Accused Illegal Immigrant Rapes 12-yr old girl - Raleigh

reply to post by boondock-saint


I see you've started posting again.

Would you care to answer my questions? I understand your concerns about having words put in your mouth, having your posts misconstrued, etc. and I assure you that I will not do that. In fact, the questions I asked earlier (before you said you had decided to stop posting) would actually achieve the opposite if answered. They would clarify your position greatly.

Thanks for considering answering if you do.



[edit on 5/24/2010 by AceWombat04]

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Well that is a fine deflection attempt using semantics.

You call it 'semantics', I call it 'definitions'. Ever BEEN to Central America? You might be surprised to learn that not all inhabitants there are 'hispanic'. That would appear to be a racist generalization.

Bummer.

Saying youare discriminatroy against a "nation" and not a "race" is just an attempt to get out of the "racist" label.

Maybe. It seemed pretty clear he mentioned nations, rather than races, but it's all just 'semantics', right? Seemed to be a cultural observation rather than racial. Oddly, 'race', 'culture', and 'nation' are not synonymous, and tend to cross over each other pretty often. Some, perhaps even most, nations are composed of myriad races, and seem to have more than one culture present. You appear to see only 'hispanic' in relation to the nations and cultures of Central America.

Odd. Seems a bit racist.

If you don't know who he is talking about when he says "Mexico" and "Guatemala"...then you are just a bit naive.

Wild guess here... Mexicans? Guatemalans? Didn't notice 'hispanics', but I may not have read the fine print... with that said, it's still an over generalization, even based nationally. I'd have to say it's more of a cultural thing, in the machismo culture.

Of course, machismo isn't bound to a single race or nation. I was told once, in all seriousness, that "if they're old enough to bleed, they're old enough to breed". Won't mention the individuals race, nation, or culture. That's so wrong on so many levels, that the individual in question had a mighty rough life. To be quite frank and open, I'd prefer not to see that sort of philosophy imported here. Don't much care where, or who, it comes from.

Do you honestly think he is talking about anyone else besides hispanics? Do you think if he sees a hispanic walking down the street he thinks "If that guy is from Mexico or Guatemala...but not Nicaragua or Chile...he probably likes to rape girls"???

Ask him, not me. I'm not a mind reader, I can only go by what was written.

Generally, I watch who first injects the terms "race" or "racist" into an argument to determine who really is the racist. Seems that those who bring it up the most are the guilty parties

Gotcha...so you don't look at the content of the comments...you just see who says a certain word first??? That seems a bit odd. So according to your logic...someone could come on here and say they hate all black people and if someone calls them racist then it is THAT person who is "racist".

You appear to have reading comprehension problems, reading more into a statement than is present. This which you present is another 'what if...' scenario. I don't play what ifs, I live in the real world.

To answer your question, I never said anywhere that when an individual defines himself as racist, he's NOT a racist.

Read again, rinse, repeat, until it sinks in.

And so I guess this means you are calling ME a "racist"...right?

You DO appear to be hung up on race. If the shoe fits...

I have one simple question for you...WHO or WHAT GROUP am I "racist" towards??? What group of people do I make a generalized judgment on based soley on their race, country of origin, or color of their skin???

I'm looking forward to your answer.

Since you define nations as races, I'd have to say you're racist against Norte Americanos.

I like how you slipped 'national origin' in there again as a criteria for race... at least you show consistency!

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by nenothtu
Generally, I watch who first injects the terms "race" or "racist" into an argument to determine who really is the racist. Seems that those who bring it up the most are the guilty parties...

The intellectual equivelant of "he who smelt it..."

Your statement has now logical veracity. People who observe racism are not allowed to speak up and if they do they are racist? Really...that is your retort?

I am sure you win plenty of debates on the playground.

Well golly geewhillikers! When folks inject race into an argument that has nothing to do with race, they present themselves as having no argument, and so are forced to play the 'race card'.

Playing the 'race card' as a stratagem when you have no logical arguments is misuse of the race issue. See how that works? I bet not.

Observation is one thing, making it up as you go along quite another.

reply to post by nenothtu


And everyone forgets about the young girl who's suffering as this minute. :shk:

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by nenothtu

 

And everyone forgets about the young girl who's suffering as this minute. :shk:

Indeed, 'tis so! Who was it that dragged this discussion off into racial issues again?

