Advertisement

LJWorld.com weblogs The Lawrence Crime Blotter

More gunshots on Redbud

Advertisement

News from today's police briefing:¢ Gunplay on Redbud: Twice within two days, Lawrence police have been called to the 2500 block of Redbud Lane, southeast of 23rd and Iowa Streets, to respond to reports of gunshots. The first was about 1:15 a.m. Sunday. The second, according to a report released this morning, was about 2:55 a.m. Monday when a caller reported hearing two shots fired. Police responded to the area both times, but people officers found in the area didn't identify a suspect in either case. The gunshots come after a stabbing last week near 26th and Redbud that sent a 43-year-old Lawrence man to the hospital. ¢Man burned by hot grease: A 20-year-old Lawrence man was injured Monday night after being pushed into a pan of hot grease during a fight at an apartment in the 3300 block of West Eighth Street. The man was at a friend's apartment about 10:40 p.m. Monday when two men began fighting because one took the other's food, according to a report. The man said he tried to break up the fight when another person, an 18-year-old Lawrence man, jumped in and pushed him, and he landed on a frying pan that was being used to cook chicken, according to a report. He was treated at Lawrence Memorial Hospital for his injuries. Police were still interviewing witnesses today, and the 18-year-old, who police believe was under the influence of alcohol, had not been arrested.¢Sex-crime arrest: Police arrested a 30-year-old Lawrence man early Monday on suspicion of having sexual contact with a 15-year-old female acquaintance in a vehicle parked on the south side of town. Police are releasing only limited details about what happened: An officer on routine patrol came across the vehicle between 4:30 and 5 a.m. LPD spokeswoman Kim Murphree wouldn't give an exact location but said it was near the girl's home. An investigation at the scene led police to arrest the man for aggravated indecent liberties with a child. -contributed by[Eric Weslander.][1] [1]: http://www2.ljworld.com/staff/eric_weslander

Comments

Jamesaust 8 years, 4 months ago

A drunken, late-night, fried chicken melee! Great.

Jamesaust 8 years, 4 months ago

Captain Morgan and Colonel Sanders don't mix.

Sigmund 8 years, 4 months ago

If the 15 year old girl was with a 17 year old guy and the activity was consensual no problem under the Romeo and Juliet law, but exactly the same circumstances with 18+ year old guy it becomes a sex crime and he is labeled a sex predator, correct? Conversely if the girl was one year older and exactly the same circumstances no matter the age of the male, no one is a sex predator, again correct? Finally, if the male was 15 years old and the female was 30 (or both were female) most people think no "real crime" has been committed.

I am not sure that one year difference in either the first two scenarios makes that much difference. Stated a different way, if a 17 year old male can be sexually involved with a 15 year old girl without a crime being committed, why can't a 18, 21, or 30 year old? As for the third scenario why should the sex of the older person make any difference in how most people feel?

mom_of_three 8 years, 4 months ago

Since we are in the year 2006, a 30 year old man/woman shouldn't be involved with a 15 year old girl/boy. This isn't the old west or early 20th century, where wives were hard to come by, and people were married young.
It is crime for any 30 year old to be involved with any 15 year old. Look at all the teachers who have been arrested having sexual contact with their students.
A 30 year old adult can use their additional years and intelligence (and I use that term loosely in this situation) to take advantage of the teenagers. It happens on-line all the time. And look at all the tv news shows who go undercover, and find adults willing to have sex with teenagers as young as 13,14.
It's wrong.

mom_of_three 8 years, 4 months ago

I can definitely see the possibility of an 18 year old dating a 15 year old. (I am two years older than my husband). It is even possibly for a 21 year old to possibly be interested in a 15 year old. It's scary to think about, and it won't be happening my household. But anyone older than that with a teenager is just wrong.
Yes, there could be honest feelings, but you just have to ask why?

Sigmund 8 years, 4 months ago

TOB, what I meant was a crime was committed, but that peoples attitude towards it is different. I am thinking of the older female school teacher with the 13-15 year old boy cases (there have been quite a few, just pick one as an example). A lot of commentary has been that the boy isn't harmed, just getting lucky, and that the hot female teacher shouldn't be punished harshly. At least that is what I think I hear from not only male and female friends, but from national commentators.

