Not that I expected any less:
(ThinkProgress) — A Florida family says their 18-year-old daughter was charged with a felony and expelled from high school as a result of a consensual, same-sex relationship with another student.
Kaitlyn Hunt started dating a female classmate at the beginning of the school year when she was 17 and the girl she was dating was about three years younger. According to an account posted to Facebook by Kaitlyn’s mother, in February, shortly after Kaitlyn turned 18, she was arrested on felony charges at the behest of her girlfriend’s parents. The specific crime was “sexual battery on a person 12-16 years old.”
Kaitlyn’s mother believes the charges were motivated by anti-gay animus:
“They were out to destroy my daughter, they feel like my daughter “made” their daughter gay. They are bigoted, religious zeolites [sic] that see being gay as a sin and wrong, and they blame my daughter.”
But Kaitlyn’s problems did not end there. Her girlfriends’s parents appealed to the school board and had her expelled from Sebastian River High School. Kaitlyn’s mom reports that the State Attorney, Brian Workman, has offered Kaitlyn a plea deal “of two years house arrest and one year probation.” Kaitlyn has until next Friday to accept the plea deal or face a trial.
The family has started a petition calling on the state attorney to drop the charges against Kaitlyn.
In case you missed it I emphasized the actual reason Hunt was expelled and arrested. She was having a sexual relationship with a minor. Would ThinkProgress be so sympathetic if it were a 17 year-old boy and a 14 year-old girl? Mmm… probably not, just a guess.
Sifting Reality 
Ah, the bias of the LEFT!
I had someone on my facebook share this with a personal comment about how much she wished religious bigots would mind their own business (paraphrasing). I pointed out that religion didn’t seem to have anything to do with it, other than someone’s accusation, that the relationship was against Florida law, that we were only getting one side of the story, and that it looked to me like someone was ticked off the parents didnt’ approve of the relationship, so she was using the internet to bully and shame the parents for not letting her f*** their daughter.
Funny, I got no response from that.
Lets see:
It wasn’t “sexual battery” if the relationship was consented.
In case of “lewd or lascivious battery”, sexual activity (the oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose) must be demonstrated.
By the way, in Florida anyone can be prosecuted by lewd or lascivious battery disregarding the age. If Hunt were also of the same age, it wouldn’t make difference.
Sex with a minor should be tolerated when the offender is…
Lesbian, apparently.
Gay (same thing).
A minority race? I don’t want to appear to be racist.
A woman? Yeah, ok. Women should get a pass.
Muslim! In fact, don’t even bring it up.
A liberal, for sure, right?
It works with murder, too! Some horrific mass murderers are “really” freedom fighters!
It works with speech, too! Who gets to utter the phrase “Hymie Town”? Not ME! Lord forbid! Some folks get to, though. It just depends!
But, seriously, folks. Let’s try real hard to treat lesbians as equals. Unless they break a law. Then, just leave them alone.
Is 17 the line of demarcation in that state? I have no idea. Three years difference at that age is really quite significant regardless of what the law says about it. I don’t know if I’d seek to have the “lover” of my kid arrested or expelled unless the affair continued beyond my demanding it stop. This is not to say that I don’t take such things seriously, or that I wouldn’t want to separate the “lover’s” head and limbs from his/her body. But right at that age of 17, it just wouldn’t seem appropriate (again, unless it continued after my order for it to stop). I would have words with everyone involved, separately, with the intention of explaining the intense and varied downsides of sexual activity between any two kids of that age group and at that time would express my intention to press charges should it continue. I don’t think the kid should be expelled, as the school would have to do the same to any two kids who are so involved.
What if the 18yr old was a punk boy with tattoos and a motorcycle? Had the parents done exactly the same thing, what would that say about them? That they have certain views of what relationships are not proper for their daughter, and that one way to deal with it is to use the law to stop it? Controversial?
It would be exactly the same. “I don’t like that person because of what he does, and as soon as he’s 18, he’s busted”.
Only the headline would never read “Florida Teen Arrested For Heterosexual Relationship”. In fact, it wouldn’t make the news at all.
marsharlart
In “lewd or lascivious battery” in Florida age difference doesn’t matter.