My contention is that had immigration policy been enforced, this young girl would have been far less likely to have suffered at the hands of this particular degenerate. Heck, it's entirely possible she may have avoided this tragedy altogether, but that's another 'what if', and can't be proven either way.

US laws are generally based upon perpetrated acts, and punishment is a result, not a prelude. Had immigration laws been enforced, it's entirely possible that rape laws, in this case, never would have had to be either.

It's like a snowball rolling down a hill. If you don't let it start, it won't roll over you.

reply to post by nenothtu

I'd have to say you're racist against Norte Americanos

I thought you couldn't be "racist" towards a nation???

Anyway...I'm done in this thread...I didn't want to get pulled into a discussion in this thread that uses this girls situation to push an agenda...and I did.

So find me on one of the other immigration threads if you want to continue.

reply to post by nenothtu


So this is indeed an illegal immigration(II) issue as many had suspected.

How do you back II laws? Who's job is it? Why hasn't it been done yet? You know the answers to that. Your gov't. Guess who's responsible for that? The voter. And I mean all of you. This isn't a new issue. It's been going on for decades, so don't pull the Dem/Rep thing. It's all of them. If we're going to get down to where the cheese binds, it's YOUR fault. Stop talking and start doing something other than complaining about the II laws.

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by nenothtu

 

So this is indeed an illegal immigration(II) issue as many had suspected.

How do you back II laws? Who's job is it? Why hasn't it been done yet? You know the answers to that. Your gov't. Guess who's responsible for that? The voter. And I mean all of you. This isn't a new issue. It's been going on for decades, so don't pull the Dem/Rep thing. It's all of them. If we're going to get down to where the cheese binds, it's YOUR fault. Stop talking and start doing something other than complaining about the II laws.

True enough, it appears.

Yes, a human is suffering, but it's improper, in my opinion, to lose sight of the REASON for that suffering, and thereby obviating the chance to perhaps prevent the same thing happening to another. Would enforcement if the II laws stamp it out? No, and I don't see anyone saying it would. What I see are people incensed that it happened in this case, when it could have been prevented. If you can't eliminate it entirely, it's still not the wrong thing to do to cut it down as much as possible.

No telling how many lives could avoid ruin by simply cutting it down, and prosecuting fully any occurrences thereafter. Bonus: cutting it down means fewer occurrences to ruin lives, and fewer cases for the system to have to prosecute after the fact.

And yeah, it DOES ruin lives, not just in the immediate aftermath, but life-long. I know two women, right now, who STILL have nightmares and other issues over just such events that occurred years ago. A third, my second wife, has since died of cancer, but was plagued by it throughout her life. Not only did SHE suffer, but all those around her did as well.

No sir, I'm not a stranger to the tragedy of what has occurred, I'm just mightily pissed that it was allowed to occur, when it could likely have been prevented.

I don't pull the Dem/Rep thing, ever. As far as I'm concerned, NONE of them are worth the gunpowder it would take to blow their noses. Neither is the current immigration policy 'my' fault, I didn't vote for ANY of these people currently in office. What can I say? I have a record of not picking 'winners'. I vote my beliefs, and sadly, it appears that a number of Americans DON'T.

Yeah, I talk a lot here at ATS, but that doesn't mean I don't DO in the real world.

It's not a mutually exclusive proposition, if you can manage your time well.

Originally posted by nenothtu
No telling how many lives could avoid ruin by simply cutting it down, and prosecuting fully any occurrences thereafter. Bonus: cutting it down means fewer occurrences to ruin lives, and fewer cases for the system to have to prosecute after the fact.

One must ask why it hasn't been done yet then. Is this divisive, explosive topic too damn tasty for them to get rid of? Focus on the II and the meager billions it costs Americans, without the thought that many II DO contribute positively to American society.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now, those billions I'm talking about, WE'RE wasting time talking about, seeing as the gov't isn't going to do anything about this, because it takes away from the REAL issues. Like the TRILLIONS they are stealing from the American taxpayer.

And yeah, it DOES ruin lives, not just in the immediate aftermath, but life-long. I know two women, right now, who STILL have nightmares and other issues over just such events that occurred years ago. A third, my second wife, has since died of cancer, but was plagued by it throughout her life. Not only did SHE suffer, but all those around her did as well.

