Anyway, so, is the way it always goes down in juvie court?
With gag orders on victims, that is?
Anyway, so, is the way it always goes down in juvie court?
Been a long time since I was young enough to worry about it, but, yeah, I think they typically don't divulge youthful offenders' IDs without permission.
Anyway, so, is the way it always goes down in juvie court?Been a long time since I was young enough to worry about it, but, yeah, I think they typically don't divulge youthful offenders' IDs without permission.
Well, then, I guess that's that.
The longer it takes for you to get back here, the more chances are that we'll get it closed.
Hurry back!
:)
Kentucky's definition of first degree sexual abuse is online."1. A person is guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree when: (b) he or she subjects another person to sexual contact who is incapable of consent because he or she: (1) Is physically helpless." [such as being passed out]
Most U.S. juries, especially in Kentucky, would consider touching someone's boob to be "sexual contact." Therefore signing with a Sharpie exactly fits the definition. So does ripping off her clothes and fingering the poor girl, or anything in between. The law, as written, doesn't distinguish between the range of possibilities, but the fact they were allowed to plea bargain it down instead of getting the book thrown at them suggests that whatever they did is more towards the mild end of the spectrum.
I concur with most of what you are saying, but my experience with hundreds of child victims of horrific brutality leads me to conclude that the legal system is wildly inconsistent and almost entirely devoid of justice. Seeing a serious or even brutal case of sexual abuse plead down to a misdemeanor would not surprise me in the least.
I concur with most of what you are saying, but my experience with hundreds of child victims of horrific brutality leads me to conclude that the legal system is wildly inconsistent and almost entirely devoid of justice. Seeing a serious or even brutal case of sexual abuse plead down to a misdemeanor would not surprise me in the least.
It could well be that way in this particular case, too, but as of now we have no idea -- which is why I'm counseling restraint rather than blood-lust, at least until more facts come in.
I'm less inclined to be critical of gag orders where minors are involved, but I'm intensely uncomfortable with judges using gag orders. I think it's prior restraint on speech, and I think the courts abuse it.
I'm less inclined to be critical of gag orders where minors are involved, but I'm intensely uncomfortable with judges using gag orders. I think it's prior restraint on speech, and I think the courts abuse it.
Like I said, judging from the leaps to conclusion of "rape" being made, and the general tenor of the comments to the article, it seems very likely that if the names were released, the kids would be dead before they had a chance to be sentenced. As someone else pointed out, if their names are simply being withheld until final sentencing, that's a lot different from a permanent gag order.
Yeah, you're probably right. While the gag is in place we won't know exactly what they are accused of, so arguing about it is pointless.
I tend to agree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the priority is protecting the guilty, not ensuring anyone is safe from them. Good for her, take the punishment proudly to warn others to be wary of them in the future.
In fact, when a cop pulls you over for speeding, he should just shoot you on the spot. The priority should be ensuring everyone is safe from you, not protecting your worthless life. Good for the cop, take the punishment proudly to warn others to be wary in the future.
P.S. If they're still awaiting sentencing, that pretty strongly implies they're not "getting away with it." Guess what -- you can protect the victim and ALSO use the court system to punish the guilty, rather than relying on vigilante mobs to do it. It's not an either/or choice.
|
Yeah, the priority is protecting the guilty, not ensuring anyone is safe from them. Good for her, take the punishment proudly to warn others to be wary of them in the future.In fact, when a cop pulls you over for speeding, he should just shoot you on the spot. The priority should be ensuring everyone is safe from you, not protecting your worthless life. Good for the cop, take the punishment proudly to warn others to be wary in the future.
P.S. If they're still awaiting sentencing, that pretty strongly implies they're not "getting away with it." Guess what -- you can protect the victim and ALSO use the court system to punish the guilty, rather than relying on vigilante mobs to do it. It's not an either/or choice.
She made sure that other girls can avoid them, when the hell did i mention vigilantes? And they plea dealed to a slap on the wrist charge. So they could do it again in days, better to let the local girls know about them don't you think?
when the hell did i mention vigilantes?
Did you read any of the posts above? Did you read ANY of the comments below the article -- especially those from people in that town?
And they plea dealed to a slap on the wrist charge. So they could do it again in days, better to let the local girls know about them don't you think?
At that point, better to let the local girls know what they actually did, not what everyone seems to assume they did.
Reality break: they did NOT rape this girl. We don't have any idea what they did. Maybe they did something pretty bad, in which case I'd be right with you in wanting them locked up permanently. But for all we know, they didn't do much at all. So, not knowing, to immediately and publically call them out as "rapists who are escaping justice" is false, libellous, and practically begging some overprotective father to eliminate the perceived threat, especially when so many of them have said how much they want to.
|
|
when the hell did i mention vigilantes?Did you read any of the posts above? Did you read ANY of the comments below the article -- especially those from people in that town?
