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.
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.
Originally posted by MrWendal
First of all he was convicted of Statutory Rape.
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.
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.
The law doesn't acknowledge that she can have sex of her own free will...
Originally posted by MrWendal
Fact is, she had sex with him of her own free will and she got pregnant.
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.
Again, an adult having sex with a minor is a crime.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Originally posted by dayve
14 is not that young, she probably looked 17. Idc what anybody says, its her fault.
Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
First and foremost - This guy should be behind bars for rape.
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.
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.
Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
He should get nothing but a prison sentence and a nice stiff welcome from fellow inmates.
Originally posted by CosmicEgg
Is the Massachusetts judicial system working for rights for sexual offenders by not calling them by their real name?
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.'
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?