It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Boy Touches Breast = LIFE IN PRISON

page: 11
27
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by paxnatus
 


I've asked this already but will repeat the question again:

Can you please explain why the gender of the adult should determine whether there was actually harm done to the minor? Not even reversing the roles, let's say an adult male made a 13 year-old boy touch his penis and told him he would like to have sex with him. Would you still be excusing the actions of the adult in this situation? Would you be making claims like you just did because the adult happened to be a woman?


Who said I was excusing it!! do i think it is worth life in prison hell No they did not have intercourse, "touch" is a very broad term.

I would say WE HAVE NOT SEEN THE EVIDENCE!!!! To judge someone and condemn them, having not heard the whole story is wrong!!

I think i stated what should happen regardless of the gender.

Think what you want, but for God's sake let the punishment fit the crime!!

How many Rapists, and Murderer's get off Scott free!!

Do you believe this caused this child irreversible harm? There are always 2 sides to every story! I'm sure the child was not completely innocent!!




posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by paxnatus

How many Rapists, and Murderer's get off Scott free!!


It's wrong that this happens but it's hardly an argument for letting another criminal go. I mean seriously if i go out right now and mug an old lady would you be willing to offer up this statement of yours as some kind of defense for me?

What nonsense.


Originally posted by paxnatus
Do you believe this caused this child irreversible harm? There are always 2 sides to every story! I'm sure the child was not completely innocent!!



I cannot believe you just said that. So a child who is sexually abused can be considered guilty in your eyes? So when a priest abuses a choir boy will you be using the same argument? Afterall i'm sure the choir boy wasn't completely innocent! I mean he went along with it didn't he!

Oh and those stories we sometimes hear of a girl of 14 being raped, well she wasn't entirely innocent either was she, i mean she had a short skirt on!

You scare me, the fact you could actually suggest the child may be guilty.

[edit on 12-6-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 



Nevada has a law, sexual abuse of underage children or teens is life imprisonment.

How hard is it to figure out?

I mean possession of pot is 20 years!

Nevada has a lot of tough laws.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by paxnatus
Do you believe this caused this child irreversible harm? There are always 2 sides to every story! I'm sure the child was not completely innocent!!



Bolding is mine.

Do you say this about every child forced into a sexual situation with an adult?

What if the boy is gay? I would say that might change things quite a bit.
What if the boy is not attracted to her? That should change things a bit as well. It still constitutes as molestation and forced sexual contact.

Both cases would make the boy innocent.

I thought we did not blame the victim here? "She wanted it, because she was dressed like that". Not far off from "He wanted it because he was a teen boy".

Raist



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


I agree with you completely. I was shocked/frightened to read that myself.

It seems okay to blame the victim as long as it is a boy though and the criminal is a woman.

So much for equal treatment between men and women.

Raist



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by paxnatus

How many Rapists, and Murderer's get off Scott free!!


It's wrong that this happens but it's hardly an argument for letting another criminal go. I mean seriously if i go out right now and mug an old lady would you be willing to offer up this statement of yours as some kind of defense for me?

What nonsense.


Originally posted by paxnatus
Do you believe this caused this child irreversible harm? There are always 2 sides to every story! I'm sure the child was not completely innocent!!



I cannot believe you just said that. So a child who is sexually abused can be considered guilty in your eyes? So when a priest abuses a choir boy will you be using the same argument? Afterall i'm sure the choir boy wasn't completely innocent! I mean he went along with it didn't he!

Oh and those stories we sometimes hear of a girl of 14 being raped, well she wasn't entirely innocent either was she, i mean she had a short skirt on!

You scare me, the fact you could actually suggest the child may be guilty.



there goes that term again! "Sexually Abused" this kid was not sexually abused!!! he touched a breast willingly or unwillingly who knows. It doesnt even say if her breast was naked he got kissed and asked to have sex. I fail to see the abuse here. Sexual harassment maby, but not abuse.

[edit on 12-6-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


I would say that about a girl too. Alot of girls arent as cute and innocent as they look. I know from personal experience.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


I think the difference between you and I, is that I look at the issue from a scientific view and your looking at it from a morality view.

Truth is Morals change from culture to culture and from person to person whereas Science is constant and the same no matter the culture or the person. If you have 2 different people in 2 different places of different cultures that study the same issue scientifically under the same circumstances, you will get the same relative result.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mitsuskitzo
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


I think the difference between you and I, is that I look at the issue from a scientific view and your looking at it from a morality view.

Truth is Morals change from culture to culture and from person to person whereas Science is constant and the same no matter the culture or the person. If you have 2 different people in 2 different places of different cultures that study the same issue scientifically under the same circumstances, you will get the same relative result.


And with this and the insults above you lose the argument. I am looking at this scientifically and all you can do is insult someone because they happen to have read more about the subject then you have. Ad hom attacks are for those who can't debate the issues at hand.

I have quoted the science to you, verbatim from various psychologists and all you have given in return is insults and excuses.

