"California Is Relaxing The Punishment For Adults Buying Children For Sex"...
“SB 1414, new law in California. The punishment for buying a child for sex in California is now punishable by 2 DAYS in county jail. 2 DAYS in county jail. It's no longer punishable by prison”
“I am blown away”
(twitter.com)
🤢 These people are sick! 🤮
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (54)
sorted by:
Who introduced this legislation? It didn’t just arrive from nowhere. Who’s the sponsor?
I bet it was Weiner . Yes there’s a government official with the last name of wiener and he is gay.
Wiener also honored the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence in Sacramento last year.
You are correct. Scott Wiener is the one who gutted the bill from being a straight up felony to human sex traffic all children under 18 to this: From https://digitaldemocracy.calmatters.org/bills/ca_202320240sb1414:
"This bill would make this offense applicable only to a defendant who is 18 years of age or older at the time of the offense. The bill would, if the person solicited was under 16 years of age...make the offense punishable as a wobbler by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 1 year and a fine not to exceed $10,000 or by imprisonment in the county jail for 16 months or 2 or 3 years. For a 2nd or subsequent offense under those conditions, the bill would require that the offense be punishable as a felony by imprisonment in the county jail for 16 months or 2 or 3 years."
So no punishment if a 17 year old buys an infant repeatedly. No punishment if the child purchased was 16 or 17. Its only a felony if the purchaser gets caught purchasing a child 15 or under a second time. It may be better than existing law, but this is still not good. :(
Edit to add: The woman who introduced the bill, Shannon Groves, was aware that Wiener is working unlawfully without an oath and she could have had his changes stricken. But she didn't, so I think she's in on it: https://gwsandiego.net/blog/?p=2822
Q knows about Weiner AND crimes against children.
u/#q1552
That's a different weiner. THAT weiner is Anthony Weiner, former US congressman, and husband of Huma Abedin, HRC's right hand gal. He spent time in prison for sex crimes.
THIS weiner is Scott Weiner, just a pervy state legislator.
Ohhhhh! Okay. More Wieners than I can keep track of. Kamala has a similar problem.
Pervy is an understatement. He goes to events at the park to see his constituents... while naked.
Weiner needs to suffer a long time before conversion to chips.
I am going after Scott Wiener now. A couple of weeks ago, I served the State Senate with a notice that Wiener must vacate office for working unlawfully without an oath. I am getting angry moms and gun owners to call and demand that the State Senate comply with the laws and get rid of Wiener: https://gwsandiego.net/blog/?p=2822
You are fighting the good fight!
Shannon Groves, a republican, introduced the bill to make it a straight up felony to human sex traffic all children under 18.
Scott Wiener is the one who gutted the bill to this: From https://digitaldemocracy.calmatters.org/bills/ca_202320240sb1414:
"This bill would make this offense applicable only to a defendant who is 18 years of age or older at the time of the offense. The bill would, if the person solicited was under 16 years of age...make the offense punishable as a wobbler by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 1 year and a fine not to exceed $10,000 or by imprisonment in the county jail for 16 months or 2 or 3 years. For a 2nd or subsequent offense under those conditions, the bill would require that the offense be punishable as a felony by imprisonment in the county jail for 16 months or 2 or 3 years."
So no punishment if a 17 year old buys an infant repeatedly. No punishment if the child purchased was 16 or 17. Its only a felony if the purchaser gets caught purchasing a child 15 or under a second time. It may be better than existing law, but this is still not good. :(
As an FYI: Shannon Groves was aware that Wiener is working unlawfully without an oath and she could have had his changes stricken. But she didn't, so I think she's in on it: https://gwsandiego.net/blog/?p=2822
Thanks for the excellent response