“(4) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS BATTERY.—A person who:
(a) Engages in sexual activity with a person 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age; or”
If two 15 years old teens are engaged in sexual activity both are committing felony.
One was 14 the other 17.
Isu,
Thanks for the info, but it wasn’t germane to my point. That’s why I didn’t look it up myself. But thanks just the same.
marshalart
I know it wasn’t germane to your point as your point isn’t germane to the charges Hunt is facing which have nothing to do with age difference.
Isu
Age has everything to do with the charges.
John,
Age difference has nothing to do. The law is clear about it.
The law says she was a minor
(4) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS BATTERY.—A person who:
(a) Engages in sexual activity with a person 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age; or
(b) Encourages, forces, or entices any person less than 16 years of age to engage in sadomasochistic abuse, sexual bestiality, prostitution, or any other act involving sexual activity commits lewd or lascivious battery, a felony of the second degree
Hunt was 17, her victim was 14. IT IS ABOUT THEIR AGES
John,
That’s false. Hunt age is totally and utterly irrelevant.
According to the law, if Hunt were 14 she would be a felon.
What don’t you get. Hunt was 17, she engaged in sexual activity with a person younger than 16. That is what she was arrested for.
John,
What don’t you get? Hunt age is irrelevant for the crime.
And sexual activity activity existance must be demonstrated.
I know that far-western people like “lynching” but in my country there is something called presumption of innocence.
Hunt had sex with a person under the age of 16, age matters. Hunt being older than 16 is what makes her a felon, age matters. The sexual activity has been admitted by both parties, there is no speculation.
John,
“Hunt being older than 16 is what makes her a felon, age matters.”
That’s false. In “lewd or lascivious battery” age doesn’t matter.
For example, in “lewd or lascivious battery” age does matter in the degree of felony (though irrelevant to felony), as shown in:
“(b) An offender 18 years of age or older who commits lewd or lascivious conduct commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(c) An offender less than 18 years of age who commits lewd or lascivious conduct commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.”
But in “lewd or lascivious battery”, the age of Hunt doesn’t matter at all.
“The sexual activity has been admitted by both parties, there is no speculation.”
Admitting a sentimental affair doesn’t mean sexual activity.
“(a) “Sexual activity” means the oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose.”
Could you provide the citation where something as described in “a” is admitted?
You want me to cite every news story which reports the two had a “consensual relationship”? They all say that. What do you think consensual relationship means? The whole reason this has been made a story at all is because they had a consensual sexual lesbian relationship.
John,
Isu is a fool, as has been proven time and time again on your blog articles. He is always right and will not accept correction. You are wasting your time, buddy!
John,
Dating together is a “consensual relationship”. “consensual relationship” doesn’t necessary mean “sexual activity” as described by the law.
Reality in law: “A person who”
John’s alter reality: “being older than 16 is what makes her a felon”
Reality: admitting dating
John’s alter reality: admitting “sexual activity”
Reality: John is wrong
Glenn’s reality: Isu don’t accept corrections.
This is “sHifting reality”.
Isu
They admitted to being in a consensual lesbian relationship. If there was no sexual activity, then they were just friends. Getting it yet?
I see what Isu is saying about age. Technically, age doesn’t matter according to the law. However, no parent or individual would bring charges against another minor in a case where the sex was consensual. If they did, then their child would be subject to the same crime. Ultimately, though I don’t know what Isu’s point is. What is Isu trying to argue? The older girl is being charged with the crime because she is an adult having a sexual relationship with a minor. In that type of case, consent doesn’t matter. The minor isn’t of age to consent while the adult is. Therefore the adult is charged with a crime while the minor is not. If there was no sexual conduct between the two, then the adult will end up not being charged. Ultimately, John’s original point stands. The older girl is not being charged with the crime because she is a lesbian. She is being charged with the crime because she is an adult that had sexual relations with a minor. She would be charged with the same crime if she was a male. The father of the adult may be right that the parents brought the charge up because they didn’t want their daughter to be in a gay relationship (although, I’m guessing they wouldn’t want their daughter to be in any type of sexual relationship at 14). According to the law it isn’t about the sex of the people involved. Which is John’s point. The case is about the age of one of the participants. The law is involved because one of the participants is under the age of 16. So Isu is dead wrong in that age doesn’t matter. The age of the older girl may not matter in respect to who can be charged with the crime, but the age of the younger does matter in why it is a crime. The age of the older also makes her responsible for the crime, since she is considered an adult and can consent while the younger is considered to young to consent. So I have to ask Isu, what is your point? You seem to argue things just to argue rather than have any actual input worthy of consideration.