Maybe everyone feels like you and I and that the gender of the older person shouldn't be a factor, but my perception is that it is. I knew I was going to get into trouble just asking these questions, so everyone just take your free pot shots now.

EasilyAmused 8 years, 4 months ago

Sigmund - you are standing on a slippery slope. What's the difference between a 15-year-old and a 17-year-old? Maturity. But you don't think that that is sufficient for a differentiation in the law. So hypothetically - lets say that 15-year-olds are old enough to consent. Using your argument, what's the difference between a 14-year-old and a 15-year-old? Less than between a 17-year-old and a 15-year-old. And on down we go - until Kansas is the bass-ackwards state that allows 8-year-olds to consent to sex. Now that sounds rational. I'm not saying that 16 is an age with which comes some magical sophistication and maturity (God knows that some will never achieve that), but it is an age which the legislators deem contains an ability to make that decision, good or bad.

oldgoof 8 years, 4 months ago

.. Sigmund playing law professor for us again: "...why can't a 18, 21, or 30 year old?..."

Answer to Sigmund: The reason there is a difference is because there needs to be a line somewhere. Yes, age lines are arbitrary. So are speed limits. And income tax rate brackets. And degrees of consanguinity within marriage is prohibited, for another.

Sigmund 8 years, 4 months ago

I didn't start on the slippery slope, the KS legislature did when it enacted the Romeo and Juliet provision. Prior there was a bright line drawn (16 years old, all the time, everytime) and I agree a line needs to be drawn. But doesn't the Romeo and Juliet provision begin to blur that line with the 2 year difference in age allowing no crime even if under 16? No bright line anymore. BTW, if I was playing Law Professor I'd just tell you all you were all wrong, but not tell you why!

EasilyAmused 8 years, 4 months ago

The Romeo and Juliet law doesn't make sex with 14- and 15-year-olds legal, it reduces the penalty if the offender is within 4 years of their age

plady 8 years, 4 months ago

WHAT WAS THE GIRL DOING OUT AT 4:30 AND ITS FLAT OUT WRONG YOU HAVE ISSUES IF YOU HAVE TO FIND A GIRL THAT YOUNG. SHE IS A 10TH GRADER JUST THIK IF A 30 YEAR OLD MAN WAS SLEEPING WITH YOUR 15 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER......SHE ISNT GROWN ENOUGH TO AFFORD TO EVEN TAKE CARE OF HER SELF LET ALONE A CHILD....WHEN SHE IS ONE HER SELF.... 18 IS THE AGE

Berserk 8 years, 4 months ago

Sigmund you're retarded.

Any time that somone who is 18 years or older has some sort of sexual contact with someone who is under 18 years old. It is a crime, dispite what you may think about it.

Putting aside any suggested or hypothetical thoughts about it not being a crime if they were 17 yrs old (then it is just sexual assualt), if a person is over the age of 18, they would have to be mentally incompetent to not realize that there is something wrong with what they are doing. It is a crime, male or female it doesn't matter.

Period.

Consensual contact... whole different ballgame, then it's parents problem. Not law enforcement.

Throw this kid in jail, he will do it again, they always do, they are all the same. Once an offender, always an offender.

Period.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 8 years, 4 months ago

Berserk - You are a damned fool. "Once and offender, always an offender".

If you are mildly suspected, the damned cops will go to a judge, plead that they need a suspect to keep their place in the local police force (one of these cops was recently relieved of this moniker of "detective") and you will be jailed and held until you plead guilty and become a resident of the sex-offender list. No trial. Just vicious thugs posing as cops. No proof, no proceedings, just jail until you crack. It happened I saw it. Your stupid opinion is why we have such jerks in law enforcement. And a police chief that looks the other way.

OldEnuf2BYurDad 8 years, 4 months ago

The last time I posted something this, people called me judgmental... but I don't care.

"4:30 and 5 a.m."

So, breaking curfew; or no curfew?

Fatty_McButterpants 8 years, 4 months ago

Berserk: Actually, you are the one that is wrong. In Kansas, the legal age for consent is 16 years old. Not 18. Don't like it? Work to change it.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.