Of course all of that shit matters. If someone walks up to a 9-year-old and says "Hey, little man!" and offers a high-five, we don't call for death by firing squad. It may not be a perfectly appropriate thing to do, but it's not monstrous, either.
Yeah but he told the kid to leave his stuff, and put him in a car. So he should be shot to death in public or hanged in public. Put to death in someway in public to deter people from doing what he did.
You are correct. Just talking to kids in public isn't a crime. Whet this guy did after that should be though!
It's a big difference: "Hey lil dude! Catch anything? Nice day eh? Good luck!"
vs:
"Leave your gear behind & come get ice cream with me, I'll drive you home for reals!"
Boku no Pico starts with a car ride to get ice cream, ...or so I've been told!
Yeah. I agree. Taking a kid of the streets and driving them around for a day should definitely be a crime.
It shouldn't be the same crime as diddling a kid, though.
Which is why it matters whether this was attempted diddling or just a crazy person thinking it would be fun to pretend to be this kid's big brother for the day.
He's obviously not "crazy" (a term often used to excuse criminal behaviour); he justified his actions rationally. And he justified it using his own culture, which is notorious for normalising rape.
If his intent was, inferred via his own admission, to rape the kid, should he get a reduced sentence just because someone stopped him?
You can't have it both ways. If "intent matters" such that good intentions absolve bad actions, then bad intent needs to be punished as though the actual crime was committed.
None of that shit matters. YOU. DO. NOT. APPROACH. OTHER. PEOPLE'S. CHILDREN, EVER.
Of course all of that shit matters. If someone walks up to a 9-year-old and says "Hey, little man!" and offers a high-five, we don't call for death by firing squad. It may not be a perfectly appropriate thing to do, but it's not monstrous, either.
Ok , but it’s a jeet. So you can be sure he wanted to rape the kid
Yeah but he told the kid to leave his stuff, and put him in a car. So he should be shot to death in public or hanged in public. Put to death in someway in public to deter people from doing what he did.
Yea, that's called "grooming."
You are correct. Just talking to kids in public isn't a crime. Whet this guy did after that should be though!
It's a big difference: "Hey lil dude! Catch anything? Nice day eh? Good luck!"
vs:
"Leave your gear behind & come get ice cream with me, I'll drive you home for reals!"
Boku no Pico starts with a car ride to get ice cream, ...or so I've been told!
Yeah. I agree. Taking a kid of the streets and driving them around for a day should definitely be a crime.
It shouldn't be the same crime as diddling a kid, though.
Which is why it matters whether this was attempted diddling or just a crazy person thinking it would be fun to pretend to be this kid's big brother for the day.
I feel like you're too hung up on leaving little loopholes for the slightly-creepy-but-not-rapey pedos to get away with it.
They should both get the rope. And you too if you disagree even slightly.
He's obviously not "crazy" (a term often used to excuse criminal behaviour); he justified his actions rationally. And he justified it using his own culture, which is notorious for normalising rape.
If his intent was, inferred via his own admission, to rape the kid, should he get a reduced sentence just because someone stopped him?
You can't have it both ways. If "intent matters" such that good intentions absolve bad actions, then bad intent needs to be punished as though the actual crime was committed.
Agreed, never seen this comment section be so off before.
Impale pajeets