TLDR:

I have both in case a situation arises in which they are useful. Simple as that.

So....it’s weird that you accuse the author of this post of straw manning (which is not true), and now you’re doing it. Who here has said you don’t have the right to kill someone who is trying to kill you?

I read your rant. One of the many reasons so many people HAVE a handgun is they feel they NEED one for protection. You can’t address one issue without recognizing the impact of the other. The column presents a valid perspective.

“useful for other intents, as well.”

actually, what you described as your need for a gun is in fact paranoia. If you think you need one for precaution, its because you think someone might be coming after you.... paranoia.

Which means that someone in R. Kelly’s camp knew that they had to be intimately familiar with that specific law because they knew they would need some kind of defense against it in the future. 

What it was and what it now is are two different things.

Agreed! Typed or written is beside the point. Documents are back dated in countless cases in order to cover someone arses.  Even Stevie Wonder can see through that! 

See here’s the thing about your assertion though the word Minor changes your whole claim about the law being racist.  Even if that was how it was applied when it was first passed it very specifically is about minors.  And it seems to me what you believe is that there should be fewer protections for minors who maybe be…

Man, the trolls stanning for this man in the grays. Get a better fucking hobby. lol

Yes, the FBI would have to prove Kelly transported the girl for the purposes of sex to seek a Mann Act charge. My point was the FBI cannot seek a stat rape charge because that is a distinct state crime.

So why would the FBI be seeking the lesser the penalty when in essence they have to prove to greater felony to get there?

The fact that there is a note stating this means that R. Kelly was trying to cover his ass on this stuff.

True enough, it’s a law with a lot of racist historical baggage, though given what we’re talking about with R. Kelly it might be worth pointing out that in the cases of Berry and Ingram the girls they were having “consensual relationships” with were 14 and 15 respectively  

Has 0 to do with this specific case

The best part is that the note they submitted was one that references a different time frame than the one that the FBI is investigating

I’m not a lawyer, but in what world would that handwritten note satisfy any kind of legal requirement? It needn’t be said that *nothing* can provide cover for rape -statutory or other- but htf would a handwritten note be sufficient to grant temporary custody of a minor to someone?

That’s not how it works. “Under his care” ≠ “Permission to Bump n Grind”.

A parent cannot give permission for someone to sexually abuse a minor child. Sheesh.