Hotheads Title


NOTE: If you arrived at this page without seeing a menu, please click on this link - - to open the entire Hotheads website in a new window.

The author asserts his right to publish this information in the public interest
No responsibility is taken for consequences resulting from using any information contained herein



A District Court judge said that he always wondered why only the boy was charged with having sex under the age of consent. Judge Paul Muscat made the comment while presiding over sentencing submissions for a teenager charged with two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 17.

Judge Muscat said that the case involved a girl who was 15 and a boy under the age of 18 when they commenced a boyfriend and girlfriend relationship. He said that there was consensual sexual activity before the boy broke up with her and she clearly became upset at that. He stated that eventually the girl's mother found out and the police were informed.

The boy's lawyer told the court that the boy was under 18 when they had sex. "If it did, then she is as guilty as he is for engaging in those accounts of intercourse with him," Judge Muscat said. "If that was so, if he was 17 and she was 15 and this actively was brought to the attention of the police, in her own statement of what happened, she would have to be charged along with him. I have never seen that in the youth court and I always wondered why only the boy is charged, but there I go."

Judge Muscat was so right. In the case of consensual sex between people under the age of consent, both parties should be charged with the same offence. Why should the male always be victimised, when the female who offered the sexual intercourse while under the age of consent should get away scot-free? Any lawyer representing a male for this crime should demand that either the female is charged with the same crime or the charge against the male be dropped completely.


It looks like Florida has a sheriff like Arizona's hard-nosed Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd said, "If you kill a policeman, it means no arrest, no Miranda rights, no negotiations,.nothing but as many bullets as we can shoot into you - PERIOD!"

An illegal alien in Polk County, who was pulled over in a routine traffic stop, ended up "executing" the deputy who stopped him. The deputy was shot eight times, including once behind his right ear at close range. Another deputy was wounded and a police dog killed.

The murderer was found hiding in a wooded area. As soon as he took a shot at the SWAT team, officers opened fire on him. They hit him 68 times. Naturally, the liberal media went nuts and asked why they had to shoot the "poor undocumented immigrant" 68 times.

Sheriff Judd stated, "Because that's all the ammunition we had." Now, is that not just about the all-time greatest answer?

The Coroner also reported that the illegal alien died of natural causes. When asked by a reporter how that could be, since there were 68 bullet wounds in his body, Judd simply replied, "When you are shot 68 times, you are naturally going to die."