Posted on 08/31/2016 4:30:25 PM PDT by BBell
Well hell, a 20-year-old can't even smoke in California now.
Mom is 34, kid is 16 and shooting victim is 31.
There is more to this story.
Maybe mom and the guy she shot had a relationship.
In any case, mom is not all that competent if she did not notice a man in her kid’s bedroom in trailer. It’s not like it is a 3500 sq ft house.
Didnt realize it was Oklahoma. Child bride mentality strikes again.
Considering your response appears to be defending it. Hope your daughters give you this gift.
Yup, if he brought beer and a pack of smokes he'd be going to jail.
Informing you that you're wrong under Oklahoma law ≠ "defending it"
“n Florida, the stand your ground law would likely assure dismissal of the charges.”
I don’t think I can shoot my teenage kid’s friends who are visiting my house.
well, then I take it back.
The guy was in bed when he was rousted and was coming over three times a week.
“The guy was in bed when he was rousted and was coming over three times a week.”
==
Well, then obviously a mere handgun won’t suffice. She should have called in Kim’s Young ‘Un to bring in the anti-aircraft guns. Or send in ISIS to behead them both on the spot.
I wish I’d had the nerve to shoot the 22 yr old who impregnated my dumb 16 yr old granddaughter.
But he was OK because he was just in bed with the daughter for mutual kissing.
He'll be hounded for years about child support.
LoL, bad example.
I’d shoot a 20 year old, too!
a 31 year old, chasing a 16 year old does not qualify as a pedophile.
Can’t smoke or drink alcohol but can have sex .
School nurses can take girls to abortion clinics and parents have no say.
Parents can be jailed if kids miss school though.
The laws are insane.
If on the jury I find mom not guilty.And not liable for medical bills.
16yo isn’t exactly a child ... but Good Lord, the ‘man’ is old enough to be her father. He’s a sicko and a psycho ... Mama wants me on her jury.
I agree that this slinging of 'pedophile' trivializes the real thing; and you're absolutely correct to note that through history most women were married before 17.
We should also note it wasn't exactly uncommon for an arranged marriage (which a lot of historical marriages were) to have such age-disparities, it would even make sense that parents would prefer older men (say 25 or 30 [+10 or +15 years]) to age-parity precisely because the older would have more time to get established
and be less rash/impulsive than a comparable 16 or 17 y/o man.
The exact formula today to avoid the creepy, icky charge is 1/2 your age +7.
special agesare concerned.
I'd seen that formulation around somewhere before; I didn't know it was for avoid creepy
.
In any case I was merely commenting on the historical conditions of marriage rather than the contemporary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.