And they plea dealed to a slap on the wrist charge. So they could do it again in days, better to let the local girls know about them don't you think?At that point, better to let the local girls know what they actually did, not what everyone seems to assume they did.
Reality break: they did NOT rape this girl. We don't have any idea what they did. Maybe they did something pretty bad, in which case I'd be right with you in wanting them locked up permanently. But for all we know, they didn't do much at all. So, not knowing, to immediately and publically call them out as "rapists who are escaping justice" is false, libellous, and practically begging some overprotective father to eliminate the perceived threat.
It does NOT matter what we know, she is warning other potential victims based on what SHE went through. think about that. i do not give a &^%$ about the minute details of what they did, they did SOMETHING wrong to her and she should NOT be stopped from warning others.
Also read my post and highlight where i called them anything,I just stated the fact that they WILL be free to repeat offend
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
She refers to them as rapists, repeatedly, when they have not been convicted of such.
|
|
Yeah, the priority is protecting the guilty, not ensuring anyone is safe from them. Good for her, take the punishment proudly to warn others to be wary of them in the future.Clearly we should imprison any suspects until their innocence is proven.
And me saying she is right to warn other potential victims is me saying to lock them up for life why now? Also proven guilty already. Also we DO arrest and imprison SUSPECTS holding them until they BUY the privilege of freedom until trial and not always even then.
Also we DO arrest and imprison SUSPECTS holding them until they BUY the privilege of freedom until trial and not always even then.
That's already pretty far from the way the Framers envisioned it -- I don't think we need to push to get even further away. The U.S., at its founding, was amazingly unique in the protections given to people accused; I'd sort of like to preserve that heritage, if we can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well to hell with her for saying that, especially if she is the one that went through it. After all the court deal makers know better than her what happened....
See comments above re: Jyllands-Posten. Offended parties are NOT reliable judges of how great an offense is, or what's an "appropriate" response. You can NOT leave it to them to decide these things. That's why we have a court system, with judges, instead.
Also, to play devil's advocate, she was unconscious. She may only know what happened becasue of the pics. So the court deal makers may well know better than her what happened.
Good work, Government Folly crowd!
Your cries of outrage have been heard!
Well to hell with her for saying that, especially if she is the one that went through it. After all the court deal makers know better than her what happened....See comments above re: Jyllands-Posten. Offended parties are NOT reliable judges of how great an offense is, or what's an "appropriate" response. You can NOT leave it to them to decide these things. That's why we have a court system, with judges, instead.
Sometimes the court makes the right decision, sometimes the lynch mob does. I'm more concerned with the right decision being made than who makes it.
Sometimes the court makes the right decision, sometimes the lynch mob does. I'm more concerned with the right decision being made than who makes it.
Please tell me you're not really arguing that, in general, lynch mobs are equally as reliable as courts of law and that their opinions should always be given equal weight?
OK, so what we know is that:
(a) The perps are awaiting sentencing. They were not let off. They did not "get away with it."
(b) The victim in turn repeatedly committed both slander and libel, but will not be charged with either offense. Nor will she be charged with contempt for violating the court order. Instead, the gag rule has been lifted so that the perps can now speak out on their own behalf, instead of having everyone get only the victim's side of the story.
We still have no idea what they actually did -- as I pointed out, writing on her with a magic marker is well within the range of possibilities here. Stupid, immature, and lame? Yes, definitely. Rape? No. Or maybe they did something a lot worse, in which I'll hope they get max-to-life, but will still believe in the rule of law, vs. a court of unfounded rumors, libel, and public opinion. Let's wait and see if more details ever come out -- sometimes the excessively euphemistic language used in reporting is a barrier to understanding.
Sometimes the court makes the right decision, sometimes the lynch mob does. I'm more concerned with the right decision being made than who makes it.Please tell me you're not really arguing that, in general, lynch mobs are equally as reliable as courts of law and that their opinions should always be given equal weight?
Not really, but that WOULD be an interesting study if you could somehow establish a baseline for truth...
I tend to judge lynch mobs on a case by case basis.
I'm thinking that given the young lady's access to information, including the pictures and more importantly her own medical records I am far more inclined to believe her than the courts.
Also we DO arrest and imprison SUSPECTS holding them until they BUY the privilege of freedom until trial and not always even then.That's already pretty far from the way the Framers envisioned it -- I don't think we need to push to get even further away. The U.S., at its founding, was amazingly unique in the protections given to people accused; I'd sort of like to preserve that heritage, if we can.