I am not callous to this topic. As previously stated I have 2 teen girls. My mother was raped when she was young. I KNOW what this can do. My problem is linking the 2 together.

Now the "what if's". I don't deal in speculation so don't take any of this as fact.

What if the border was secure and he still got in?
What if he's legal?

The II issue is moot and we're still with a hurting child, which is what is the proper focus for this thread.

Here's a "what if" that's REALLY out there. What if he's innocent?

Bottom line...

"Man rapes 12 year old girl" would have sufficed.

If I was the parents of this child I would see this OP/headline as nothing short of a politically opportunistic ploy by insanely callous people, eagerly manufacturing sensationalized headlines to serve an agenda at the expense of my daughters suffering.

I'll say this...this little girl has already been horrifically victimized, she does not deserve to be used twice.

And with that I will exit this thread as the eagerness I see to politicize this makes me a little quesey in the stomach.

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by nenothtu
No telling how many lives could avoid ruin by simply cutting it down, and prosecuting fully any occurrences thereafter. Bonus: cutting it down means fewer occurrences to ruin lives, and fewer cases for the system to have to prosecute after the fact.

One must ask why it hasn't been done yet then.

I'm with you. I'm guessing that nothing has been done because of all the folks pulling in favor of the perceived 'underdogs'. We both know this isn't the first country where that circumstance has occurred, nor will it be the last. More often than not, in my observations, when that 'underdog' class wins, they turn on their supporters first thing, so as to keep that power base from being turned back on them later. Not always, mind you, but frequently.

Of course, these are just my opinions and observations. Your mileage may vary.

Is this divisive, explosive topic too damn tasty for them to get rid of?

A strong possibility.

Focus on the II and the meager billions it costs Americans, without the thought that many II DO contribute positively to American society.

That in no way changes the fact that they are here ILLEGALLY, even if it IS true, I'm in no position to make an objective assessment as to the veracity of that statement, and so can neither support nor refute it.

There is a legal doctrine called 'the fruit of the poisonous tree'. In general terms, it holds that positive actions, borne from negative actions, cannot be used positively. In other words, the end doesn't justify the means. This is why so many cases get thrown out of court because the investigating officers didn't adhere to the law themselves, in their investigations.

My position applies that to the circumstance you bring up. Any 'good' they may be doing is negated by them having broken the law in the first place to do it. Further, it's exacerbated by all the 'wrong' others like them do as well. Rapes, murders, manslaughters, kidnapping, etc tend to taint the entire enterprise.

The 'bad' hides withing the 'good' and gets by with it.

Now, those billions I'm talking about, WE'RE wasting time talking about, seeing as the gov't isn't going to do anything about this, because it takes away from the REAL issues. Like the TRILLIONS they are stealing from the American taxpayer.

Another good issue, but it shouldn't be allowed to eclipse THIS one, any more than THIS one should be allowed to eclipse THAT one. One has to pick one's battles, but that doesn't mean resting on laurels after only one is dealt with. The key is in picking one to deal with, without losing track of the other.

And yeah, it DOES ruin lives, not just in the immediate aftermath, but life-long. I know two women, right now, who STILL have nightmares and other issues over just such events that occurred years ago. A third, my second wife, has since died of cancer, but was plagued by it throughout her life. Not only did SHE suffer, but all those around her did as well.

I am not callous to this topic. As previously stated I have 2 teen girls. My mother was raped when she was young. I KNOW what this can do. My problem is linking the 2 together.

Yessir, I was agreeing with you that it is a tragedy, and illustrating that I'm not entirely callous and indifferent to that tragedy, either. However, now it's DONE, and must be dealt with, for all practical purposes, forever. I'd prefer that it had never been done at all, and this child could have had a normal childhood, and a normal adult life. Kids should be allowed to be kids, but in this case, this young lady's innocence was stolen from her.

If that could have been prevented, it's 'criminal' NOT to have done so, and there's your link. The enablers who stood by and allowed this, those who turned a blind eye and didn't even attempt to prevent it, nay, actually ENCOURAGED it with their open borders rhetoric, should have to answer for that.

But of course we both know they won't.

Now the "what if's". I don't deal in speculation so don't take any of this as fact.

