"I had psychosis! That's why I was talking to a minor sexually!"
Newsflash, as someone who studies and practices law in the Anglo-American sense in one of the best universities in the country, let's go through the legality differentiation between Birdie and Synni.
What Birdie did is a crime, it just is. There is a sort of strict liability when a predator is sending messages of the sexual sense to a child, or interacting with them sexually once certain criteria are met. The specific mental element required in the States is an immoral element to the messages, and a knowledge of the perpetration of crime, and then persuing it anyway, this is occasionally referred to as the "age defence." Birdie also could not take diminished responsibility as they have essentially been looking at drawn material representing a child sexually and interacting with it, also. This is a felony act, as is publishing said porn that represents a child's persona lol.
Looking at defences of Birdie's behaviour, little apply.
Birdie has no claims of miscommunication and mistaken age, as they clearly described the child they groomed as "mature for THEIR AGE."
The idea that Birdie is sexually being manipulated by a 12-13 year old is not going to fly either, unless there was force involved. For the most part, people are not awarded this defence unless physical force was used as mental discomfort is not considered applicable as a form of duress when the Reasonable man in this situation would not have partook in the sex abuse.
Entrapment doesn't apply either because there was no reasonable application of force in order to entrap the person, as pure psychological discomfort or upset is NOT a form of force by law. Being upset or feeling bad for rejecting the child is NOT a legal defence in any way. The minor did not trap Birdie in this situation legally nor morally.
Furthermore, Birdie has committed multiple crimes against Synni, such as trespass on property, stealing property (such as the cat, jewellery, moniters and other expensive things. Depending on the amount stolen this is entirely strict liability, as she had the knowledge that these things did not belong to her. Synni suxs xC!! is not a legal defence for potential grand theft.) And trespass to the person on account of the abuse and threats hurled to Synni including death threats. Please keep in mind that in the law, as opposed to movies, we do not argue motive when we argue that the crime occurred.
As of note, in no situation would hypersexuality defend you from grooming.
Synni also committed a crime, but there is substantially less evidence towards this. Synni has not committed the crime of trespass, potential slander, trespass to the person, etc. What lies in the difference is that Synni has not been interacting with children's sexual art of themselves whilst also sending inappropriate material to the child in question. The mens rea (guilty mind) is also substantially different to Birdie, who began a relationship with a large age gap. It is clear that Synni did NOT want to begin a relationship with the child, whilst Birdie was in a relationship with the child. In the United States, grooming is not illegal. However, it is arguable Birdie was facilitating sexual acts with a minor via their relationship with them, whilst Synni was not. Sending porn to a child is still illegal, however Birdie in actuality has committed more crimes than Synni has.
There's also the potential issue that Synni could raise that Birdie openly expresses a desire to see Synni gravely injured or killed publicly (which makes this incredibly difficult to defend) whilst entering Synni's property. This is harassment against Synni. Furthermore, there is repeated documented and screenshotted evidence. Birdie also has a track record of violence against others that has been noted and dealt with via law.
Like it or not, Birdie's grave inaction towards someone who has NOT been proven guilty by law, and is therefore presumed innocent, is a CRIME. They are both likely legally wrong, and I'd advise both of them against a purely defence based approach, but Birdie has done the most stupid thing imaginable, which is while doing gravely illegal acts online, posting and documenting it all!
I hope this clears up the legality of these issues, but remember that the law is different depending on the state involved. Law can always be argued both ways, but both parties, specifically Birdie would struggle substantially more to prove innocence.
both of them look musty either way
![:\](/styles/custom/emotes/svg/chris-confused.svg "Confused :\")
MY POOR SCHIZOSPEC DID SYSTEM LGBTQ GAY TRANS AUTISTIC ASEXUAL DEMISEXUAL GRAYROMANTIC HYPERSEXUAL BOY CANT STAND ON HIS OWN….