John,
“They admitted to being in a consensual lesbian relationship. If there was no sexual activity, then they were just friends. Getting it yet?”
That’s not true.
I had a girlfriend in my early teens and I didn’t have sex with her.
Still it was an consensual heterosexual relationship.
“So I have to ask Isu, what is your point?”
“Technically, age doesn’t matter according to the law.” so age difference or Hun’ts age has nothing to do. If she were also 14 or 15 and engaged “sexual activity” she would be a felon all the same.
“Example: If a 12 year-old were to have sex with a 14 year-old, either child or both could be prosecuted for the offense.”
http://www.richardhornsby.com/crimes/sex/lewd-or-lascivious-battery.html
She isn’t charged because she is “an adult”.
“If there was no sexual conduct between the two, then the adult will end up not being charged.”
Being charged is not the same as being guilty.
“So Isu is dead wrong in that age doesn’t matter.”
I didn’t said that age doesn’t matter. I said AGE DIFFERENCE and HUNT’S AGE doesn’t matter.
I said:
“In “lewd or lascivious battery” in Florida age difference doesn’t matter.”
“If Hunt were also of the same age, it wouldn’t make difference.”
“Age difference has nothing to do.”
“Hunt age is totally and utterly irrelevant.”
@Isu
You answer nothing.
She was 18 when the charges were filed. Even at 17, she is above the age of consent. Which means she is charged and the other girl isn’t because she was old enough to consent and the other girl wasn’t. You’re right that being charged isn’t the same thing as being guilty. If she is innocent then she won’t be found guilty, then the story goes away. However, if you read other writings on this you’ll find that they did get information from both girls that there was a sexual relationship. I agree with what you’re saying about age to an extent. However, Hunt’s age matters to the extent that it’s the reason that only she is getting charged with a crime. It is also the reason the parents waited until she was of a certain age before filing charges. My larger point was, how does what you’re saying have any bearing on John’s point that the girl isn’t being charged because she was a lesbian? She was being charged with a crime because she was over the age of consent and the other girl was under the age of consent. It’s true that if she was under the age of consent that she could still be charged with the same crime, but in that case both girls would be charged. It still wouldn’t be about being a lesbian. The parents however wouldn’t have brought the charges if both were under the age of consent. That is why they waited until the girl was 18. They could have actually charged her when she was 17 though as you’ve pointed out. Ultimately, you never answered exactly what your point is in addressing the age thing. It has no real bearing on John’s overall point. That the girl wasn’t charged with a crime because she was a lesbian. She was charged with a crime because she was above the age of consent and had sex with someone under the age of consent. This is true because the people that charged her with the crime (the other parents) did so at a point in time when they could get her without getting their daughter too.
@Isu
Basically what i’m trying to point out is that the law allowed the Parents to go after the older girl because of her age. If she wasn’t that old, the parents would have no recourse unless they wanted to have their own daughter charged with a crime too. That is why the older girls age matters. Maybe not in respect to the law, but in respect to her and only her being charged with a crime. It just seems to me that you’re trying to tell John that he’s wrong on a technicality, even if he’s right on the larger point.
@Isu
After re-reading John’s conclusion. He actually said that the reason was because she had sexual relations with a minor. He didn’t even say it was because she was an adult or because of how old she was. So you didn’t even catch him on a technicality.
@wiley16350
“[…]the law allowed the Parents to go after the older girl because of her age.”
False. The law allowed the parents to go after the older girl disregarding her age.
“He didn’t even say it was because she was an adult or because of how old she was.”
