Rapist wants visitation rights; teen mom fighting back , page 2


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 10 times


reply posted on 26-9-2012 @ 08:29 AM by CosmicEgg
reply to post by SeenAlot


How can you categorically state that sex within some set period of time is emotionally scarring? I'd love to know the rationale there.

This is clearly stated as statutory rape, and in Massachusetts that specifically means "Criminal inducement to get a person under age 18 of chaste life to have unlawful sexual intercourse". If this were against her will, it would be aggravated sexual assault. The fact that it was determined to be statutory rape is simply because there was more than two years age difference and she was under 18 in any case.

If there is emotional scarring, it's probably more because of the shame she's had to endure from the church, family, and friends.

Also, please, folks: Remember the source of this info. FoxNews is highly sensationalist and they're going to blow everything up to get your attention.


In any case, this guy can only get up to three years in prison or up to two and one-half years in jail for each charge at a maximum, because it is simply statutory rape. There was no violent aspect to it implied anywhere. When she says he threatened her and whatever, that could really mean a whole lot of things.

Demonizing either party is pretty stupid. They liked each other when this happened. If the whole thing hadn't been criminalized, they could have worked it around to a nice young family. It used to happen even early last century. As human beings, we're just the same critters now.


reply posted on 26-9-2012 @ 11:29 AM by SeenAlot
reply to post by CosmicEgg


There were four charges of rape. I was simply responding to those with the "she liked it cause she went back", group.

He liked her, she liked him. There were flowers in the sky and Sinatra singing. She was still underage and it IS his responsibility to behave in a mature fashion. If she was older, I'd feel the same way. The mature one must be held responsible.

If there is still an emotional relationship, the question of visitation shouldnt even be a problem. They are in love and will raise a happy family together.


Hi! Welcome to ATS where cynics abound. I have known dozen of kids in these age groups who were protected from any legal problems. Love conquers all.

I don't believe for one second this young man gives a crap. It's a lawyers card trick to mke him seem sympathetic. đŸ˜¥


reply posted on 26-9-2012 @ 11:57 AM by HandyDandy
reply to post by sonnny1


First of all, there is a huge difference from "rapist" and "statuatory rapist". The former being only one consented the latter they both consented but one was underage.

Huge difference.


reply posted on 26-9-2012 @ 12:17 PM by CosmicEgg
reply to post by SeenAlot


Lots of young girls are enamored with older guys. Has anyone here not been swept up in a passionate moment? If you haven't, you might want to move away from the computer and go live that vital moment of existence while you're still breathing.

I read the article too, and again, it is courtesy of FoxNews so exploiting the facts is a given.

I just wish people would think critically when they read things and stop reacting with such harsh judgment, as though they themselves had never transgressed another ever in all their days, and also to realize that they are all being played like fiddles.

Only the first line was directed at your post. The rest was for broader consumption.


reply posted on 26-9-2012 @ 01:29 PM by calstorm
ca.news.yahoo.com...

This video clearly says he came into her home threatened her and raped her. The issue is with the judges sentencing.

I wasn't aware consensual sex involved threats.



reply posted on 26-9-2012 @ 02:54 PM by CosmicEgg
reply to post by calstorm


The video presents the story in an entirely different light than the article did. Why is the guy not classed as a sexual offender? The way the girl and the mother describe it is clearly rape and not statutory anything. She was not a willing partner.

As a sexual offender, he would not have access to a child, not even his own but in light of the circumstances, how could he even be considered for parental rights? Access to a female toddler? Is the Massachusetts judicial system working for rights for sexual offenders by not calling them by their real name?


reply posted on 26-9-2012 @ 03:03 PM by Gridrebel
Sexual intercourse by an adult with a person below a statutorily designated age.

The criminal offense of statutory rape is committed when an adult sexually penetrates a person who, under the law, is incapable of consenting to sex. Minors and physically and mentally incapacitated persons are deemed incapable of consenting to sex under rape statutes in all states. These persons are considered deserving of special protection because they are especially vulnerable due to their youth or condition.

Most legislatures include statutory rape provisions in statutes that punish a number of different types of sexual assault. Statutory rape is different from other types of rape in that force and lack of consent are not necessary for conviction. A defendant may be convicted of statutory rape even if the complainant explicitly consented to the sexual contact and no force was used by the actor. By contrast, other rape generally occurs when a person overcomes another person by force and without the person's consent.



I think this girl is getting attacked falsley. We don't know all the facts and shouldn't be judging on what little information is out there. We don't know what the actual charges were, only what he plead to, which is usually less than the indictment charges. Also, the girl AND her mother went to the police and filed charges. Another thing, many times the indictment "count" charges do not match up with the actual committed criminal act(s). Take James Holmes for instance, he killed 12 people but got charged with 24 counts of murder - 12 counts of first-degree murder, 12 counts of first-degree murder with "universal malice manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life". I wonder how many of you who are defending the rapist, would do so if it was your daughter or grandaughter, neice or sister who was the victim.



The man, who the victim knew from church and who was the boyfriend of her friend’s older sister, pleaded guilty to statutory rape in Norfolk Superior Court last year.

Read more: www.foxnews.com...




edit on 26-9-2012 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-9-2012 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 26-9-2012 @ 04:06 PM by alphacenturi
Reply to post by dayve


your comments about the girl are quite disturbing, you seem to have alot of anger directed at women in general, calling her a whore and jailbait without even knowing what happened. methinks you have been rebuffed by alot of women in your life to make the nasty post, little bitter are u? he was 20, she was 14, the man is a pig and a crimminal, the last thing he should be allowed is to spend anytime with with young women in general and especially that of a young child. thank goodness your not a judge, you would probably give him a pat on the back and ask him for details. your attitude is deplorable and yes sick sick sick.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com



reply posted on 26-9-2012 @ 04:33 PM by GrimReaper86
reply to post by sonnny1


I'd either deny him rights or at the very most have supervised visitation. The supervision being provided by a cop or a social worker. That way if he had visitation at least it would be reviewed to determine if he was a negative influence on the child or a risk. Although, denying him the rights to visitation seem like the most ideal path in this circumstance.

I don't believe that should be the case with all statutory rape cases though; Like in a statutory case where the male was say 18 and the girl was 16. In that particular sort of circumstance I don't believe it's statutory to begin with because there is only a two year difference and a sixteen year old is intelligent enough to make up their own mind. Statutory rape is considered rape simply because of the age difference and not necessarily because of anything else. I know that it's possible to be charged with statutory even if it's consensual as long as that age difference exists either the state or parents can charge the older counter part. Which I think is wrong. Rape to me is forced unwanted sex. If it's consensual and both parties are capable of making their own decision then I don't believe it's rape. They allow you to drive a car at sixteen, I don't see why you could be considered incapable of deciding whether or not you want to have sex at the same age.

So if they made a ruling about this particular case that is negative to statutory then good on them, but either change the rules of what defines statutory or make it a specific ruling for this case. I do think a that in the case of an 18 year old and a 16 year old where both parties consider the event consensual that the father should be granted the same legal rights as any other father of normal circumstance.
edit on 26-9-2012 by GrimReaper86 because: (no reason given)

Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^