Likewise my answers to the questions. Not facts, just opinions.

What if the border was secure and he still got in?

Then after entry, his ease of movement would have been severely restricted, and he would have been less likely to have increased his profile by perpetrating this despicable act, assuming he could have made it all the way to Raleigh to begin with.

To be honest, I've been places myself where other folks would prefer I wasn't, and I had a tendency to keep my head down until I could get back out again.

What if he's legal?

Not likely, given the latest reports. However, if that WERE the case, it's still a removable offense, after his incarceration period, and he wouldn't be doing that here again.

Well, not if immigration policy were enforced.

Studies show that these sorts of folks tend to be repeat offenders.

The II issue is moot and we're still with a hurting child, which is what is the proper focus for this thread.

My opinion tends toward keeping other children (and adult women, for that matter) from joining this one in her agony. The II issue is not moot, since enforcement there would have likely prevented this instance altogether.

Then we could concentrate more on the homegrown slimeballs.

Here's a "what if" that's REALLY out there. What if he's innocent?

Another possibility. I'm leaning towards giving the girl the benefit of the doubt, and upholding HER presumption of innocence over his.

In the end, the courts will determine his innocence or guilt, (and HERS too, by corollary) and, if they stay true to form, he'll be given every opportunity to do it again by them, even if he's determined to be guilty.

I can't really see where that's 'fair' to this girl, and OTHER potential victims, even if some illegal alien DID pull someone's cat out a tree in Utah, or whatever 'good' it is they're supposed to be doing.

Originally posted by maybereal11
Bottom line...

"Man rapes 12 year old girl" would have sufficed.

If I was the parents of this child I would see this OP/headline as nothing short of a politically opportunistic ploy by insanely callous people, eagerly manufacturing sensationalized headlines to serve an agenda at the expense of my daughters suffering.

I'll say this...this little girl has already been horrifically victimized, she does not deserve to be used twice.

And with that I will exit this thread as the eagerness I see to politicize this makes me a little quesey in the stomach.

I'm not going to say precisely what I would do 'if I was the parent of this child'. I'll let you work that out for yourself.

What I WILL say is that whatever the headline read, and whatever the headline brought into the political arena, would most certainly NOT be foremost amongst my thoughts.

Near as I can tell, in all fairness, is that the 'take 'em out' crowd aren't the only folks in this thread making political hay out of the issue.

Pot... kettle... that sort of thing.

Originally posted by nenothtu

What I WILL say is that whatever the headline read, and whatever the headline brought into the political arena, would most certainly NOT be foremost amongst my thoughts.

I think it would rank up there with concerns when Fox News parks a sattelite van outside of your house and the phone starts ringing off the hook with reporters.

Give this girls suffering a little more spin and time on the Fox News crawler feed and we will see.

Originally posted by nenothtu
Pot... kettle... that sort of thing.

Find a post where I have done anything other than point out how this girls suffering has been spun for political theater....otherwise you know where you can place the pot and the kettle.

Last post here...rather trade barbs with someone who has a heartbeat.

Originally posted by AceWombat04
Would you care to answer my questions? I understand your concerns about having words put in your mouth, having your posts misconstrued, etc.

I am tired of repeating myself
again and again and again.
Everything I have to say is in the
prior 15 pages. Take it any way
you want, everybody else is ... so
why should I stop you.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by beyondsense

Coming into the States illegally isn't a crime.

That is incorrect. Check this link, paying particular attention to number 12, among others.

It's a civil disobedience. Instead of filing the paperwork, they just walked in.

No, it's a crime. See above.

Which they shouldn't file paperwork since the land was stolen from the grandparents and hence they are "grandfathered into" the land. There's no crime here.

No, it was gained by conquest and purchase, a time-honored tradition the world 'round. Well, except for the purchase part. The US seems to have a peculiar affinity for purchasing lands they previously conquered.

So yes, there IS a crime here.

Peace.

Not at the price you're asking.

[edit on 2010/5/24 by nenothtu]

You said it was "conquered", do you actually mean "stolen by brute force"? If so, then yes, it was stolen and every Mexican has every right to occupy California, New Mexico, Nevada, Texas and Arizona. Other States, not so, but those States are truly theirs. If you don't like it, just petition the US govt. to either return their land or shut up about it.