John did it: “Hunt being older than 16 is what makes her a felon, age matters.”
The law is clear and the age of the offender is irrelevant.
“LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS BATTERY.—A person who:
(a) Engages in sexual activity with a person 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age; or
(b) Encourages, forces, or entices any person less than 16 years of age to engage in sadomasochistic abuse, sexual bestiality, prostitution, or any other act involving sexual activity
commits lewd or lascivious battery, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.”
I also cited a lawyer’s example:
“Example: If a 12 year-old were to have sex with a 14 year-old, either child or both could be prosecuted for the offense.”
http://www.richardhornsby.com/crimes/sex/lewd-or-lascivious-battery.html
Notice the claim that age doesn’t matter includes a citation of the law which defines an age range that matters?!?!?
@Isu
Seriously, your stupidity is unbelievable.
I understand that this girl could have been charged with the crime at any age. I have not denied or argued that. I have even stated agreement with that. You refuse to understand that her age did play a part in why she is being charged at this point in time and not sooner. But that isn’t even my main point. My main point is, what does the age thing have to do with John’s original conclusion? His original conclusion was that the girl was being charged with having sex with a minor and not because she was a lesbian. You refuse to give any reason for why you brought the age thing up in the first place. The quote you use for John is a statement he made while addressing your original comment about age. It wasn’t used in the original writing. So you brought up the age thing first.
“[…]the law allowed the Parents to go after the older girl because of her age.”
False. The law allowed the parents to go after the older girl disregarding her age.
In this part you completely take my quote out of context. The parents were able to go after the older girl once she was no longer a minor because it no longer meant their child was susceptible to the same law that they were charging this girl for. They could have by law charged the girl with this prior to her becoming old enough to consent but their child would have recieved the same punishment.
So you need to stop addressing the same point. Either explain why you brought up age in the first place and how it pertains to John’s ORIGINAL conclusion or leave it alone.
Wiley
I’m beginning to think Isu is just trying to divert from the real issue. Otherwise why spend so much time on something so irrelevant? Lets try something.
Isu, I was wrong, I made a mistake. Now what do you make of the overall deception used by the media trying to spin this as Hunt being arrested for a lesbian relationship?
Glenn,
“Notice the claim that age doesn’t matter includes a citation of the law which defines an age range that matters?!?!?”
Didn’t you noticed that I said AGE DIFFERENCE and HUNT’S AGE doesn’t matter as you falsely pretend?
@wiley16350
“They could have by law charged the girl with this prior to her becoming old enough to consent but their child would have recieved the same punishment.”
Wrong. The relationship started when Hunt was 17 and therefore this law (“a person 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age”) doesn’t apply for their daughter.
“Either explain why you brought up age in the first place and how it pertains to John’s ORIGINAL conclusion or leave it alone.”
Easy: offender’s age is irrelevant for the current felony charges.
So John’s conclusion “Hunt being older than 16 is what makes her a felon, age matters.” is wrong.
@Isu
Her being 17 is the same as her being 18. Doesn’t change anything with what I said. I just didn’t need to provide an example of why they waited. They probably waited until they had evidence of a sexual relationship.
HERE IS JOHN’S ORIGINAL CONCLUSION:
In case you missed it I emphasized the actual reason Hunt was expelled and arrested. She was having a sexual relationship with a minor.
There was no mention of it being due to age or an age difference. That statement was portrayed in the article. The quote you use to defend your use of the age argument comes after you entered the age argument into the discussion.
FIRST YOU SAID THIS
It wasn’t “sexual battery” if the relationship was consented.
In case of “lewd or lascivious battery”, sexual activity (the oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose) must be demonstrated.
By the way, in Florida anyone can be prosecuted by lewd or lascivious battery disregarding the age. If Hunt were also of the same age, it wouldn’t make difference.
THEN YOU SAID THIS
In “lewd or lascivious battery” in Florida age difference doesn’t matter.
“(4) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS BATTERY.—A person who:
(a) Engages in sexual activity with a person 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age; or”
If two 15 years old teens are engaged in sexual activity both are committing felony.
