• You must be logged in to see or use the Shoutbox. Besides, if you haven't registered, you really should. It's quick and it will make your life a little better. Trust me. So just register and make yourself at home with like-minded individuals who share either your morbid curiousity or sense of gallows humor.

Jaded

.........
Staff member
33tpjlj.jpg


OSCEOLA COUNTY, Fla. -- Osceola County Deputies arrested a Jacksonville doctor Saturday after they say he drove to Saint Cloud to have sex with a teenage girl. Or at least that's what he thought.


Deputies set up a sting after they received a tip from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that the man might be preying on underage girls in their county.

Deputies say the group found out that the man was talking to another underage girl in a chat room and sent a picture of himself standing in front of an Osceola County hotel.


Thinking that he was from Osceola County, deputies started an online conversation with him pretending to be a teenage girl. After two conversations, an arrangement was made to meet at a 7-Eleven Saturday afternoon.


31-year-old Irfan Nawaz drove more than 150 miles only to be handcuffed and slapped with sex charges.

Deputies say he sent pictures and during a four hour long conversation, Nawaz asked the girl to perform a lewd act.

http://www.wftv.com/news/15804612/detail.html
 
This sort of shit pisses me off. Like it or not, having sex at 15 is fairly common these days. And in many states, such a person would be able to issue consent. He just has the misfortune in living in one of the less sexually progressive states. Moreover, I still hold that this sort of chat room posing crap constitutes entrapment, and is therefore a violation of his rights.
 
I think that 15 year olds having sex with 15 year olds is pretty common. But an ADULT male is well aware that it is against the law....regardless! And, after watching these stings on TV time after time after time, you would THINK that a grown man would just stay the fuck out of the teen chat rooms. Anyone stupid enough to continue with those types of encounters deserves to be behind bars.

Legal definition of entrapment:
ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm

Nope...I wouldn't call it entrapment.
 
This sort of shit pisses me off. Like it or not, having sex at 15 is fairly common these days. And in many states, such a person would be able to issue consent. He just has the misfortune in living in one of the less sexually progressive states. Moreover, I still hold that this sort of chat room posing crap constitutes entrapment, and is therefore a violation of his rights.

Dude. Seriously?

We should be arguing to RAISE the age of consent, not lower it. Sex is for reproduction, and kids need to finish high school first. Having babies is not conducive to studying, so we should have a MINIMUM age for sexual intercourse set at 18.

Unless you think sex is just for fun and entertainment, which means we should legalize heroin and cocaine for all ages as well.
 
Dude. Seriously?

We should be arguing to RAISE the age of consent, not lower it. Sex is for reproduction, and kids need to finish high school first. Having babies is not conducive to studying, so we should have a MINIMUM age for sexual intercourse set at 18.

Unless you think sex is just for fun and entertainment, which means we should legalize heroin and cocaine for all ages as well.

I realize that biologically speaking, sex is about reproduction. But there is no reason, with the availability of affordable contraseptives, that it need be limited to that. I see no reason for people not to enjoy sex, and have it for fun. So no, I would not support raising the age.

As per heroine and cocaine, how could I support legalizing it for all ages? I know hyperbole is your strong suit, but do recognize that even for sex I supplied a minimum age before (12). Sex, if done safely, is not an issue. Drugs like those you mentioned cannot ever be done safely. And the risks are huge. So I would not grant children access to either. But for adults? I fully want to see all drugs legalized and available without a perscription.
 
As per heroine and cocaine, how could I support legalizing it for all ages? I know hyperbole is your strong suit, but do recognize that even for sex I supplied a minimum age before (12). Sex, if done safely, is not an issue. Drugs like those you mentioned cannot ever be done safely. And the risks are huge. So I would not grant children access to either. But for adults? I fully want to see all drugs legalized and available without a perscription.

Your requirement for engaging in sex is puberty. The effects of these drugs can be felt at 2 years of age. You are the one practicing hyperbole, not I. I am just following your lead.

Would you please post a picture of your eyes for me? I want to make sure you aren't biased here.
 
I realize that biologically speaking, sex is about reproduction. But there is no reason, with the availability of affordable contraseptives, that it need be limited to that. I see no reason for people not to enjoy sex, and have it for fun. So no, I would not support raising the age.

As per heroine and cocaine, how could I support legalizing it for all ages? I know hyperbole is your strong suit, but do recognize that even for sex I supplied a minimum age before (12). Sex, if done safely, is not an issue. Drugs like those you mentioned cannot ever be done safely. And the risks are huge. So I would not grant children access to either. But for adults? I fully want to see all drugs legalized and available without a perscription.


Are you saying that it would be ok for a 55 year old to have sex with a 12 or 13 year old? As long as he/she consented and they used protection?
 
As long as they both consented, yes.

That's fucked up. Kids that age need to be concentrating on school, dude.

We have developed as a society to the point that we need to start taking sexual intercourse seriously. It kills millions of people every year, leads to unwanted, miserable lives, destroys the potential life led by parents who don't plan on having kids, and all for a bit of feel-good?

