|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chartrand's defense attorney has contended that the girl's mother was merely after money and planned to sue Disney. The mother also claimed Tigger had touched her breast too during the visit to Disney World last February, although no criminal charges were filed on her allegation.
I believe the statement above taken from the article says what the real motive was!
It boggles the imagination that anyone could wind up serving up to 15 years in prison at a cost to the taxpayers(you and me!)of between $20 and $30 thousand dollars per year for touching a stupid tit!
I just wonder now that public breast feeding is gaining such popularity will there be a law passed soon stating that a male who looks at a woman's breast while she is breastfeeding in public will be charged with a felony? This garbage could happen and probably will!
Too bad this incident did not occur in Colorado. If it had then the "victim" would have been eligible to receive thou$and$ in compensation fund$ dollar$ even before the alledged foddler was found guilty. Just like Kate Faber! She is supposed to have collected from the compensation fund around $20K and the damn trial hasn't even started!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:28 PM August 5th, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
The important thing is, is that Tigger is innocent.
I know he and Winnie the pooh have had their differences and there was the "Piglet incident" but I always knew Tigger was a stand up guy. -Er- Tiger, or whatever he is...,
(sorry, folks. I just couldn't resist.)
This whole thing was bull from the begining. As soon as I heard about it I knew it was all about fleecing Disney.
Next we'll be hearing that Mickey Mouse picks up teen-hookers.
(Sorry, Sorry. It's the pixie in me!)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:44 PM August 5th, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
15 Years?!?!?..Do people who kill other people even get that much?Hell,people who kill others while drunk driving usually get only a fraction of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought perhaps I was not reading something correctly. 15 yeas for touching a damm tit. As I said in a previous post, this whole damm country is going nuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:17 PM August 6th, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Not "going nuts", GONE nuts.
Can implosion be far behind?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notice how the incident is STILL being phrased:
"the mother of the victim described her daughter's condition after the alleged incident"
[empahsis mine]
This is after the jury took ***1*** hour to decide he was not guilty. And the press is still calling this UNAMED girl the "victim" when CLEARLY the man charged is the victim.
As many of you know, I worked at Walt Disney World. Truly and without the slightest exageration I can tell you that some people make their LIVING suing/scamming Disney. Yep, I'm serious as bone cancer.
What pisses me off is this "loving mother" didn't care about the traumatic effect on her daughter of going through this so that mom could get some cash.
Sickening
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He should have had a vagina and sex with a 12 year old boy...then he would only be facing 6 months!
Incredible. Glad the poor guy found justice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:53 PM August 5th, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Justice, yes, but who paid his legal bills?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:33 PM August 5th, 2004 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
This could easily lead to a policy whereby costumed characters would be banned from posing with or touching individuals (especially females.) Of course, there are likely many kids who would be disappointed at missing out. Also, it is likely that there are abusers who do not care about rules, and so the policy would not fully prevent abuse everywhere. Imagine costumed characters having to undergo all sorts of instruction about appropriate hand positions and related matters. Though this sounds far-fetched (and hopefully will remain that way), consider schools with "no hugging" policies (or rules that only allow watered-down "side-hugs".) It comes down to covering their assets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How sad is this, when every little form of physical contact is considered a sexual molestation?
The scene in "Demolition Man" where the people have to circle their hands in front of either other instead of physically shaking hands is becoming closer to a reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:21 PM August 6th, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
It's already kind of like that, now.
You don't even have to TOUCH a woman to get charged with sexual harassment. If you just LOOK at her "wrong" your looking at jail time.
THAT is where we are, guys.
We're definately THROUGH the looking-glass.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:47 PM August 6th, 2004 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Females.
It negates the hypothetical perceived molester in the court room. Any time two members enter a court room advantage goes to the female. If both members are female then its up to the lawyers to make the case and is not a slam dunk as if it were different sex.
Besides who wouldn't want to see a whole bunch of girls in Disney Costumes in June...July..August.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
