|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:04 PM August 1st, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
This world is seriously sick. I don't know how bad things need to get before they get better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Tirryb on 07:01 PM August 1st, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I guess the "reasoning" (quotes used because reason doesn't come into this) used here was that a female child was touched in a sexual manner by a 'male'. Whether she requested that contact is immaterial, since she is a child. After that, the fact that the oppressing male was a child too was probably small potatoes, until the press fireworks went off and some sense kicked in.
Sick, sick, sick. I mean, how long will it be before some adult woman rapes a boy, and the boy ends up in jail for it? Not long, by the looks of it. As a child victim of unwanted female sexual acts myself, this horrifies me.
Basically, it's reaching the point where males under the age of 18 are fair game for girls under that age. We're creating a world in which girls under that age can rape and abuse boys not only with impugnity, but with the warming thought that the boys they abuse will end up in jail for it!
Jeez...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Hunchback on 08:34 PM August 1st, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Notice that in this article the only name revealed was the boy's mother—from which the boy's name can be inferred. Of course, the predatory female's name is protected.
What is really galling is that the name of the asinine district attorney is shielded from the public. This is the jerkwad who should really be pilloried.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:06 PM August 2nd, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
No, it is not hidden.
Here is the man:
http://www.districtattorney.slco.org/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Uberganger on 07:19 AM August 2nd, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
The Division of Child and Family Services also declined to comment.
Gee, I wonder what their agenda is. Still, until men (and women) get out on the streets and protest loudly and publicly, this kind of thing will go on. I don't suppose it'll be long before reporting this kind of incident in the media is declared illegal (on the grounds that it might discourage real [female] victims of [male] abuse from coming forward). I wonder if anyone will really stand up to these people before it's finally too late.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by bigbadwolf3210 on 10:20 PM August 2nd, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
soo.. why did the mother not persue having the girl charged? if these facts were true, could the sitters parents lot be held liable for their childs conduct? is this not grounds for a civil suit?
this is kinda odd.
a rabid
bigbadwolf3210
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:03 PM August 3rd, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
"Rand T. writes "Charges were dropped, although the District Attorney claims "both the child and teenager were equal participants." (So why wasn't the girl charged?)"
would the matriarchy have considered them "equal participants" if the boy had been 14 and the girl 8?
no, instead of no harm, no foul, he'd be in juvenile hall until age 18, at which point he'd graduate to the adult mancages
assuming he survived that, he'd be branded a "sex offender" for the rest of his life, with a "welcoming committee" of local citizens ready to meet n greet him wherever he tried to live
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Rand T. writes "Charges were dropped, although the District Attorney claims "both the child and teenager were equal participants." (So why wasn't the girl charged?) Story