+1
Well, read the story. I really don't think she cried daily from a magic marker on the boob. But better to threaten her than let her speak out.
And I read the Jyllands-Posten story, and I really don't think people should storm offices and murder the employees over some innocent cartoons. But they did that thing, and with no remorse whatsoever, because in THEIR minds, their right to avoid seeing the Prophet offended is FAR more important than others' rights not to be subject to mass murder.
Am I saying that's definitely the case here? No. But for all we know, it may well be. The victim might be such a vindictive person that to her, a magic marker on the boob does indeed call for life in prison. We have no idea.
As far as "letting her speak out," are libel and slander unknown concepts to you? Is it OK if I start a thread here saying "Andrew R raped and strangled my dog, and they let him get away with it, and my demands for justice are not being met!" And can I then post it all over the net, and also go on the news and broadcast that sob story, using your full name, all over the world? Is that OK? If you ask me not to do that, are you therefore "threatening me and refusing to let me speak out"? And if you yourself aren't allowed to protest your own innocence because of the same misguided idea of who alone is aloud to "speak out," is that OK, too?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fun thing about libel and slander is they have to be wrong about what they say, her saying they sexually abused (also known as rape) her seems pretty spot on, especially if the pictures and eye witnesses we don't know support her.
All sexual assault =/= sexual abuse =/= rape, any more than every time I touch someone, I murder someone. Maybe in your mind they're equivalent. Especially if there are pictures and eyewitnesses to someone being touched.
OK, so what we know is that:
(a) The perps are awaiting sentencing. They were not let off. They did not "get away with it."
(b) The victim in turn repeatedly committed both slander and libel, but will not be charged with either offense. Nor will she be charged with contempt for violating the court order. Instead, the gag rule has been lifted so that the perps can now speak out on their own behalf, instead of having everyone get only the victim's side of the story.We still have no idea what they actually did -- as I pointed out, writing on her with a magic marker is well within the range of possibilities here. Stupid, immature, and lame? Yes, definitely. Rape? No. Or maybe they did something a lot worse, in which I'll hope they get max-to-life, but will still believe in the rule of law, vs. a court of unfounded rumors, libel, and public opinion. Let's wait and see if more details ever come out -- sometimes the excessively euphemistic language used in reporting is a barrier to understanding.
If we don't know what they did, how do we know she was slandering and being libellous? All we know is that she violated the gag rule.
|
|
The fun thing about libel and slander is they have to be wrong about what they say, her saying they sexually abused (also known as rape) her seems pretty spot on, especially if the pictures and eye witnesses we don't know support her.All sexual abuse =/= legal rape, any more than every time I touch someone, I legally murder someone. Maybe in your mind they're equivalent. Especially if there are pictures and eyewitnesses to me touching you.
A more appropriate comparison is assault, ranging from a push to blasting them with a 2x4. Whether just a touch or nearly shattering the skull, still assault.
a) The perps are awaiting sentencing. They were not let off. They did not "get away with it."
Because of the plea deal that was reached and the crime they plead guilty to has such a low maximum sentence i do not feel this is correct.
(b) The victim in turn repeatedly committed both slander and libel, but will not be charged with either offense.
Eh? Where was her allegation demonstrated as false?
|
|
If we don't know what they did, how do we know she was slandering and being libellous? All we know is that she violated the gag rule.OK, so what we know is that:
(a) The perps are awaiting sentencing. They were not let off. They did not "get away with it."
(b) The victim in turn repeatedly committed both slander and libel, but will not be charged with either offense. Nor will she be charged with contempt for violating the court order. Instead, the gag rule has been lifted so that the perps can now speak out on their own behalf, instead of having everyone get only the victim's side of the story.We still have no idea what they actually did -- as I pointed out, writing on her with a magic marker is well within the range of possibilities here. Stupid, immature, and lame? Yes, definitely. Rape? No. Or maybe they did something a lot worse, in which I'll hope they get max-to-life, but will still believe in the rule of law, vs. a court of unfounded rumors, libel, and public opinion. Let's wait and see if more details ever come out -- sometimes the excessively euphemistic language used in reporting is a barrier to understanding.
Some are just set on defending and protecting the ones to commit a crime. Just think about how much child abuse could have been ended if catholic churches had been warned instead of it all getting hushed up to protect the predator.
Eh? Where was her allegation demonstrated as false?
Her allegation is rape. They did not rape her. They are charged with, and the evidence apparently supports, "sexual assault," which covers a broad spectrum of things less severe than rape.