Disgusting.
 
That's fucked up. Kids that age need to be concentrating on school, dude.

We have developed as a society to the point that we need to start taking sexual intercourse seriously. It kills millions of people every year, leads to unwanted, miserable lives, destroys the potential life led by parents who don't plan on having kids, and all for a bit of feel-good?

Disgusting.

Unlike you, I don't want a nanny state. People should get to, with obvious exceptions, live as they see fit, and assume the consequences of their own actions. Sex is natural, and it is not the place of the state to deny those of age the right to engage in it. Personally, I don't want our laws to match those of the Catholic church.
 
People should get to, with obvious exceptions, live as they see fit, and assume the consequences of their own actions.

And therein lies the problem. They usually never do. The rest of us suffer from the consequences of their actions.
 
Unlike you, I don't want a nanny state. People should get to, with obvious exceptions, live as they see fit, and assume the consequences of their own actions.

"With Obvious Exceptions"? This is ONE OF THEM. As Morbid pointed out, the consequences are for everyone to share, not the idiots you grant complete immunity to.

Sex is natural, and it is not the place of the state to deny those of age the right to engage in it.

Murder, rape, and snake venom are natural too. You are falling prey to the Naturalistic Fallacy. You accuse me of being for a Nanny State and then you post idiotic anarchist bullshit like this? C'mon, gprime, you are smarter than this.

Personally, I don't want our laws to match those of the Catholic church.

Me neither. The Catholic church wants idiots to have as many little Catholics as they can. I prefer less people, not more.
 
As long as they both consented, yes.


Are you assuming that all 12 year-olds have the mental capacity to make a decision like that?

I'm going to go on the assumption that you do not have children...but do you at least have younger siblings?
 
And therein lies the problem. They usually never do. The rest of us suffer from the consequences of their actions.

That is because of the system we currently have in place. But if we can make changes to the law regarding the age of consent, why not do likewise to the social support laws?

"With Obvious Exceptions"? This is ONE OF THEM. As Morbid pointed out, the consequences are for everyone to share, not the idiots you grant complete immunity to.

No, this is not an obvious exception. If it were, people could agree on it as easily as they would murder or rape, which ARE examples of obvious exceptions. Idiots are entitled to make mistakes. The issue is not their mistakes, but the laws that create a support system for them.

Murder, rape, and snake venom are natural too. You are falling prey to the Naturalistic Fallacy. You accuse me of being for a Nanny State and then you post idiotic anarchist bullshit like this? C'mon, gprime, you are smarter than this.

I'm not a supporter of anarchy, and you know that. I support a court system, a police force, a military, currency printing, ect. But I don't support excessive laws designed to punish those who have done nothing wrong.

Me neither. The Catholic church wants idiots to have as many little Catholics as they can. I prefer less people, not more.

Okay, fine. But to assert that sex is for reproduction only, and that our laws should reflect it, sounds a bit too close to their way of thinking.

Are you assuming that all 12 year-olds have the mental capacity to make a decision like that?

No, I'm not. But I could also ask whether or not every 18 year old citizen has the capacity to understand critical political issues that impact electoral decisions. Yet we still let them vote. So why should we treat sex differently?

I'm going to go on the assumption that you do not have children...but do you at least have younger siblings?

I do indeed have a 16 year old sister, and my mind remains unchanged by that fact.
 
Personally, I don't believe that all 18 year olds are responsible enough to vote, or drive for that matter.

My thoughts on this issue have absolutely nothing to do with religion. It has to do with having morals and common sense. A pre-pubescent child doesn't even come close to being able to make a yes or no decision like that. It would just allow some perv to groom said child and take advantage him/her.

Again, religion has nothing to do with my stance on this issue. The fact that I have had 4 children has EVERYTHING to do with it. The instant those children were laid upon my chest, I vowed to protect and teach these children until they were of legal age, and then some...as needed. I also vowed to rip the still beating heart out of any man or woman that dared to take advantage or otherwise molest them.
 
Personally, I don't believe that all 18 year olds are responsible enough to vote, or drive for that matter.

I agree. I think gprime is using bad policy to justify really bad policy.

We have another story in the forums about an 11-year-old driving like a Nascar vet. Just because kids are physically ABLE to do something is a crazy method of determining an actions legality.

We know, physiologically, that the frontal lobe is not fully developed in men until their mid-to-late 20's. This fact needs to be incorporated into our legal system. The frontal lobe is what controls risk-taking impulses originating in the reptilian structures of the brain. I favor a gradual raising of the drinking age to 25, and raising the driving age to 22. The driving age raise would be great for college towns, by keeping the mass influx of vehicles off the street, and forcing kids to stay closer to campus, which is a benefit for several reasons.

Gprime is using physiological knowledge to do what is most insane, in this case. His argument is that when kids are at their horniest, and least capable of making rational decisions, THAT is when we should turn them loose on one another. All in the name of individual liberty? Bizarre.
 