Peace.

Originally posted by maybereal11

I think it would rank up there with concerns when Fox News parks a sattelite van outside of your house and the phone starts ringing off the hook with reporters.

You must not know me as well as you think you do, then. I have references, if that helps.

Give this girls suffering a little more spin and time on the Fox News crawler feed and we will see.

I don't know about that. Has this actually made Fox News? Not having television at my house, I tend to watch what my friends watch when I'm at their houses. They don't watch ANY sort of news, Fox or otherwise, so I have no idea what's on the Fox crawler.

The dig at Fox wouldn't be a political statement, would it?

Originally posted by nenothtu
Pot... kettle... that sort of thing.

Find a post where I have done anything other than point out how this girls suffering has been spun for political theater....otherwise you know where you can place the pot and the kettle.

Here: post by maybereal11

Here: post by maybereal11

Here: post by maybereal11

And here: post by maybereal11

You're batting 1000 in this thread. Looks like I don't have to take you up on that polite suggestion of yours after all.

Last post here...rather trade barbs with someone who has a heartbeat.

Water seeks it's own level. Bye.

reply to post by nenothtu


I really can't add much more. Seems like we agree on most of the salient points but differ on some minor ones that we've discussed. That's all good. BTW, it was nice debating someone with decorum.

Originally posted by beyondsense

You said it was "conquered", do you actually mean "stolen by brute force"? If so, then yes, it was stolen and every Mexican has every right to occupy California, New Mexico, Nevada, Texas and Arizona. Other States, not so, but those States are truly theirs. If you don't like it, just petition the US govt. to either return their land or shut up about it.

Yes, I did. And followed up with the fact that it was purchased thereafter, which you seem to have conveniently left out.

'Conquered' is not stolen, neither is purchased stolen. If you believe it is, you should probably leave the planet - or point out some area that has never undergone the same sorts of transformations, so we can all move there.

'Mexicans' have no more right to the areas you mention than I have to Mexico City. Matter of fact, according to your logic, Mexicans don't even have the rights to Mexico City.

Ever hear of Cortez? Tenochtitlan? That little episode of conquest? Give Mexico back to the Aztecs, and you may have a leg to stand on. Note well that mestizos aren't Aztecs.

If you don't like it, find a patch of ground that's never been subject to conquest or purchase.

Peace.

Again, not at the price you're asking.

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I really can't add much more. Seems like we agree on most of the salient points but differ on some minor ones that we've discussed. That's all good. BTW, it was nice debating someone with decorum.

Likewise. It's been a pleasure!

Some times, folks don't stand nearly as far apart as they think, unless they insist on polarizing for polarization's sake. You are among the few who don't and I commend you for that.

Find the common ground, and solutions come within reach.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by beyondsense

You said it was "conquered", do you actually mean "stolen by brute force"? If so, then yes, it was stolen and every Mexican has every right to occupy California, New Mexico, Nevada, Texas and Arizona. Other States, not so, but those States are truly theirs. If you don't like it, just petition the US govt. to either return their land or shut up about it.

Yes, I did. And followed up with the fact that it was purchased thereafter, which you seem to have conveniently left out.

'Conquered' is not stolen, neither is purchased stolen. If you believe it is, you should probably leave the planet - or point out some area that has never undergone the same sorts of transformations, so we can all move there.

'Mexicans' have no more right to the areas you mention than I have to Mexico City. Matter of fact, according to your logic, Mexicans don't even have the rights to Mexico City.

Ever hear of Cortez? Tenochtitlan? That little episode of conquest? Give Mexico back to the Aztecs, and you may have a leg to stand on. Note well that mestizos aren't Aztecs.

If you don't like it, find a patch of ground that's never been subject to conquest or purchase.

Peace.

Again, not at the price you're asking.

Wow, this is Amazing, you're actually admitting that the Mexicans should return the land to the Aztecs and that the US should return the land to Mexico, but if my memory doesn't fail me, Cortez was Spanish not Mexican so please go back to your history book and re-read that chapter.

The fact to the matter is you can't complain because of the Mexicans doing what the US did to them. The US took their land, now they're taking it back. Do I agree with it? I'm all for one planet, one brotherhood of humankind so it doesn't affect me either way.

Peace.