{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
9/27/2012 6:19:50 AM
80
Rapist asks for visitation rights for the child of his victim
[url=http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/19628763/2012/09/24/rapist-wants-visitation-rights-teen-mom-fighting-back]And he might just get it[/url].
Essentially, guy rapes underage girl, girl gets pregnant and chooses not to do abortion, child gets born, rapist is ordered by a judge to do child support in exchange for 16 years probation, which causes a problem as, in MA, if you pay for child support, you can get visitation rights.
[Edited on 09.26.2012 10:29 PM PDT]
-
It's all good.
-
Why . . . [Edited on 09.26.2012 10:47 PM PDT]
-
I hate humanity.
-
I'm speechless. Though, this terrifies me when I consider adopting from certain states. Massachusetts just got removed from the list. If we adopt a baby that the dad didn't agree to, what happens then? I mean they are considering granting paternal rights to a RAPIST.
-
That's terrible. He hasn't the right to visit her, much less be in the same room with her.
-
He only gets 16 years for raping a 14 year old AND gets to be the kids daddy? What the actual -blam!-
-
-10000 faith in humanity
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] TommyPiplup He only gets 16 years for raping a 14 year old AND gets to be the kids daddy? What the actual -blam!-[/quote]16 years [i]probation[/i], actually, if I understood correctly. Horrible, right?
-
I didn't read this thread much, I guess it's not 'all good'. All is usually good, but in this case all is not good.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] BROWN HAWK [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] TommyPiplup He only gets 16 years for raping a 14 year old AND gets to be the kids daddy? What the actual -blam!-[/quote]16 years [i]probation[/i], actually, if I understood correctly. Horrible, right?[/quote]Owait, he doesn't even go to jail? ....
-
So the relationship between the two was consensual, it was statutory -blam!- not forced. The article should really enunciate that. This really changes the situation, honestly he should be able to see the child then. And the girl is trying to act like she is better than him? She is stupid for -blam!- him at 14, and he is stupid for getting involved with a 14 year old. Regardless, he has the right to see his consensual child.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] TommyPiplup [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] BROWN HAWK [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] TommyPiplup He only gets 16 years for raping a 14 year old AND gets to be the kids daddy? What the actual -blam!-[/quote]16 years [i]probation[/i], actually, if I understood correctly. Horrible, right?[/quote]Owait, he doesn't even go to jail? ....[/quote]Where's a vigilante when you need one.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Doc Bacon So the relationship between the two was consensual, it was statutory -blam!- not forced. The article should really enunciate that. This really changes the situation, honestly he should be able to see the child then. And the girl is trying to act like she is better than him? She is stupid for -blam!- him at 14, and he is stupid for getting involved with a 14 year old. Regardless, he has the right to see his consensual child.[/quote] When it comes to the court system, its legally impossible for a minor to consent to sex.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Doc Bacon So the relationship between the two was consensual, it was statutory -blam!- not forced.[/quote] 'Consensual' doesn't apply to ages under the age of consent, and I seriously doubt her parents okayed it.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] A 3 Legged Goat -10000 faith in humanity [/quote]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Jin Kisaragi [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Doc Bacon So the relationship between the two was consensual, it was statutory -blam!- not forced. The article should really enunciate that. This really changes the situation, honestly he should be able to see the child then. And the girl is trying to act like she is better than him? She is stupid for -blam!- him at 14, and he is stupid for getting involved with a 14 year old. Regardless, he has the right to see his consensual child.[/quote] When it comes to the court system, its legally impossible for a minor to consent to sex.[/quote] Which is stupid. This article paints him as a violent sex offender and this girl as a victim. The girl had sex with her older sisters boyfriend, and is now an innocent victim? "This was a young girl. Way, way beneath the age of consent," Murphy said. "If the judge thinks this isn't as serious as a stranger -blam!-, and if this is a judge saying to himself, I wouldn't have done this if it had been a stranger in a dark alley,' then that's a judge that maybe shouldn't be sitting on criminal cases" So this person is saying that consensual underage sex is as bad as being assaulted and raped in an alley? This article is full of pro-feminist bias and ignorance
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Doc Bacon So the relationship between the two was consensual, it was statutory -blam!- not forced. The article should really enunciate that. This really changes the situation, honestly he should be able to see the child then. And the girl is trying to act like she is better than him? She is stupid for -blam!- him at 14, and he is stupid for getting involved with a 14 year old. Regardless, he has the right to see his consensual child.[/quote]"Consensual child"? Legally it wasn't consensual. And this was a middle schooler and a 20 year old....
