Posted on 05/21/2005 2:04:22 PM PDT by Poser
Only if the girls were taken against their will. In most states, 17 is more than past the age where someone can reasonably consent to travel.
In most states, custody of a 17 year old is pretty much at the discretion of the 17 year old.
I never assume that I can kick the tar out of a man half my age, it's ludicrous. On the other hand, I once beat the holy crap out of a guy more than twice my age who was dumb enough to put his hands on me, over his daughter, when I was still young and at the top of my game physically.
Join the really real world where not all the fathers are capable of beating up all the boyfriends. My son-in-law for example could have beaten me up and down the street with relative ease just about any time he wanted to.
In NH, they can consent to travel and/or sex at 16.
Are you proud of that?
633:1 Kidnapping. – I. A person is guilty of kidnapping if he knowingly confines another under his control with a purpose to: (a) Hold him for ransom or as a hostage; or (b) Avoid apprehension by a law enforcement official; or (c) Terrorize him or some other person; or (d) Commit an offense against him.
I-a. A person is guilty of kidnapping if the person knowingly takes, entices away, detains, or conceals any child under the age of 18 and unrelated to the person by consanguinity, or causes such child to be taken, enticed away, detained, or concealed, with the intent to detain or conceal such child from a parent, guardian, or other person having lawful physical custody of such child. This paragraph shall not apply to law enforcement personnel or department of health and human services personnel engaged in the conduct of their lawful duties.
633:4 Interference With Custody
II. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if such person knowingly takes, entices away, detains or conceals any child under the age of 18, or causes any such child to be taken, enticed away, detained or concealed, with the intent to detain or conceal such child from a parent, guardian or other person having lawful physical custody or physical custodial rights as described in RSA 458:17.
These are the laws of the state of New Hampshire. I think it is obvious that someone could honestly be charged under these statutes without "trumping" up charges.
You completely missed the point. Or perhaps you did get the point, and just chose to ignore it. That would explain why you completely ignored the part of my post about being middle aged and knowing that I'm not a match for every 20 year punk out there, or my honest evaluation that my son-in-law had absolutely nothing to fear from me.
I got your point...the usual contrarian post.
And yea....I think you did enjoy whupping the old man.....nothing to be proud of in my view.
But you are right.
All other things being equal, it's helps the stamina and reflex to be younger.
17 I don't think is so dangerous typically.
20 and up is worse.
However....I never would have beaten up someone old enough to be my dad...never.
Today's kids think anyone is fair game however young or old. No glory in that to me.
I feel better about even good fights I lost than I do fights where I handily won against a weaker foe.
That's just me. My fighting days are over unless I have no choice.
It's those reflexes that kill ya. In a street fight, when you don't have the reflexes to avoid getting hit by a younger, faster guy, it's just over with in the blink of an eye.
Well, I'm old to know that I'm better off carrying a gun, so if that counts as cunning, I'll agree with you. Cunning and experience are worth a bit, but truth to tell, all it takes to overcome experience is a youthful blitzkrieg of blows that the more aged fighter can't respond to in time. The then 44, George Foreman method of letting the younger guy hit you for 6 minutes without answer until he's tired and makes a mistake, then blam, knock him down, only works under controled conditions with boxing gloves. With bare knuckles and no holds barred, your face would be hamburger in less than a minute.
You know the news media ~ mustn't have any of that self-defense stuff going 'round.
Interesting story ~ when you got out of jail what did you do next?
Please read post #207
I'll be perfectly honest, and admit you're right. However, I enjoyed a lot of things at 19-25 that I'm deeply ashamed of now. That's just the way maturation works.
I feel better about even good fights I lost than I do fights where I handily won against a weaker foe.
I feel better about the fights I didn't pick, weaker or stronger foe. I feel badly about the ones I did start, even if I lost and made the other guy look good in the process. I don't regret the fights were I reacted to physical violence at all. Defense is the right of every human being.
These young bucks could be in plenty trouble.
The guy recieved a suspended sentence for assault, which would have been when he grabbed my throat. He had to keep his nose clean for a year. I was never charged with anything. I'll give the man credit for one thing, he was honest. He never once even tried to lie and say that I hit him first.
I had a neighbor who thought she could run a "dive" because she had various permits for the kinds of businesses you are allowed to run out of your home.
Boy did she get a surprise when the ABC people put her under surveillance night and day for a very long time.
These fraternity boys (and their guests) are going to discover they are in a lot of trouble because it was necessary for their victim's custodial parent to display a firearm.
Self defense usually trumps everything. Sometimes it doesn't.
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.