Rapist wants visitation rights; teen mom fighting back

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Screw him. I can't believe the courts would even entertain the thought of allowing him to see the child. If I was the mother I would file a PFA against him.




posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by dayve

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by dayve
 


It was Rape. 14 years old. Underage is underage also, no matter how you want to define it.

edit on 26-9-2012 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)


Yea but four counts of rape...? That means they had sex FOUR times, thats not rape... thats having consensual sex.


Here's some information for you...

A fourteen year old cannot consent to sex as they are what is termed - a minor.

Any "consent" was simply an abuse of trust by someone (and adult) who knew better at the expense of someone who does not. It is called rape by coercion or manipulation...

An adult can easily manipulate a child to agree to many things - usually the younger they are the easier it is; howeever, that does not make it right or ok.

In twenty minutes a smooth talker and decent looking man could get many 14 year olds to consent to almost anything that doesn’t make it consentual because they are not of adequate legal age to give it.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by GrimReaper86
 


You made some fine points. I think many failed to see this was Rape, and there is no other way to rationalize it. How some are trying, is really sad.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Wow. More blame the victim going on. It's very disheartening to hear how some of you paint the victim as a "whore", etc.

I pray you treat your own daughters with more compassion, empathy, and respect...



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Sorry, only had time to read your exerts from the article, was too busy to read the full link. Sounds like a few damaged lives from a horrendous act.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   
This is one of the saddest, most frustrating things I've read in a while.

I feel a lot of emotions reading the original post. None of them good.

That poor, poor girl, has to put up with so much and the nightmare never ends.

Common sense has left the building.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 


And that's the saddest thing. No commonsense.


I have a Daughter, this age. You can never be too cautious.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   
I had a lot to say after reading the title of this thread, thankfully I choose to read the article cause my knee jerk reaction was quiet different from my actual position now that I have more of an idea of what happened here.

There are a few things wrong here....

First of all he was convicted of Statutory Rape.

That is not the same as rape as we all understand it. Statutory rape usually means the sexual act itself was consensual, but one partner is under aged. According to one of the attorneys, the sex act was consensual. Considering what he was convicted of, we can assume it was indeed consensual sex.

That in my opinion is a game changer. Is he a sick person for having sex with a 14 year old? Absolutely, no doubt about that, however she was not "forced" to have sex with this man. She agreed. She was a willing participant.

Kids today are much more sexual than I was at that age. When I was around 22 years old, I was managing a video store and a 14 year old girl used to come in all the time and would flirt with me. She made her intention very clear and on MANY occasions offered to perform sexual favors on me. I never took up on the offer cause jail is not appealing to me, but I quickly understood how things like this could happen. Let's face it, it can be very difficult for a guy to say no when sex is being offered to you. This 14 year old promised to never tell, promised to never get me in trouble, she promised many things. I always said no, but I would be a liar if I said I was not a little bit tempted. When a girl is promising you sexual favors, you do not view her as a child even though she is. Luckily for me, I actually have some morals and there are lines I would never cross and this was one of them.

Fact is, she had sex with him of her own free will and she got pregnant. If he is paying child support, he has every right to be apart of his child's life. If she has a problem with that, maybe she should have thought about that before agreeing to have sex. Not just with this 20 year old man, but sex in general. She wanted to act like a grown up and engage in an inappropriate relationship, and this in the consequences of her actions. The fact that she kept the baby because of her religious beliefs to me in some ways is a cop out. Where were these religious beliefs when she agreed to have sex? When you have a baby with another person, you generally end up involved in the life of the partner like it or not.

Sorry, but I have zero sympathy for this girl. No one forced her to do anything against her will so she can't cry foul now. If this girl was forced to have sex- age would not matter, the charge would be rape, not statutory rape.
edit on 27-9-2012 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal
First of all he was convicted of Statutory Rape.


Sir, this is irrelevant (I respect your opinions on ATS a great deal so I don't want to get heated but this issue chaps my hide. My daughter is 15.) The reason the crime of statutory rape exists in the first place is for the protection of minors who while they may be very developed and thus attractive they lack the complementary mental development to consider the long term effects and/or implications of their actions.

Simply stated - they are naive and unable to tell what the best course of action might be and act impulsively. There is many a person who never outgrows this stage and lives impulsively after the age of majority but as an adult they bear full responsibility for their own actions.

Children have protection from their actions because we expect them to have poor judgment.


