16 year olds.

---

Jen0125 posted...

You're being gross.

I dont see how Its just a normal relationship Except for the whole murder thing

Jen0125 posted...

People who are almost in their 20s have no business having sex with 16 year olds.

Except thats not true. A 19 year old and 16 year old being together isnt weird or bad. Again, that would be like 2 high school kids of different ages dating, and then one reaching 19 first Nothing wrong with that in most cases
---

VioletMassacre posted...

Youre way too anal about this.

Yeah I tend to deal with facts.

Revelation34 posted...

"The law is always right".

The law is the law. My own personal views doesn't change the facts.

So tell me why you hate Jewish people.

Where have I ever said this?

LinkPizza posted...

Because its dumb. Thats been the whole point. It literally shouldnt be rape, regular or statutory Thats why

However it is.

Zeus posted...

Again, it makes a lot of difference

Actually it doesn't according to this states law as rape is still rape. He is a adult and she wasn't. You can type all you want trying to justify rape but it doesn't change the facts.

---

wwinterj25 posted...

However it is.

Yet, it shouldnt be
---

LinkPizza posted...

Yet, it shouldnt be

I mean 16 is legal in England and I've no issue with adults having sex with people who are old enough but that's just the way it is. He's a rapist and a murderer in this state.

---

wwinterj25 posted...

I mean 16 is legal in England and I've no issue with adults having sex with people who are old enough but that's just the way it is. He's a rapist and a murderer in this state.

And in most of the states, 16 in legal. And some states, its 17. And in 13 states, its 18. And in 4 of those states, they have Romeo and Juliet laws. It should be standardized through the country. But its not for whatever reason Which is why I wont consider him a rapist. He is a murderer, though, which everyone seems to agree on
---

LinkPizza posted...

And in 13 states

Ergh....

LinkPizza posted...

Which is why I wont consider him a rapist.

He is factually a rapist in this state. Can't argue against that fact but alrighty.


---

LinkPizza posted...

I dont see how Its just a normal relationship Except for the whole murder thing

Except thats not true. A 19 year old and 16 year old being together isnt weird or bad. Again, that would be like 2 high school kids of different ages dating, and then one reaching 19 first Nothing wrong with that in most cases

In your opinion. Your opinion isn't sovereign and I disagree with it and find it gross. Have a great day.

---

Jen0125 posted...

Can't believe this guy fucked a kid, killed her and her parents and you all are arguing about the morality of fucking teenagers. Absolute insanity.

He did?

Jen0125 posted...

People who are almost in their 20s have no business having sex with 16 year olds.

How do you know that he was almost 20?wwinterj25 posted...

Where have I ever said this?

Well celery since you think the law is always right you think Germany was the best country in the world during WW2.
---

VioletMassacre posted...

The fact is if he hadn't been a stupid ass and killed people he could've ended up on a register for having consensual sex with his slightly younger girlfriend.

Yeah. It's funny how laws work isn't it?

Revelation34 posted...

Well celery since you think the law is always right you think Germany was the best country in the world during WW2.

Again where have I actually said any of this? Regardless of if I agree with a law or not it's still a law.

---

Ill say it and say it again.

I hate that in this instance the guy was a murdering psychopath but fact is having intercourse with his gf was not illegal in most developed countries.

Most of the world's AOC laws are set to age 16 and even in ones that are 18, usually have Romeo and Juliet laws. California just has really backwards ass laws. Imagine living in a state where your girlfriends parents can call the cops on you for sleeping with your 16/17 year old girlfriend the moment you turn 18.

Also I do want to mention while theres nothing wrong with the sexual part of this story, most parents still dont like you having intercourse under their roof regardless of your age. I was well into my 20's and my parent(s) forbid girls from even going into my bedroom.

---

Men who argue age of consent and legal aspects of having sex with children should be on a watch list.

---

wwinterj25 posted...

He is factually a rapist in this state. Can't argue against that fact but alrighty.

Which is the problem

Jen0125 posted...

In your opinion. Your opinion isn't sovereign and I disagree with it and find it gross. Have a great day.

Sure. And most of the US, and a bunch of countries, as well
---

Jen0125 posted...

Men who argue age of consent and legal aspects of having sex with children should be on a watch list.

For knowing the law. Thats a shit take Shes also a teen, and not a kid. Same as her boyfriend
---

LinkPizza posted...

For knowing the law. Thats a shit take Shes also a teen, and not a kid. Same as her boyfriend

16 is functionally a child. Men who argue against that should be on a watch list. I said what I said.

---

Jen0125 posted...

16 is functionally a child. Men who argue against that should be on a watch list. I said what I said.

Yeah, we're aware.
You say a lot of terrible things.

Jen0125 posted...

16 is functionally a child. Men who argue against that should be on a watch list. I said what I said.

No. Its not. Not in most places. Not in most of the US, either Or in other countries. Shes just a teen. And one that could make decisions. And made the decision to sleep with her boyfriend. One she probably went to school with And again, thats a shit take. Talking about the age of consent is nothing to be put on the watch list for
---

Jen0125 posted...

Men who argue age of consent and legal aspects of having sex with children should be on a watch list.

Jen0125 posted...

16 is functionally a child. Men who argue against that should be on a watch list. I said what I said.

Jesus.

Yeah wanting consistency across the board is evil lol.

It doesn't matter that most of the developed world decided that 16 is old enough to work, drive and choose who they have sex with.

Yeah you are right, every time a man who has a younger girlfriend should be thrown in prison as soon as he turns 18 lmao, because he totally just understands everything about being an adult now right? Probably should just cut ties with all the younger friends he has too.
We should probably throw out all the Romeo and Juliet laws most states with a aoc of 18 have...

/s just kidding lmao that would be stupid.

---

That escalated quickly.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

Again where have I actually said any of this?Regardless of if I agree with a law or not it's still a law.

Right there.

Jen0125 posted...

Men who argue age of consent and legal aspects of having sex with children should be on a watch list.

So why is it okay for a woman to do it?
---

Not even reading a bunch of men falling over their feet to justify having sex with kids. Thanks for wasting your time tho

---