Legalized child prostitution

[Blackrook]

The result will be an explosion of child prostitutes, standing on every street corner in every city in California. The police will be powerless to do anything about it. I saw the same thing happen in the 1980's when the homelessness situation got out of hand.

SMFH

Stupefying how many just suck up this fake news bullshit that feeds their partisan agenda, without bothering to look under the headlines to see what's really going on.

My search took 0.72 seconds to debunk it.


Even Glenn Beck calls this bullshit story out for the bullshit it is (here)

Read your article, you dumbfuck moron:

Existing law makes it a crime to solicit or engage in any act of prostitution. Existing law makes it a crime to loiter in any public place with the intent to commit prostitution.

This bill would make the above provisions inapplicable to a child under 18 years of age who is alleged to have engaged in conduct that would, if committed by an adult, violate the above provisions. The bill would authorize the minor to be taken into temporary custody under limited circumstances.

Note that children can no longer be arrested for loitering, even if it is their intent to sell their bodies for sex, or wait until a Democrat comes along and pays them $5 for a blowjob.

They can only be taken into temporary custody UNDER LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES.

This new law will make it EXTREMELY DIFFICULT for police to clean up the scourge of child prostitution and make it MUCH EASIER for sexual predatory Democrats to locate child prostitutes, who will be emboldened by the fact that they are now IMMUNE FROM ARREST even if caught in the middle of a sex act with a Democrat.

 

[Blackrook]

You miss the point. A person who is NOT committing a crime CANNOT be taken into custody. That would be an unconstitutional seizure, a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Democrats who authored this bill and voted for this are mostly lawyers, who KNOW exactly what they are doing. They KNOW that preventing police from arresting child prostitutes will have the effect of legalizing it for all intents and purposes.

This is a major agenda item for Democrats, sexualizing minors and warping them with their perverted tendencies. That is why a nine-year-old transgender child is now on the cover of National Geographic:

View attachment 104575

so, are you saying a human being is the same thing as a human being's personal, non living possessions???

Are you claiming A MINOR with no adult supervision, can not be protected or held by the police, by the State???

seriously???

There has to be a law that allows the police to detain a person.

This law removes the authority police now have to arrest children who are loitering for the purpose of selling their bodies for sex.

This new law benefits Democrats who will now find it much easier to find child prostitutes to give them blow jobs.

 

[Pogo]

The result will be an explosion of child prostitutes, standing on every street corner in every city in California. The police will be powerless to do anything about it. I saw the same thing happen in the 1980's when the homelessness situation got out of hand.

SMFH

Stupefying how many just suck up this fake news bullshit that feeds their partisan agenda, without bothering to look under the headlines to see what's really going on.

My search took 0.72 seconds to debunk it.


Even Glenn Beck calls this bullshit story out for the bullshit it is (here)

Read your article, you dumbfuck moron:

Existing law makes it a crime to solicit or engage in any act of prostitution. Existing law makes it a crime to loiter in any public place with the intent to commit prostitution.

This bill would make the above provisions inapplicable to a child under 18 years of age who is alleged to have engaged in conduct that would, if committed by an adult, violate the above provisions. The bill would authorize the minor to be taken into temporary custody under limited circumstances.

Note that children can no longer be arrested for loitering, even if it is their intent to sell their bodies for sex, or wait until a Democrat comes along and pays them $5 for a blowjob.

They can only be taken into temporary custody UNDER LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES.

This new law will make it EXTREMELY DIFFICULT for police to clean up the scourge of child prostitution and make it MUCH EASIER for sexual predatory Democrats to locate child prostitutes, who will be emboldened by the fact that they are now IMMUNE FROM ARREST even if caught in the middle of a sex act with a Democrat.

I *did* read the article, Evelyn Wood. It refers back to a Snopes page I already posted ---- which is available for anyone who simply takes the time to question what they read instead of swallowing whole btw --- and proceeds to quote the law, and this comment:

“The law is supposed to protect vulnerable children from adult abuse, yet we brand kids enmeshed in sex-for-pay with a scarlet ‘P’ and leave them subject to shame and prosecution,” California state Sen. Holly J. Mitchell (D) said in a statement when Brown signed the legislation. “This is our opportunity to do what we say is right in cases of sex trafficking: stop the exploiters and help the exploited.”