Originally posted by MrWendal
That is not the same as rape as we all understand it. Statutory rape usually means the sexual act itself was consensual, but one partner is under aged. According to one of the attorneys, the sex act was consensual. Considering what he was convicted of, we can assume it was indeed consensual sex.


The attachment of the word statutory doesn't make the rape into consensual sex or there would be no crime. A child cannot due to their age give consent to an act for which they to no fully understand the implications. As I said before I am the Dad of a 15 year old girl and having many "sleepovers" at the house one can see they are obviously alredy women physically - some more than others. However, I understand while physically developed into women they are kids in reasoning ability and judgment. Clueless!


Originally posted by MrWendal
That in my opinion is a game changer. Is he a sick person for having sex with a 14 year old? Absolutely, no doubt about that, however she was not "forced" to have sex with this man. She agreed. She was a willing participant.


Force can take place in many forms - there is the traditional physical force which no one will argue is flat out rape. Then there is force by threat - do it or else X will happen...also hardly anyone would argue that this is rape. These two are cut and dry regardless of the victims’ status as a minor. Then there is the reason for statutory rape - a minor (and even some adults sadly) can be coerced into sex through manipulation under the guise of love, concern for the need for acceptance, the status of being kept by a powerful or financially stable man (anything from things as mundane as he’s a senior and has a car to he is a drug lord with money and can protect me to he's the male figure I can look up to I never had). This manipulation is easier if the man is relatively young say early-late 20's and attractive. Taking advantage of a girl who lacks self esteem is really easy - that is the whole point of the drunken game of Hippo.


Originally posted by MrWendal
Fact is, she had sex with him of her own free will and she got pregnant.
The law doesn't acknowledge that she can have sex of her own free will...


Originally posted by MrWendal
If he is paying child support, he has every right to be a part of his child's life. If she has a problem with that, maybe she should have thought about that before agreeing to have sex. Not just with this 20 year old man, but sex in general. She wanted to act like a grown up and engage in an inappropriate relationship, and this in the consequences of her actions. The fact that she kept the baby because of her religious beliefs to me in some ways is a cop out. Where were these religious beliefs when she agreed to have sex? When you have a baby with another person, you generally end up involved in the life of the partner like it or not.


The way I'd have handled this as the Judge would be to call it restitution for damages and expenses incurred as a result of the crime and not "child support: therefore the situation would not have arisen. Regarding her taking responsibility for her actions - she was not as a minor actually responsible for her actions as far as this sex was involved as I stated for reasons listed above. Regarding to the relationship for life implied when one "has a baby" with another person this again implies the act was consensual. As a minor...she can't consent. Therefore the situation is a nothing more than damages caused by the crime for which the perpetrator should be made to pay restitution. Restitution does not entitle the criminal to a lifetime relationship with the victim. That is cruel and unusual punishment for her and the child.


Originally posted by MrWendal
Sorry, but I have zero sympathy for this girl. No one forced her to do anything against her will so she can't cry foul now.
Again, an adult having sex with a minor is a crime.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by dayve

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by seabag
 


I agree.

Hes a rapist, and a child molester, he should NEVER see this child. Period.


I cant believe hes doing this, because he loves this child. He has to be doing this, because of the Child Support. This is an all time low, in my book.



Right.... The girl is old enough to have sex and make her own decisions, he didn't "rape" her.... Its just a term used since she was underage... If he cant see the baby, then he shouldnt have to pay s***. Let the dumb broad raise the kid on her own n get a job.



Hi Mitt



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 03:33 AM
link   
First and foremost - This guy should be behind bars for rape.
Secondly, he has no rights to see this child because he raped the mother. Rape is not an acceptible form of conception in my opinion. People should be conceived via the missionary position, no more than 3 thrusts and of course, consensually.
Thirdly, this man is scum of society for committing rape and therefore should not be enjoying any other right then that of freedom of speech.

He should get nothing but a prison sentence and a nice stiff welcome from fellow inmates.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Having lived in Massachusetts for 30 years, I can really see them siding with the rapist. What Mass does can be mind boggling.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by dayve

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by seabag
 


I agree.

Hes a rapist, and a child molester, he should NEVER see this child. Period.


I cant believe hes doing this, because he loves this child. He has to be doing this, because of the Child Support. This is an all time low, in my book.



Right.... The girl is old enough to have sex and make her own decisions, he didn't "rape" her.... Its just a term used since she was underage... If he cant see the baby, then he shouldnt have to pay s***. Let the dumb broad raise the kid on her own n get a job.