THEN JOHN SAID
Hunt being older than 16 is what makes her a felon, age matters.
So you brought age up first. The question is why? It was like you were addressing the article rather than what John said. I agree that statement by John is technically wrong as I pointed out earlier. Ultimately, it isn’t necessarily wrong because if she was under 16 then nobody would have pressed charges. Which was the other point I was trying to make with you. So in a round about way her age does make her a felon. What I don’t get is what you were trying to address with your original statements. What point did you want to make and where you trying to disagree with John or were you just pointing out misstatements in the article?
@ Isu
John also went on to say that age matters because the girl is a minor. You were the only one stuck on the age of the older girl and you kept arguing as if John was saying it was because of the age of the older girl.
JOHN QUOTES
The law says she was a minor
she engaged in sexual activity with a person younger than 16. That is what she was arrested for.
Hunt had sex with a person under the age of 16, age matters.
After that he said the quote that you give of him saying. Slip of the tongue because he was getting frustrated with you not understanding anything.
“You were the only one stuck on the age of the older girl and you kept arguing as if John was saying it was because of the age of the older girl.”
John’s saying: “Hunt being older than 16 is what makes her a felon, age matters.”
Yeah keep telling yourself that.
here is the discussion in order
JOHN
Age has everything to do with the charges
YOU
Age difference has nothing to do. The law is clear about it.
John didn’t say anything about age difference. Your reply to John doesn’t address what he said.
JOHN
The law says she was a minor
John clearly states here that the reason the girl is charged is because she had sex with a minor. Just as he said in the original article.
JOHN CONTINUED IN ANOTHER POST
Hunt was 17, her victim was 14. IT IS ABOUT THEIR AGES
YOU
That’s false. Hunt age is totally and utterly irrelevant.
According to the law, if Hunt were 14 she would be a felon.
JOHN
What don’t you get. Hunt was 17, she engaged in sexual activity with a person younger than 16. That is what she was arrested for.
YOU
What don’t you get? Hunt age is irrelevant for the crime.
In these instances John may have stated Hunt’s age but his focus was on the age of the younger girl. You could take it as he feels that Hunt is charged with the crime because she was 17 but he previously stated twice that her having sex with a minor is the reason she was charged. So at this point I start to question why you’re arguing with him. What is the big deal with what he was saying? What purpose did you have for insisting about Hunt’s age. What does it matter to the main argument or point of his writing?
JOHN
Hunt had sex with a person under the age of 16, age matters. Hunt being older than 16 is what makes her a felon, age matters.
John’s first part to this is fine and consistent with what he was saying. Unfortunately he went on to say the second part. Which of course you couldn’t let go because you have to drive home the point that Hunt’s age doesn’t matter like it has some important part to what John’s original post was about.
My point is, Hunt’s age has nothing to do with her charge just like her age has nothing to do with John’s post. So it makes no sense why you continued to harp on it like it was an important issue. I will continue to point out though that if she was under the age of 16 she wouldn’t have been charged with a felony because the parents of the other girl wouldn’t bring up the charges. In that sense her age did matter.
John,
There is no diversion. My comments in the post were related to the legal issue and I was discussing the legal sense.
I have two reasons to spending so much time on “something so irrelevant” without getting involved in diversion:
The first one: if something is wrong, I’ll point out it is wrong while the wrong idea persists and I don’t get tired of doing it.
The second one: it shows me my counterpart’s character. How do you expect someone will agree on the relevant when they are being obtuse on the irrelevant?
“Isu, I was wrong, I made a mistake.”
Are you sure or are you “try”ing “something” by lying?
“Now what do you make of the overall deception used by the media trying to spin this as Hunt being arrested for a lesbian relationship?”
I make the same of your deception trying to spin this as Hunt being arrested for a different age relationship.
We don’t know for sure the parent’s real motivation.