12? Ew yuck, and gross. I generally stay out of these kinds of discussions cause they can get heated and you guys all sound about 1000 times smarter than me, so I am afraid to debate you. But 12? I have a daughter that will be 12 in July and she is still a little girl! Like, hasn't gone through any kind of puberty. You my friend are sick. I was 14 and I contend to this day that was WAY to young. You grow so much from 13 to 21 it is amazing. And on a side note. I have a guy friend that is 25 and when he gets hit on by the 16 &17 year old high school girls(he works at McDonalds)he doesn't think, "oh almost legal, what the hell." He says NO!
 
My eldest will be 12 in May, and while amongst all of her friends she is the most emotionally mature, there's no way that she is anywhere near being ready to have sex. It isn't even on her mind, and it really shouldn't be on any 12 year old's mind unless they have been exposed to sex far too early. An already sexualised child shouldn't be an excuse to sexualise all 12 year olds, when the majority are not at that stage yet.

Apart from all that, she's just entering puberty, and while she hasn't had any mood swings normally associated with that period, she's definitely starting to have the unique hormonal and chemical changes that occur during puberty. All of those hormones and chemicals have an intense effect on the still developing brain, it's ability to control impulses, and it's ability to make decisions. Puberty induces something very close to mania in the young brain. Some teenagers can cope with this and still make good choices in every aspect of their lives, many cannot. This "manic" brain state is short lived and is something a person will only experience during this formative period.

The experiences a person has during this unique time will be extremely influential upon the rest of their lives. If someone has an extremely good, or bad experience during this time, it can even set the tone for the rest of their life. There is so much potential for a bad experience to occur as a result of sex between a young person and an older person, that we can't in conscience allow it to be an option, even for those very few teens who may be ready. It's our job, both as parents, individuals and a society, to protect the younger generation, and guide them until they are able to make rational, mature decisions for themselves. There's no good reason why we should stop doing that for people when they are going through puberty and experiencing the conflicting emotions and often irrational decision making inherent with that stage of development.
 
This time, there was no lambasting from the judge.

This time, there were no outrageous comments about women, sex and ethnicity.

And this time, a former Jacksonville doctor was sentenced to 10 years in prison instead of 20 for soliciting a child on the Internet and traveling to meet a minor for sex.

“I’m guilty of every word that I wrote and said,” Irfan Nawaz told Circuit Judge David Gooding on Tuesday. “I sincerely apologize to you and to anyone in this country. ... I put shame on myself and my family.”

Nawaz, who practiced internal medicine at the Mayo Clinic and St. Luke’s Hospital, was arrested in 2008 after investigators tracked him to St. Cloud, where he’d gone to meet a detective posing as a 15-year-old girl.
In his confession to an Osceola County detective, he laughed at how stupid and promiscuous American women are.

“I thank God that I did not marry anyone from this country, who are that sexually hungry and who want that many stupid things to be done to them by a stupid stranger,” he said on the tape.

He pleaded guilty and was sentenced last year to the maximum 20 years by Circuit Judge John Merrett, who was outraged by Nawaz’s comments. Merrett called him a degenerate, hypocrite and bigot and added, “On behalf of my countrywomen, I join you in thanking God that you did not marry an American woman.”

But the 1st District Court of Appeal ordered a new sentence, ruling in January that Merrett’s comments went too far when he referred to Nawaz’s Pakistani national origin. The court said that cannot be a basis for a tougher sentence.

In court Tuesday, Nawaz was far more contrite. He told Gooding he would spend the rest of his life praying to “wash that filth that I was once swimming in.” He said he sought forgiveness and mercy from Allah, the court and the United States.

Gooding told him he hopes he finds forgiveness.

“I don’t think anyone doubts that the apology was sincere,” Gooding told him.

Nawaz’s appeals attorney, Hank Coxe, argued for an even lighter sentence. He said Nawaz voluntarily assisted the State Attorney’s Office last week with information about an unsolved crime.

Additionally, he reminded Gooding that Nawaz has lost his profession, will be deported to Pakistan immediately upon release and has no visitors because his wife and young son returned to Pakistan after his arrest. Nawaz has never seen his 3-year-old son, who was born about a month after his arrest.

“Dr. Nawaz’s circumstances are different from everybody else’s,” Coxe said.

But prosecutor Maureen Horkan of the Attorney General’s Child Predator CyberCrime Unit said Nawaz would have had multiple victims had there not been detectives posing as virgin teenage girls. The crime is no different, she said, than if Nawaz had solicited underage girls at the mall. Additionally, she said, Nawaz instructed the potential victims how to destroy evidence of their incriminating computer chats.

Horkan agreed with Gooding that Nawaz’s apology was sincere. But she asked for 10 years in prison followed by five years on sex offender probation.

Gooding agreed with her recommendation, even though he acknowledged Nawaz likely will be deported before he can begin the probation.
1626725936801.webp
 
Back
Top