Or he DID rape her, but there's no evidence to prove it, so they got him on what they could, statutory rape. You seem to be in possession of a lot of facts that are never mentioned. How did you become psychic?



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by dayve

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by dayve
 


It was Rape. 14 years old. Underage is underage also, no matter how you want to define it.

edit on 26-9-2012 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)


Yea but four counts of rape...? That means they had sex FOUR times, thats not rape... thats having consensual sex.


Wow, you clearly are a disgusting human being who has NO clue how a person with authority (older) can use that to manipulate the person under them into doing things. Just wow.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by sonnny1
 


True but the courts would have surely used the word 'rape' and not 'statutory rape' if it was overtly non-consensual i.e what we think of when invoking the imagery of 'rape'.

The use of statutory rape as I understand it is that it's 'consensual' but because one of the persons is underage they are mentally incapable of fully understanding and thus giving consent in an 'adult' sense.

en.wikipedia.org...


Or true rape was not able to be proved so they got him on 4 counts of statutory. What happened and what can be proved are two different things.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by dayve
14 is not that young, she probably looked 17. Idc what anybody says, its her fault.


Does ATS have a block function?



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
First and foremost - This guy should be behind bars for rape.


If it were my daughter there would have been no trial for him - just a funeral. Where is this girl’s father.

Perhaps that is part of the underlying problem. She wanted the approval of an older man because she lacked one in her life. Being a kid and not being mentaly developed she might equate sex with love and therefore be very susceptible to manipulation (as stated above) into sex with an older man.


Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
Secondly, he has no rights to see this child because he raped the mother. Rape is not an acceptible form of conception in my opinion. People should be conceived via the missionary position, no more than 3 thrusts and of course, consensually.


Awesome! I prefer 5-10 thrusts but the schools of thought differ. My wife is cool with up to 20 but after that I am imposing on her personal time.


Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
Thirdly, this man is scum of society for committing rape and therefore should not be enjoying any other right then that of freedom of speech.


That and the right to pay restitution and damages in lieu of child support - call it that and this legal problem goes away. He caused the situation and therefore the expenses incurred with the birth of the child inflicted upon the mother and therefore the law should allow for remedy. Also, he should have to repay dollar for dollar the State for any "assistance" she gets or is qualified as the taxpayers are also entitled to remedy for the costs his actions have caused.


Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
He should get nothing but a prison sentence and a nice stiff welcome from fellow inmates.


I think prison is too good for rapists. I say just paratroop him into a Muslim country with a sign that says I am a rapist tattooed on his forehead in Arabic. They will show him the meaning of the word as they run a few battalions of lonely soldiers through him then execute him...

Either that or put them in the stocks like the old days and put a bucket of condoms (along with absurdly sized various phalic objects for the ladies) and lube, or maybe not lube would be better. Then make a sign that says I raped a child and I want you to punish me. Leave him there until he dies from internal bleeding.

That is rehabilitation IMO.
edit on 27/9/2012 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
Is the Massachusetts judicial system working for rights for sexual offenders by not calling them by their real name?


Spend some time in Mass. and you won't be surprised. One of the most corrupt states in the country.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hillarie
The parents went to the police when they found out, the girl didn't. It was statutory rape, not forcible rape. He's the father. Let him see the kid. In medieval times girls got married at the age she was 'raped.'


The guy threatened her into having sex with him, does he need to shoot or stab her before it becomes forced? People in this thread are just sick.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1
As a father with three kids, I find this callous, and cruel. This man deserves no rights to see this child. On the other hand, If this child grows up, and wants to see the "father", what would you do as a Parent? I feel sorry for the victims, especially the child, having to play a part, in a dysfunctional broken Court system.



ATS, Thoughts?


Well, if hes paying child support he should have a right to at least see his child; you're not just denying him his child, but you're also denying a child his or her father.

Statutory rape isn't exactly rape; it means that a person under the age of 18 (or 16 in some cases) consented to sex with a person who is considered by law an adult; the law deems the judgment of the minor to be impaired and claims all sex between people below and over a certain age is statutory rape. Violent, physical rape is another thing entirely from statutory rape, so to group this man with an actual rapist who attacks or drugs a woman and has sex with her against her will is really taking the situation out of perspective.

If he was a real threat to society he would have been serving prison time, not been sentenced to 16 years probation. Think about it.





top topics
 
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join