Accusing me of being a paedophile just because i know about the issue is rather pathetic and you dare to say you approach this scientifically even though you aren't aware of the science lol. According to you anyone who knows about the issue must be a paedophile so i guess all the papers i have read by psychologists and prison officials were all written by paedophiles.

[edit on 13-6-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Discuss the topic not each other.

Now.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


I have seen nothing scientifically based from your argument. You give no sources to your information. whereas ive repeatedly stated that the issue is not mental at least not fully. Its mostly due to genetics of mammals. If you took biology in high school you would at least know this. Humans are mammals too. its a primal instinct to reproduce upon sexual maturity in both genders. the only thing mental would be should one act or not act on this instinct.

I would like to know what excuses i have given to the contrary of your argument, all I have given is facts not opinions or excuses as you claim. I dont feel like i should post a source to the facts because its common knowledge to any one who completed high school.

Apart from the scientific facts, based upon the Information given in the ops post and the article along with the video, There isnt enough information and no concrete evidence to judge and convict this woman of anything. There is hardly any credible information at all. I means all it says is the woman kissed the boy, forced him to touch her breast, asked him to have sex with her. It dosent say weather he (the boy) accused her or if his parents accused her of doing this. It dosent say how they came to find this information if it is true. It dosent say if there were any witnesses to back up the accusation. It could very well be the other way around and the boy made advancements to her. Its like a he said she said trial with no evidence there could be no conviction, and certianly not a life sentence thats just crazy. With the information given, It would be like me accusing you of touching me in an inappropriate way and you going to jail for it. Theres no proof or witnesses of it but yet your still going to jail over it because I said your guilty.

What happend to the innocent untill proven guilty Justice system?



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 02:13 AM
link   
this is ridiculous


the boobs better have been worth it



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Mitsuskitzo
 


Sexual abuse of a child, by it's very nature does not lend itself to witnesses, therefore we tend to rely on the childs testimony. While some children may lie and make things up (this has happened) they are usually caught. Innocent until proven guilty? I'm not sure what your understanding of that idea is but this individual was innocent until proven guilty. She was not simply thrown in prison without an investigation.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by Mitsuskitzo
 


Sexual abuse of a child, by it's very nature does not lend itself to witnesses, therefore we tend to rely on the childs testimony. While some children may lie and make things up (this has happened) they are usually caught. Innocent until proven guilty? I'm not sure what your understanding of that idea is but this individual was innocent until proven guilty. She was not simply thrown in prison without an investigation.



and where did you read the investigation because i must have missed that?



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mitsuskitzo

and where did you read the investigation because i must have missed that?


No one goes to prison via witness testimony without that witness being interviewed, that is a basic part of investigation, everyone knows that, it's basic procedure. She was presumed innocent until proven guilty. She was given a trial by jury which means the jury heard witness testimony. If you want to debate the legal system then take a look at the laws surrounding modus operandi convictions because that's a very nasty area.

No doubt the jury got suspicious of her tstimony when she said


Taylor claimed she was intoxicated and doesn’t remember what happened that night. She told jurors she roughhoused with the boy, but didn’t force him to touch her inappropriately


So she claims not to remember what happened but she does remember she just roughhoused the boy, bit of a contradiction don't you think?

Oh and for everyone getting all upset about the life sentence, she is eligible for parole in 10 years, no doubt theres a good chance she'll get it.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Yea and it also said this.

“The jury was not allowed to know the potential sentence in this case and the Legislature doesn’t know the facts,”



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mitsuskitzo
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Yea and it also said this.

“The jury was not allowed to know the potential sentence in this case and the Legislature doesn’t know the facts,”


The jury doesn't need to know the sentence, the juries job is to decide if someone is innocent or guilty, therefore your point is moot.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Mitsuskitzo
 


How can you lay the blame on a girl or a boy that is molested or forced into a sexual situation?

You understand the difference between forcing and consenting do you not? The article states the boy was forced to do something.

I still get flirted with by young girls and I am nearly 35. If one waves and says hi with a shy grin that does not give me the right to force one into a sexual situation they do not want. Actually I should state that I am happily married and would not mess with a young girl regardless just so things are clear to anyone reading this.

Forcing someone to do something sexual it not how life works. If you cannot get it for free without making someone do it you can always take care of your needs yourself. No one despite their age, sex, or whatever else should ever be forced into a sexual situation.

Raist



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


I think you must have me mistaken. I'm not blaming "anyone" because of the lack of information in the story. Just because the article, written by sombody with no direct connection to the victim or the perp, says that the boy was forced does not mean that is what happened. Theres nothing about a police report in the article, theres nothing about the investigation, and theres no information on there that would give me conclusive accusation to either party on what happend and who's guilty of what.

Hasn't your mom told you not to believe everything you see on TV and not to believe everything you read. I'm not blaming anybody, I'm just questioning the facts given. The author of the article is either incompetent and unworthy of writing such articles and is not capable of good investigative journalism or just plain lazy. If your going to write an article, at least include all of the facts.

Just because its on the internet and written by a shoddy journalist, doesn't mean its true

[edit on 13-6-2010 by Mitsuskitzo]

[edit on 13-6-2010 by Mitsuskitzo]




top topics



 
27
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join