SmoothOperator
Sadly what connects all these puzzles is that ther
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 5,591
- Reaction score
- 80
Yep. That is exactly why I stated that on many levels she IS NOT A VICTIM because I understandl the technicality of her being a "victim"..IMO on every other level other than technically I DO NOT BELIEVE HER TO BE A VICTIM..I have to respectfully disagree with you, this is just my opinion. I do believe that FS was technically speaking a "victim" of AGT. Even if there was only a two year age difference and it was consensual, in the state of California it is illegal for an 18 year old to have intercourse with a minor, a minor being defined as anyone under the age of 18. He was also charged with battery, so surely she was a victim of AGT in that situation too. With that said, regardless of what AGT has subjected her to, there is still absolutely no excuse for her behavior.
We obviously disagree and that's perefectly OK

ETA: just to note there is no proof of any battry to be completely honest this case was never prosecuted and the only reason LE became aware that AGT was having sex withFS is due to the fact that he blurted it when arrested for totally unrelated offense(he stated his pregnant gf lived with him) ..so "technically" she never had the charges prosecuted which further calls into question her being a victim IMO..
Where I live the person over the age of 18 having consensual sex with a minor. .the person has to be 4 years older than the minor to qualify as statutory rape.. I fully realize tho that in CA this is different.