Though it has been months since the law was signed, some conservative media outlets and Twitter accounts have recently began peddling the idea that California will allow child prostitution unfettered beginning in January.

An op-ed in the Washington Examiner published Thursday reads:

SB 1322 bars law enforcement from arresting sex workers who are under the age of 18 for soliciting or engaging in prostitution, or loitering with the intent to do so. So teenage girls (and boys) in California will soon be free to have sex in exchange for money without fear of arrest or prosecution.

The piece erroneously states that: “Immunity from arrest means law enforcement can’t interfere with minors engaging in prostitution.”​

But nooooooo..... you partisan hacknoids are so foaming at the mouth to score "points" you just sucked up a bogus story without bothering to vet it. And the next similar bogus story that comes along ---- you'll just do it again.

It's hard to believe people can be this dense.

 

[Care4all]

You miss the point. A person who is NOT committing a crime CANNOT be taken into custody. That would be an unconstitutional seizure, a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Democrats who authored this bill and voted for this are mostly lawyers, who KNOW exactly what they are doing. They KNOW that preventing police from arresting child prostitutes will have the effect of legalizing it for all intents and purposes.

This is a major agenda item for Democrats, sexualizing minors and warping them with their perverted tendencies. That is why a nine-year-old transgender child is now on the cover of National Geographic:

View attachment 104575

so, are you saying a human being is the same thing as a human being's personal, non living possessions???

Are you claiming A MINOR with no adult supervision, can not be protected or held by the police, by the State???

seriously???

There has to be a law that allows the police to detain a person.

This law removes the authority police now have to arrest children who are loitering for the purpose of selling their bodies for sex.

This new law benefits Democrats who will now find it much easier to find child prostitutes to give them blow jobs.

you are one sick m f-er, aren't you?

any child can be brought in and handed over t.o the State if they are living on the street without their parents....you don't need the child to commit a crime

 

[BuckToothMoron]

This a bad decision

California Democrats legalize child prostitution

Hmm, I guess that explains Anthony Weiner relocating to LA. He's going to share a beach house with Slick Willie.

 

[Blackrook]

You miss the point. A person who is NOT committing a crime CANNOT be taken into custody. That would be an unconstitutional seizure, a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Democrats who authored this bill and voted for this are mostly lawyers, who KNOW exactly what they are doing. They KNOW that preventing police from arresting child prostitutes will have the effect of legalizing it for all intents and purposes.

This is a major agenda item for Democrats, sexualizing minors and warping them with their perverted tendencies. That is why a nine-year-old transgender child is now on the cover of National Geographic:

View attachment 104575

so, are you saying a human being is the same thing as a human being's personal, non living possessions???

Are you claiming A MINOR with no adult supervision, can not be protected or held by the police, by the State???

seriously???

There has to be a law that allows the police to detain a person.

This law removes the authority police now have to arrest children who are loitering for the purpose of selling their bodies for sex.

This new law benefits Democrats who will now find it much easier to find child prostitutes to give them blow jobs.

you are one sick m f-er, aren't you?

any child can be brought in and handed over t.o the State if they are living on the street without their parents....you don't need the child to commit a crime

The pimp might be a parent, or a guardian, or an adult claiming to be a parent or guardian. If the minor is standing next to his/her pimp, how would you suggest the police take the child into custody, since he/she is being "taken care of" by this loving adult?

Argue all you want, you can't get around the fact that Democrats have given one of their favorite constituencies, the LGBT movement, a big favor by making it easier for them to get away with sex with minors.

 

[Blackrook]

Anyone who is arguing for this new law is just as guilty as any pedophile who pays a child to have sex.

You disgust me you filthy pieces of shit.