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] TommyPiplup [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Doc Bacon So the relationship between the two was consensual, it was statutory -blam!- not forced. The article should really enunciate that. This really changes the situation, honestly he should be able to see the child then. And the girl is trying to act like she is better than him? She is stupid for -blam!- him at 14, and he is stupid for getting involved with a 14 year old. Regardless, he has the right to see his consensual child.[/quote]"Consensual child"? Legally it wasn't consensual. And this was a middle schooler and a 20 year old....[/quote] The sex was still consensual, he did not attack or force himself on her. They both brought this upon themselves. However this article paints him as a violent rapist when that is not the case at all.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Doc Bacon So the relationship between the two was consensual, it was statutory -blam!- not forced. The article should really enunciate that. This really changes the situation, honestly he should be able to see the child then. And the girl is trying to act like she is better than him? She is stupid for -blam!- him at 14, and he is stupid for getting involved with a 14 year old. Regardless, he has the right to see his consensual child.[/quote] Where does it say that it was consensual because all I saw was that he was claiming it was not that it actually was?
-
The judge is an idiot.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Doc Bacon So the relationship between the two was consensual, it was statutory -blam!- not forced. The article should really enunciate that. This really changes the situation, honestly he should be able to see the child then. And the girl is trying to act like she is better than him? She is stupid for -blam!- him at 14, and he is stupid for getting involved with a 14 year old. Regardless, he has the right to see his consensual child.[/quote]This literally changes everything. He absolutely should have visitation rights.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] What Is This1 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Doc Bacon So the relationship between the two was consensual, it was statutory -blam!- not forced. The article should really enunciate that. This really changes the situation, honestly he should be able to see the child then. And the girl is trying to act like she is better than him? She is stupid for -blam!- him at 14, and he is stupid for getting involved with a 14 year old. Regardless, he has the right to see his consensual child.[/quote] Where does it say that it was consensual because all I saw was that he was claiming it was not that it actually was?[/quote] "the relationship was consensual, even though he acknowledged it was inappropriate, given the victim was only 14 and his client was 20."
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Doc Bacon The sex was still consensual, he did not attack or force himself on her. [/quote] Debatable. You'd be hard-pressed to convince a judge or jury that the girl was mature enough to be able to make an informed decision, and legally it simply can't be consensual before the age of consent.
-
Was it the real deal, or statutory "WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!" sensationalist garbage?
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] theHurtfulTurkey [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Doc Bacon The sex was still consensual, he did not attack or force himself on her. [/quote] Debatable. You'd be hard-pressed to convince a judge or jury that the girl was mature enough to be able to make an informed decision, and legally it simply can't be consensual before the age of consent.[/quote]Should we absolve all children under the age of consent of [i]any[/i] crime then, since they can't truly make informed decisions and thus are not responsible for their actions?
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Doc Bacon [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] TommyPiplup [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Doc Bacon So the relationship between the two was consensual, it was statutory -blam!- not forced. The article should really enunciate that. This really changes the situation, honestly he should be able to see the child then. And the girl is trying to act like she is better than him? She is stupid for -blam!- him at 14, and he is stupid for getting involved with a 14 year old. Regardless, he has the right to see his consensual child.[/quote]"Consensual child"? Legally it wasn't consensual. And this was a middle schooler and a 20 year old....[/quote] The sex was still consensual, he did not attack or force himself on her. They both brought this upon themselves. However this article paints him as a violent rapist when that is not the case at all.[/quote]It goes out of it's way to point out that they knew each other and the relationship was consensual. And having sex with a middle school girl who is too young and stupid to say no isn't much better then forcible raping someone. The article isn't "pro-feminist" as it is anti-child molestation.
