{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${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]
-
[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] Regardless, it was her decision, however misinformed, and she should have to live with the consequences.
-
We have to stop letting idiots make the calls
-
[quote]chooses not to do abortion[/quote] That's where it could all have been avoided.
-
If the child wants to see the father and the father is not a danger to the child then I see no reason why the father cannot see the child. The mother could just not see him.
-
Humanity never ceases to astound me with its stupidity.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Bnet Phantom statuary -blam!-? Well he isn't violent, just into loli's and I mean come on, we've just brainwashed ourselves into this mindset this past century, I mean he didn't kidnap and -blam!- this girl, cry all you want about her being underaged, she asked for it, she asked for it and although the dude should've gone to prison, I feel he does have the right to see his kid[/quote] I don't think you know the difference between -blam!- and statutory -blam!-.
-
most startling is that the guy would even [i]want[/i] to see the kid, or the girl he raped for that matter. clearly indicative of psychological issues. statutory... gotcha. [Edited on 09.27.2012 12:05 AM PDT]
-
statuary -blam!-? Well he isn't violent, just into loli's and I mean come on, we've just brainwashed ourselves into this mindset this past century, I mean he didn't kidnap and -blam!- this girl, cry all you want about her being underaged, she asked for it, she asked for it and although the dude should've gone to prison, I feel he does have the right to see his kid
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Doc Bacon I'm sorry that is right it is years. And no, 16 years probation is not harsh at all... it is less than the jail time sentence. [/quote] Probation has pluses and minuses. It really depends on the rules put in place that he has to follow. Hell some people can't even follow those rules for a few months/weeks/days let alone years. Really unless you are scared of jail the 2 years is better than the 16 years probation. Either way his life in terms of a decent career is over.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Bearded Elf 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]Depends on the crime. If I remember correctly, sex is pretty much considered on the level of a legal contract. Two people are entering into an agreement with each other that will have an impact on their lives. A minor is unable to engage in a legal contract. As far as if he should get visitation rights? Yes, I think he should. Even if it was statutory -blam!-, it wasn't a violent attack where he forced her to have sex.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] What Is This1 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Doc Bacon It says from the attorney of the rapist that it was consensual, though wrong. If you need more, look, he got a possible 2-5 (or so) years but was ultimately sentenced with 16 months probation. That sentence is for statutory consensual, an actual aggressive -blam!- would warrant a much harsher sentence.[/quote] Lol you are supporting my statement now. It is 16 [b]years[/b] of probation not months. That is a harsh sentence.[/quote] I'm sorry that is right it is years. And no, 16 years probation is not harsh at all... it is less than the jail time sentence.
-
Wait it was consentual stat -blam!-. Lol justice system. 14yr old should be punished for being a slut. [Edited on 09.26.2012 11:54 PM PDT]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Doc Bacon It says from the attorney of the rapist that it was consensual, though wrong. If you need more, look, he got a possible 2-5 (or so) years but was ultimately sentenced with 16 months probation. That sentence is for statutory consensual, an actual aggressive -blam!- would warrant a much harsher sentence.[/quote] Lol you are supporting my statement now. It is 16 [b]years[/b] of probation not months. That is a harsh sentence.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] What Is This1 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] annoyinginge [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] What Is This1 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] MadMax888 Statutory -blam!- can be consensual, and doesn't even have to be actual intercourse. The mere fact that not all the participants were of legal age of consent is what makes it statutory -blam!-.[/quote] I know that just means there is a possibility that she consented. Though that doesn't mean that she was not raped. The main issue here is that the article is lacking the necessary details to really give an accurate say in the matter.[/quote] She consented. That's a fact. Read the article.[/quote] Hmm let me think about this. I quoted the article on the second page of this thread and even talked about how ambiguous it was. I even agreed that she could be lying and asked someone to see if they could link another article with more proof. Yeah how about you read the damn thread or even all of my posts before tying to say I didn't read the article. Simply put you don't know for a fact that she wasn't raped. It is possible that she agreed to have sex with him and went to her parents saying he raped her after she got pregnant. Though we don't know that from the article. So I will say to you what I said to someone else if you can find an article with the same girl showing that she wasn't actually raped then I will say that you are partially correct that she consented. Even though she is under the age of consent and can't legally consent.[/quote] It says from the attorney of the rapist that it was consensual, though wrong. If you need more, look, he got a possible 2-5 (or so) years but was ultimately sentenced with 16 months probation. That sentence is for statutory consensual, an actual aggressive -blam!- would warrant a much harsher sentence.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Doc Bacon Well... thats not how it works. Its statutory if consensual, normal if not. Since it was statutory, it was consensual, that is what statutory -blam!- means[/quote] Proof?