If we don't know what they did, how do we know she was slandering and being libellous? All we know is that she violated the gag rule.
We know what they didn't do -- which was rape her. We know that, in addition to violating the gag rule to divulge their names, she also publically, in speech and writing, said that they raped her.
Some are just set on defending and protecting the ones to commit a crime.
Correction -- some are intested in appropriate responses and the rule of law.
I notice you keep pointedly ignoring the parallels with the Jyllands-Posten affair. I can only assume that you believe the Muslim mobs (as the victims and offended party) were perfectly justified in assault and murder, and that the Danish government should probably have executed the surviving employees (who were guilty of the initial offense). Because the victim is always righteous and noble, and the accused is always degenerate scum, right?
Some are just set on defending and protecting the ones to commit a crime. Just think about how much child abuse could have been ended if catholic churches had been warned instead of it all getting hushed up to protect the predator.If we don't know what they did, how do we know she was slandering and being libellous? All we know is that she violated the gag rule.OK, so what we know is that:
(a) The perps are awaiting sentencing. They were not let off. They did not "get away with it."
(b) The victim in turn repeatedly committed both slander and libel, but will not be charged with either offense. Nor will she be charged with contempt for violating the court order. Instead, the gag rule has been lifted so that the perps can now speak out on their own behalf, instead of having everyone get only the victim's side of the story.We still have no idea what they actually did -- as I pointed out, writing on her with a magic marker is well within the range of possibilities here. Stupid, immature, and lame? Yes, definitely. Rape? No. Or maybe they did something a lot worse, in which I'll hope they get max-to-life, but will still believe in the rule of law, vs. a court of unfounded rumors, libel, and public opinion. Let's wait and see if more details ever come out -- sometimes the excessively euphemistic language used in reporting is a barrier to understanding.
Protecting the presumption of innocence does not necessarily equal defending the bad guys.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Protecting the presumption of innocence does not necessarily equal defending the bad guys.
And, likewise, being the victim of a crime does not immediately release you from all legal restraints and allow you to do whatever you want to the accused parties. Believe it or not, it's possible to come back with a response that is, in fact, worse than the initial crime.
|
|
Some are just set on defending and protecting the ones to commit a crime.Correction -- some are intested in appropriate responses and the rule of law.
I notice you keep pointedly ignoring the parallels with the Jyllands-Posten affair. I can only assume that you believe the Muslim mobs were perfectly justified in assault and murder, and that the Danish government should probably have executed the surviving employees. Because the victim is always righteous and noble, and the accused is always degenerate scum, right?
It was right for someone to be able to TELL them about it, not how they reacted. Show once that i EVER advocated ANY form of violence in this thread, i merely stated that other girls being warned to avoid them is a good thing. Now try actually reading my posts
We know what they didn't do -- which was rape her.
And how do we know that?
Show once that i EVER advocated ANY form of violence in this thread, i merely stated that other girls being warned to avoid them is a good thing. Now try actually reading my posts
Your posts advocated that we allow her to lie about what occurred, claiming rape when in fact they didn't do so. The comments of the community made it clear that death to rapists who get let off was high on everyone's priority list. You refused to acknowledge the fact that she was not raped, instead preferring your own personal definition to the legal one. See, I read your posts -- but I read the other stuff, too, and actually think about it, instead of letting an emotional sense of righteous indignation do all my thinking for me.
We know what they didn't do -- which was rape her.And how do we know that?
The evidence did not support charges of rape. Refer to the statutes Comrade Anklebiter referenced. "Sexual assault" =/= rape, no matter how many people insist on conflating them.
And if that's not enough, how do I know you didn't rape my dog? I say you did.
|
|
Show once that i EVER advocated ANY form of violence in this thread, i merely stated that other girls being warned to avoid them is a good thing. Now try actually reading my postsYour posts advocated that we allow her to lie about what occurred, claiming rape when in fact they didn't do so. The comments of the community made it clear that death to rapists who get let off was high on everyone's priority list. You refused to acknowledge the fact that she was not raped, instead preferring your own personal definition to the legal one. See, I read your posts -- but I read the other stuff, too, and actually think about it, instead of letting an emotional sense of righteous indignation do all my thinking for me.
Why do i get the feeling that you would tell molested children to sit down shut up and quit damaging peoples lives with their accusations
Why do i get the feeling that you would tell molested children to sit down shut up and quit damaging peoples lives with their accusations
You would be completely wrong. I would tell molested children that it is important for them to tell what actually happened, vs. what nice Mr. Andrew R. has already decided happened. And I would then allow the court to rule on the matter, before deciding I knew better.