@John,
See John, even though what you wrote was correct and you gave the right reason in your conclusion, “She was having a sexual relationship with a minor.” you were still being deceptive because you underlined the part where it only declares the girls ages. This is misleading to people that have no ability or desire to read what your conclusion or take on the story is. Even though it’s possible that you underlined that part to show that one of the girls was a minor, you were still being deceptive. Because it’s possible for a moron to take it wrong and believe that you’re saying it’s the age difference that makes her the felon even though you declared in your conclusion that it was sex with a minor. No matter what you write though, idiots will always have a hard time understanding.
“Would ThinkProgress be so sympathetic if it were a 17 year-old boy and a 14 year-old girl?”
“One was 14 the other 17.”
“Hunt was 17, her victim was 14. IT IS ABOUT THEIR AGES”
“Hunt being older than 16 is what makes her a felon, age matters.”
Only an idiot would say that John didn’t stress Hunt’s age.
Isu
Only an idiot would not understand that the reason I mentioned their ages is because it was illegal for the one who got arrested to have sex with the other, not that it was illegal because she was a lesbian.
@Isu
The first sentence only asks a question if the situation was exactly the except that one was a boy and one was a girl would it change anything. It was referring to sexuality, the ages really didn’t matter except to compare apples to apples.
The second sentence does refer to their ages but he followed that up with his next comment that the girl was a minor.
The third sentence talks about their ages. True. But by saying “her victim was 14” he was stressing the age of the younger as being the important age that matters.
I have agreed that the last sentence is wrong, but it has also been repeatedly pointed out that he made that comment well into the argument.
John was stressing the age of the victim. You were the one that kept reading into it that he was stressing that Hunts age was important. Only in the last statement did he actually say that Hunts age mattered. Long after you had initiated the argument.
@Isu
The reason I can say that you’re reading into those comments that Hunts age matters, and I am not reading into it is because his original conclusion said that Hunt was charged because she had sexual relations with a minor.
Perhaps the problem here is that in Spain, the age of consent for sex is 13 years of age. It appears that they are taking the leap into the 20th century and considering raising the ago of consent for sex. I’m guessing that the concept that any jurisdiction would have a higher ago of consent than Spain is foreign to Spaniards.
Hope this helps.
@Isu
Basically what happened is that you made a statement in the beginning that brought up age that had nothing to do with John’s post. It seemed to correct what was said in the article. Everybody left it alone. Then you addressed Marshalart with the age thing. Which really didn’t have anything to do with what he said (which you admitted). So your point seemed pointless. Then John addressed your last statement to marshalart when you said age difference didn’t matter. That is when confusion set in. John said one was 14 and one was 17 and that age did matter. So then I can see why you addressed John with age difference didn’t matter. Then John followed that up with saying one of the girls was a minor. That is where the argument should have ended because it made clear what John’s point was. But you continued to focus on Hunts age after that and you guys were completely talking past each other. So I came in to try to clear things up on both sides and to question what your motive was because you were making a big deal out of something that had no bearing on the original post. You then continued to make it out like John’s original post was claiming that Hunt was being charged because of her age and you even went to the extent to say that John was being deceptive. Neither of those things are true and thats what I have been trying to get through to you. John’s original post and conclusion specifically said that Hunt was being charged because she had sex with a minor. His conclusion did not specifically state that Hunt was being charged because she was 17. He also concluded by asking how would people would feel if a 17 year old boy and 14 year old girl had a sexual relationship and the boy was charged with a crime. That sentence was used specifically to compare the homosexual to the heterosexual relationship to show why the girl wasn’t being charged because she was a lesbian. The ages were used for similarity and making things equal. They were not used to convey that Hunt was being charged because she was 17.
John,
Don’t getting the point yet?
“their ages” are not relevant. Only the other girl’s age.
Isu,
Don’t ge the point yet? “Their ages” WAS relevant. If the older one was the same age as the younger one, there would be no case. HELLO!!!!!
So even after I say I made the mistake, you just wont let it go? I’m still waiting for your opinion of the post I actually wrote rather than some tangent in the comment section.
John,
I answered your previous question and you are ignoring it.
Of course, there’s more to the story.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/24/theres-a-major-twist-in-the-story-about-a-high-school-students-lesbian-relationship-with-a-minor-as-younger-teens-parents-drop-alleged-bombshell/
Naturally