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Doc Bacon [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] What Is This1 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] MadMax888 But if she did not consent, he would not have been charged with statutory -blam!-. He would be charged with....regular -blam!-.[/quote] What makes you think that? To my knowledge even if he did -blam!- her he still would have been charged with statutory -blam!-.[/quote] Well... thats not how it works. Its statutory if consensual, normal if not. Since it was statutory, it was consensual, that is what statutory -blam!- means[/quote] That's incorrect. Statutory -blam!- just means one of the participants was under the age of consent. Violent, non-consensual sex can still be considered statutory -blam!- (if the victim is under the age of consent) - it's just not as common. [Edited on 09.26.2012 11:48 PM PDT]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] annoyinginge [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] What Is This1 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] MadMax888 Statutory -blam!- can be consensual, and doesn't even have to be actual intercourse. The mere fact that not all the participants were of legal age of consent is what makes it statutory -blam!-.[/quote] I know that just means there is a possibility that she consented. Though that doesn't mean that she was not raped. The main issue here is that the article is lacking the necessary details to really give an accurate say in the matter.[/quote] She consented. That's a fact. Read the article.[/quote] Hmm let me think about this. I quoted the article on the second page of this thread and even talked about how ambiguous it was. I even agreed that she could be lying and asked someone to see if they could link another article with more proof. Yeah how about you read the damn thread or even all of my posts before tying to say I didn't read the article. Simply put you don't know for a fact that she wasn't raped. It is possible that she agreed to have sex with him and went to her parents saying he raped her after she got pregnant. Though we don't know that from the article. So I will say to you what I said to someone else if you can find an article with the same girl showing that she wasn't actually raped then I will say that you are partially correct that she consented. Even though she is under the age of consent and can't legally consent.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] What Is This1 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] MadMax888 But if she did not consent, he would not have been charged with statutory -blam!-. He would be charged with....regular -blam!-.[/quote] What makes you think that? To my knowledge even if he did -blam!- her he still would have been charged with statutory -blam!-.[/quote] Well... thats not how it works. Its statutory if consensual, normal if not. Since it was statutory, it was consensual, that is what statutory -blam!- means
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] DarkJet7 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Black Eagle X99 By the logic of this thread my friend must be a violent rapist for having sex with his 14 year old girlfriend when he was 16. They are one grade level apart. They were both able to make the decision and I discussed it with them on a few occasions beforehand. She ended up cheating on him with some other guy in Jersey over the summer. My point here being that she was 14 and able to decide all of that. Why is this girl any different?[/quote] Because she was RAAAAAAPED!!!11!1!!!!oneoneeleven!!1111!11!11111!!!!!1!!!!![/quote]I was honestly concerned that she would try this sort of thing against him for awhile, though thankfully she did the stupid thing and described in detail what she did with the other guy and how she wanted to screw over my friend. Worked out in the end and no one was hurt. Go passive aggressive actions!
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] What Is This1 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] MadMax888 Statutory -blam!- can be consensual, and doesn't even have to be actual intercourse. The mere fact that not all the participants were of legal age of consent is what makes it statutory -blam!-.[/quote] I know that just means there is a possibility that she consented. Though that doesn't mean that she was not raped. The main issue here is that the article is lacking the necessary details to really give an accurate say in the matter.[/quote] She consented. That's a fact. Read the article.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Black Eagle X99 By the logic of this thread my friend must be a violent rapist for having sex with his 14 year old girlfriend when he was 16. They are one grade level apart. They were both able to make the decision and I discussed it with them on a few occasions beforehand. She ended up cheating on him with some other guy in Jersey over the summer. My point here being that she was 14 and able to decide all of that. Why is this girl any different?[/quote] Because she was RAAAAAAPED!!!11!1!!!!oneoneeleven!!1111!11!11111!!!!!1!!!!! [Edited on 09.26.2012 11:35 PM PDT]
-
I find it ironic that so many people are against abortion in these kinds of cases, yet will simultaneously flip their -blam!- when rapists want visitation rights.
-
By the logic of this thread my friend must be a violent rapist for having sex with his 14 year old girlfriend when he was 16. They are one grade level apart. They were both able to make the decision and I discussed it with them on a few occasions beforehand. She ended up cheating on him with some other guy in Jersey over the summer. My point here being that she was 14 and able to decide all of that. Why is this girl any different?
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] MadMax888 But if she did not consent, he would not have been charged with statutory -blam!-. He would be charged with....regular -blam!-.[/quote] What makes you think that? To my knowledge even if he did -blam!- her he still would have been charged with statutory -blam!-.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] What Is This1 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] MadMax888 Statutory -blam!- can be consensual, and doesn't even have to be actual intercourse. The mere fact that not all the participants were of legal age of consent is what makes it statutory -blam!-.[/quote] I know that just means there is a possibility that she consented. Though that doesn't mean that she was not raped. The main issue here is that the article is lacking the necessary details to really give an accurate say in the matter.[/quote]But if she did not consent, he would not have been charged with statutory -blam!-. He would be charged with....regular -blam!-.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] MadMax888 Statutory -blam!- can be consensual, and doesn't even have to be actual intercourse. The mere fact that not all the participants were of legal age of consent is what makes it statutory -blam!-.[/quote] I know that just means there is a possibility that she consented. Though that doesn't mean that she was not raped. The main issue here is that the article is lacking the necessary details to really give an accurate say in the matter.
