Matt Gaetz resigned from Congress to be President-elect Donald Trump's first pick for attorney general, putting the fate of the Ethics report in question.
Matt Gaetz being older than 24 is the illegal part. He groomed a young girl.
Also, because he paid her, then the offense involves the procurement of a person who is under 18 years of age, so the charge increases to a second degree felony, which can result in up to 15 years of imprisonment, a fine of up to $10,000, or both.
That needs to be proven. An expensive traffic ticket attorney could get the charges dismissed (scrutinize the evidence, challenge the officer’s observations, find fault in equipment etc.).
I think 25+ is wreckless endangerment or some such and more illegal than other types of speeding. This is all based on my shitty memory. I just generally don’t speed.
No she couldn’t consent to anyone over 24, which he was. Also, I would have to play catch-up, but if this is one of the girls he flew to New Jersey to have sex with… It’s sex trafficking a minor right?
Consent is tied to legality. You can consent to a credit card at 18 but not 17.
I can tell someone it’s fine to punch me in the face, and you could call that consent. When the person next door sees it out the window and calls the police, they show up and will arrest them. Both parties say they approved of it and no one wants to press charges. Tough shit, if they follow the law they arrest the person, charges for assault are placed against the person who punched by the State it happened in.
The “victim” who thinks they consented can tell the state prosecutor they don’t want there to be charges when they get a subpeno to show in court.
So did I ever actually give consent? No… I never had legal right to at any age.
(There are some loop holes in a few states, and ways to get out of it, but you get the point)
Note: This is a another huge example of how laws are broken and ignored by companies and people with money as well. An NFL contract may list that consent was placed to be hit during a tackle, but when a play is over and someone intentionally kicks someone in the ribs, slams someone’s head down into the ground again or hits a player the league “fines them or suspends them” but they are criminal charges so they should be out in front of a judge. Why would they be exempt from the law.
You have no idea how assault charges go. The charges are from the State, not a person. It isn’t a civil case. (Also you could be in another country, so maybe it is different in your country)
Also a civil suit can be filed separately for restitution by the person. So you could have criminal and civil suits side by side
Note: most domestic violence charges in the U.S. the partner does NOT want charges to be placed.
I don’t know about this case, I can definitely imagine him raping that girl.
But from a European perspective, saying minors cannot consent is definitely one of these very stupid US takes. It is honestly insane that in the US 18 is treated like a god, and if one partner is some months older, it’s illegal.
Obviously, minors can generally be influenced more easily than older people, and it’s important to have safeguards in place, but such a statement is just genuinely ridiculous.
That’s not the case in this scenario, and rarely is. It varies by state, but Romeo and Juliet laws are common, which cover these kinds of circumstances.
Basically, the law will set an acceptable age gap where consent can happen; If the gap is 5 years, then a 17 year old won’t be able to consent to sex with a 30 year old, but can with an 18-22 year old. So it helps maintain the “this is obviously a child who was groomed by a creepy middle-aged person” statutory rape laws, while still allowing kids to date each other.
Let me tell you about Wisconsin: We regularly bump 17-year-old offenders into adult court. So, yes, we have had cases of 17-year-old couples tried as adults for having sex with a minor after they had sex with each other.
If the implication of that fact hasn’t sunk in I’ll make it explicit: We treat them as adults for the purposes of being a criminal, and a minor for the purposes of being a victim.
Fixed: Matt Gaetz, former Trump AG pick, ha
d sex withraped an underage girl while in Congress, House Ethics report saysA minor cannot consent.
har aped
Brutal.
In Florida a 17 year old can consent.
Matt Gaetz being older than 24 is the illegal part. He groomed a young girl.
Also, because he paid her, then the offense involves the procurement of a person who is under 18 years of age, so the charge increases to a second degree felony, which can result in up to 15 years of imprisonment, a fine of up to $10,000, or both.
If it only costs $10,000 to do that then it’s only illegal for poor people
Welcome to America.
Where “Speeding fine” has totally opposite meanings depending on how rich you are.
I like the Swiss and Finnish laws for speeders. The fine is based on your income.
Isn’t it a felony above a certain amount of speed, though?
That needs to be proven. An expensive traffic ticket attorney could get the charges dismissed (scrutinize the evidence, challenge the officer’s observations, find fault in equipment etc.).
https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96698
I think 25+ is wreckless endangerment or some such and more illegal than other types of speeding. This is all based on my shitty memory. I just generally don’t speed.
No she couldn’t consent to anyone over 24, which he was. Also, I would have to play catch-up, but if this is one of the girls he flew to New Jersey to have sex with… It’s sex trafficking a minor right?
I think consent is the wrong word here. A 17 year old can consent to a subgroup of people (under 24). Therfore she is above the age of consent.
The girl has full control over her decisions but, more importantly, should not be charged with any crime.
Gaetz on the other hand …
Consent is tied to legality. You can consent to a credit card at 18 but not 17.
I can tell someone it’s fine to punch me in the face, and you could call that consent. When the person next door sees it out the window and calls the police, they show up and will arrest them. Both parties say they approved of it and no one wants to press charges. Tough shit, if they follow the law they arrest the person, charges for assault are placed against the person who punched by the State it happened in.
The “victim” who thinks they consented can tell the state prosecutor they don’t want there to be charges when they get a subpeno to show in court.
So did I ever actually give consent? No… I never had legal right to at any age.
(There are some loop holes in a few states, and ways to get out of it, but you get the point)
Note: This is a another huge example of how laws are broken and ignored by companies and people with money as well. An NFL contract may list that consent was placed to be hit during a tackle, but when a play is over and someone intentionally kicks someone in the ribs, slams someone’s head down into the ground again or hits a player the league “fines them or suspends them” but they are criminal charges so they should be out in front of a judge. Why would they be exempt from the law.
Fun example: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CgjAN_wgmiI
Nobody goes to jail if you don’t press charges bucko. Nice try though.
That’s not how criminal law works, actually. In criminal courts the State brings charges regardless of the victims wishes.
Is there a c/confidentlyincorrect ?
You have no idea how assault charges go. The charges are from the State, not a person. It isn’t a civil case. (Also you could be in another country, so maybe it is different in your country)
Also a civil suit can be filed separately for restitution by the person. So you could have criminal and civil suits side by side
Note: most domestic violence charges in the U.S. the partner does NOT want charges to be placed.
I don’t know about this case, I can definitely imagine him raping that girl.
But from a European perspective, saying minors cannot consent is definitely one of these very stupid US takes. It is honestly insane that in the US 18 is treated like a god, and if one partner is some months older, it’s illegal.
Obviously, minors can generally be influenced more easily than older people, and it’s important to have safeguards in place, but such a statement is just genuinely ridiculous.
That’s not the case in this scenario, and rarely is. It varies by state, but Romeo and Juliet laws are common, which cover these kinds of circumstances.
Basically, the law will set an acceptable age gap where consent can happen; If the gap is 5 years, then a 17 year old won’t be able to consent to sex with a 30 year old, but can with an 18-22 year old. So it helps maintain the “this is obviously a child who was groomed by a creepy middle-aged person” statutory rape laws, while still allowing kids to date each other.
You’ll be relieved to know that this is never the case.
Let me tell you about Wisconsin: We regularly bump 17-year-old offenders into adult court. So, yes, we have had cases of 17-year-old couples tried as adults for having sex with a minor after they had sex with each other.
If the implication of that fact hasn’t sunk in I’ll make it explicit: We treat them as adults for the purposes of being a criminal, and a minor for the purposes of being a victim.
Ok that one is on me. I don’t know why I expected Romeo and Juliet clauses to have some level of consistency in all states.