Teenage brains are factually not developed the way adults brains are. You can't argue that. It's a fact - that's why the criminal justice system normally doesn't try teens and kids as adults. They do bad things, but we don't treat them like adults.

I wonder the extent of the medical issues. Like if we're talking yeast infection-type ish, it's probably 80% of women who "develop some kind of medical issue" related to their genitals. Or maybe they are more prone to UTIs; not the same as an STI or cancer though.

Ah, thanks for clarifying. I'm not sure how that applies to the argument from before but it makes sense.

Dad walks in the room after she knows she broke a rule. With a gun. He confronts HER with does she know this dude. Fight or flight + teen brain function = she lies. Dumb? Evil? Stupid? Selfish? How about standard reaction for a 16 year old? When 16 year olds lie and someone doesn't die, do you call that dumb, evil,…

Whether you think he was justified or not, dad gets the blame for his death. I don't see how that's up for debate: dad shot him. That means no one else gets the blame for his death.

I know what FO;DR means, I meant what does that inane response mean for our discussion? Guess it means I won. Don't respond anymore unless you have actual contributions to make.

WHAT? I was being sarcastic! I was ironically pointing out how insane it would be to blame this young man for his own murder because someone reacted unreasonably to his reasonable action (IMO - obviously not fact - I list "sneaking into girlfriend's room for snuggling/sex" as a reasonably expected teen activity). It's…

What does that mean?

I think you missed my point . I'm saying that criminally (and morally, in my opinion, though that's not fact), lying < killing. Even if Texas doesn't think it's a crime, one action is still worse than the other, which OP disagreed with.

Your hypotheticals are worthless because they didn't happen. I'm not going to argue with a situation that doesn't exist. Can you clarify your last paragraph? It looks like autocorrect might have played you and I don't understand what you're saying (or how it connects to this specific case at hand).

I'm unsure about what you're even arguing at this point, so I'll bring it back to the issue I took with your OP: to think she's to blame here, I think one must have a very skewed expectation for teenage girls (I think race is a factor here too, but I'm not about to start that conversation). To think she should bear…

Well said. To think she's to blame here, I honestly think people have to have a very skewed expectation for teenage girls (I think race is a factor here too, but I'm not about to start that conversation with people). To think she should bear any legal blame here requires 1. no understanding the intention of the law 2.…

What? I don't think he's even creepy! I'm saying thinking he is creepy is not ageism! People can think whatever they like. Do you actually think it is ageism?? Please, make that argument using evidence from the article.

if she'd told the truth probably wouldn't have gotten anybody killed.

Why does a judge get to decide on dad, but you get to decide on her?

Are you serious? What about this situation makes you think her brain didn't go into flight-or-fight mode and err on the side of not getting shot for having a boy over? No way she could have foreseen dad would have killed him. The fact that people think a teenage girl could be responsible when her adult father shot and…

Negligence: a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances

That isn't what Jerm Deeks said. He said it's AGEISM!!11!! Anyone can think dude is creepy for any action he took. That's not the same as discrimination or stereotyping.

How did she "get" someone killed? Dad killed him. She lied. One of those actions is a crime.

THANK YOU. This goes to show that we want women to be young, innocent flowers...until a man is involved and then she needs to be the adult. Girl is 16!