 

[baileyn45]

I can't quite figure out how this is supposed to help these children. OK so they won't have a record but they're just going to be back on the street that much faster. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[Blackrook]

I can't quite figure out how this is supposed to help these children. OK so they won't have a record but they're just going to be back on the street that much faster. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I disagree, I do not see good intentions, I see a deliberate policy to make it easier for pedophiles to get away with their crime. Since the child can no longer be threatened with prosecution, prosecutors will lose leverage to force them to cooperate with the prosecutions of men they have sex with. This is a disaster for law enforcement efforts.

 

[baileyn45]

I can't quite figure out how this is supposed to help these children. OK so they won't have a record but they're just going to be back on the street that much faster. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I disagree, I do not see good intentions, I see a deliberate policy to make it easier for pedophiles to get away with their crime. Since the child can no longer be threatened with prosecution, prosecutors will lose leverage to force them to cooperate with the prosecutions of men they have sex with. This is a disaster for law enforcement efforts.

I was trying to look at it in the best possible light and it still doesn't make sense.

 

[Lewdog]

The result will be an explosion of child prostitutes, standing on every street corner in every city in California. The police will be powerless to do anything about it. I saw the same thing happen in the 1980's when the homelessness situation got out of hand.

The people that buy their services are still breaking the law...

So the children get taken off the street and given help and treatment instead of being put in jail, and this is bad?

 

[Blackrook]

I can't quite figure out how this is supposed to help these children. OK so they won't have a record but they're just going to be back on the street that much faster. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I disagree, I do not see good intentions, I see a deliberate policy to make it easier for pedophiles to get away with their crime. Since the child can no longer be threatened with prosecution, prosecutors will lose leverage to force them to cooperate with the prosecutions of men they have sex with. This is a disaster for law enforcement efforts.

I was trying to look at it in the best possible light and it still doesn't make sense.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the agenda of the LGBT movement and the Democrats is to involve children in their sexual perversion, and this is being accomplished by encouraging children to cross-dress and identify as the opposite gender, even as early as the age of four-years-old.

In a healthy society, if a child identified as opposite gender, his parents would be arrested for child abuse and have their parental rights terminated.

But in our sick, post-Christian society, this kind of encouragement of mental derangement in children is rewarded and lauded by our mainstream media, most recently National Geographic, which took time off their usual beat of showing photographs of naked-breasted African women to show a photograph of a nine-year-old boy dressed like a girl.

 

[Blackrook]

The result will be an explosion of child prostitutes, standing on every street corner in every city in California. The police will be powerless to do anything about it. I saw the same thing happen in the 1980's when the homelessness situation got out of hand.

The people that buy their services are still breaking the law...

So the children get taken off the street and given help and treatment instead of being put in jail, and this is bad?

That's NOT going to happen, because the police have been stripped of authority to take these children off the street for soliciting or loitering.

 

[Lewdog]

The result will be an explosion of child prostitutes, standing on every street corner in every city in California. The police will be powerless to do anything about it. I saw the same thing happen in the 1980's when the homelessness situation got out of hand.

The people that buy their services are still breaking the law...

So the children get taken off the street and given help and treatment instead of being put in jail, and this is bad?

That's NOT going to happen, because the police have been stripped of authority to take these children off the street for soliciting or loitering.

I've studied human trafficking... and the way some of you on this board are taking this new law is ridiculous. It's for the better for the children to get help and not a long criminal record. If you can't understand that, then there is no hope for you and you don't understand how the real world works.

 

[Political Junky]

Bullshit

 

[baileyn45]

The result will be an explosion of child prostitutes, standing on every street corner in every city in California. The police will be powerless to do anything about it. I saw the same thing happen in the 1980's when the homelessness situation got out of hand.

The people that buy their services are still breaking the law...

So the children get taken off the street and given help and treatment instead of being put in jail, and this is bad?

Exactly where do you see any mention of being taken off the street and receiving treatment mentioned?

From the laws own wording...

"A commercially exploited child under this paragraph may be adjudged a dependent child of the court pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and may be taken into temporary custody pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 305 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, if the conditions allowing temporary custody without warrant are met."

It's sounds to me like they MAY be temporarily taken off the street. And if past experience is worth anything, I'm certain they will find a way to make sure they are released asap. I see no mention of treatment. Face it these children will be back on the street quicker than before.

 

[Lewdog]

The result will be an explosion of child prostitutes, standing on every street corner in every city in California. The police will be powerless to do anything about it. I saw the same thing happen in the 1980's when the homelessness situation got out of hand.

The people that buy their services are still breaking the law...

So the children get taken off the street and given help and treatment instead of being put in jail, and this is bad?

Exactly where do you see any mention of being taken off the street and receiving treatment mentioned?

From the laws own wording...

"A commercially exploited child under this paragraph may be adjudged a dependent child of the court pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and may be taken into temporary custody pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 305 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, if the conditions allowing temporary custody without warrant are met."

It's sounds to me like they MAY be temporarily taken off the street. And if past experience is worth anything, I'm certain they will find a way to make sure they are released asap. I see no mention of treatment. Face it these children will be back on the street quicker than before.

If this your first foray into human trafficking and child prostitution, then that's why you don't understand...

So you think the kids would be better off with a criminal record and locked up in jail with criminals where they learn to be better at breaking the law? Or to be taken off the street and given treatment and other opportunities?

 

[baileyn45]

The result will be an explosion of child prostitutes, standing on every street corner in every city in California. The police will be powerless to do anything about it. I saw the same thing happen in the 1980's when the homelessness situation got out of hand.

The people that buy their services are still breaking the law...

So the children get taken off the street and given help and treatment instead of being put in jail, and this is bad?

Exactly where do you see any mention of being taken off the street and receiving treatment mentioned?

From the laws own wording...

"A commercially exploited child under this paragraph may be adjudged a dependent child of the court pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and may be taken into temporary custody pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 305 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, if the conditions allowing temporary custody without warrant are met."

It's sounds to me like they MAY be temporarily taken off the street. And if past experience is worth anything, I'm certain they will find a way to make sure they are released asap. I see no mention of treatment. Face it these children will be back on the street quicker than before.

If this your first foray into human trafficking and child prostitution, then that's why you don't understand...

So you think the kids would be better off with a criminal record and locked up in jail with criminals where they learn to be better at breaking the law? Or to be taken off the street and given treatment and other opportunities?

Again, where do you see any mention of treatment or help? The law clearly states they may be taken into custody temporarily.
I'm not saying the old way was good I just don't see how this is any better. Sure they don't have a record but they're back on the street getting exploited even more. This helps how?

 

[Blackrook]

They WON'T be taken off the street, because the police will have their hands tied so they CAN'T. This will lead to an explosion of child prostitution in California, and pedophiles who abuse children will benefit, and so will the Democrats who will get campaign contributions from the LGBT lobby for passing this perverted piece of legislation.

 

[Lewdog]

The result will be an explosion of child prostitutes, standing on every street corner in every city in California. The police will be powerless to do anything about it. I saw the same thing happen in the 1980's when the homelessness situation got out of hand.

The people that buy their services are still breaking the law...

So the children get taken off the street and given help and treatment instead of being put in jail, and this is bad?

Exactly where do you see any mention of being taken off the street and receiving treatment mentioned?

From the laws own wording...

"A commercially exploited child under this paragraph may be adjudged a dependent child of the court pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and may be taken into temporary custody pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 305 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, if the conditions allowing temporary custody without warrant are met."

It's sounds to me like they MAY be temporarily taken off the street. And if past experience is worth anything, I'm certain they will find a way to make sure they are released asap. I see no mention of treatment. Face it these children will be back on the street quicker than before.

If this your first foray into human trafficking and child prostitution, then that's why you don't understand...

So you think the kids would be better off with a criminal record and locked up in jail with criminals where they learn to be better at breaking the law? Or to be taken off the street and given treatment and other opportunities?

Again, where do you see any mention of treatment or help? The law clearly states they may be taken into custody temporarily.
I'm not saying the old way was good I just don't see how this is any better. Sure they don't have a record but they're back on the street getting exploited even more. This helps how?

Because it doesn't say mandatory treatment or help doesn't mean it in't going to happen. Fucking go study up on the subject and quit getting your information on the subject from shitty thread like this one.