International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   Rape victim to pay child support to her rapist (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359636)

Warp12 16th June 2022 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Best (Post 13835070)
So all of a sudden he's opposed to 16-year-old girls having sex?

Well, I suppose we should be glad he's matured since he was 30.


There is no indication that he knew that she was 16 at the time of their encounter. She was clearly misrepresenting her age, as she was drinking in a bar.

smartcooky 16th June 2022 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarge (Post 13834604)
Quibble alert: it isn’t necessarily true that it should have been evident to anyone that she was a victim of rape when she gave birth. I don’t think the age of the father would normally come up during the birthing process unless someone made an effort to discover his age.

Wrong. In Louisiana, where this happened, the AOC is 17. If she gave birth to a full term baby at 17 years and, say, 3 months, this is a direct indicator of statutory rape.

Warp12 16th June 2022 04:20 PM

..

johnny karate 16th June 2022 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13835075)
There is no indication that he knew that she was 16 at the time of their encounter. She was clearly misrepresenting her age, as she was drinking in a bar.

It doesn't matter. It's still rape. Turns out it's still illegal to **** children even if they trick you into doing it.

Warp12 16th June 2022 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 13835085)
It doesn't matter. It's still rape. Turns out it's still illegal to **** children even if they trick you into doing it.


It matters if people are making the unsupported claim that he was out cruising for 16-year-old girls.

johnny karate 16th June 2022 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13835091)
It matters if people are making the unsupported claim that he was out cruising for 16-year-old girls.

God forbid we besmirch the reputation of a rapist.

theprestige 16th June 2022 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 13835068)
Let me rephrase the question and see if it will help you with the answer:

Why should being a sex criminal be an automatic disqualifier for the father getting custody?

Stat rape isn't much of a crime. Not when the victim is already past the AOC in a lot of jurisdictions. Australians, like UKians, don't see much of a problem with more mature adults having sex with willing sixteen year olds.

There are horrific sex crimes being committed all the time. I don't think having sex with a willing sixteen year old is one of them.

If it's not morally depraved to have sex with a consenting sixteen year old in Australia or the UK, then it can't be morally depraved to do so in Louisiana, even if it does happen to be illegal there.

Now will you explain why it should automatically disqualify a father for custody?

shuttlt 16th June 2022 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmikes (Post 13835041)
The reason the father didn't want her having a cell phone is that she was using it to sext her boyfriend and he didn't want her nude pictures to end up on the internet. This is his version of the story, so take it for what it's worth, which to my mind is very little.

Assuming the story is true, though, it's hard to fault him. If my 16 year old was sending nude pictures of herself to other people, I would have taken away her phone also.

It seems like she is 15. I think people are getting confused because of the claim that the mother was 16, and there is some comment about "the past 16 years" in the original interview. If the dates are correct on the police report, the girl is 15.

shuttlt 16th June 2022 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thermal (Post 13834994)
Im not seeing it, searching the Mail Online site searching both her name and Louisiana?

Incidentally, I wanted to say I appreciate you looking for the link, and asking for it. I'm maybe taking frustration out on you that you don't deserve.

johnny karate 16th June 2022 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 13835097)
Stat rape isn't much of a crime. Not when the victim is already past the AOC in a lot of jurisdictions. Australians, like UKians, don't see much of a problem with more mature adults having sex with willing sixteen year olds.

There are horrific sex crimes being committed all the time. I don't think having sex with a willing sixteen year old is one of them.

If it's not morally depraved to have sex with a consenting sixteen year old in Australia or the UK, then it can't be morally depraved to do so in Louisiana, even if it does happen to be illegal there.

Now will you explain why it should automatically disqualify a father for custody?

Because of the sex crime I mentioned. That you're totally cool with the sex crime is irrelevant.

shuttlt 16th June 2022 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13835091)
It matters if people are making the unsupported claim that he was out cruising for 16-year-old girls.

I don't think that that matches with her description of the encounter. He was a friend of a friend who happened to be at the bar. I haven't seen any kind of claim about him cruising for 16 year old girls.

Warp12 16th June 2022 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13835107)
I don't think that that matches with her description of the encounter. He was a friend of a friend who happened to be at the bar. I haven't seen any kind of claim about him cruising for 16 year old girls.


I haven't either...except in this thread. The implication by some is that he was targeting underage girls.

smartcooky 16th June 2022 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 13835051)
Why should statutory rape between consenting participants be an automatic disqualifier for the father getting custody?

Because it makes him a criminal who benefits from the commission of his crime?

Do we allow person who murders their spouse to keep the insurance money?

Do we allow a bank robber to keep the money they stole?

shuttlt 16th June 2022 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13835110)
I haven't either...except in this thread. The implication by some is that he was targeting underage girls.

Supposedly the mother claims he also abused the daughter. If that is true, maybe he is indeed targeting underage girls. If he is the kind of maniac who would drug and rape an underage girl, then pursue custody of her daughter, only to drug and rape her.... I'm thinking this can't be his first rodeo. It's like going from nothing to buffalo bill in silence of the lambs. There have got to be loads of other girls he has done this to. Equally, if she is a huge liar, I'd imagine there would be stuff in her background as well.

shuttlt 16th June 2022 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13835114)
Because it makes him a criminal who benefits from the commission of his crime?

Do we allow person who murders their spouse to keep the insurance money?

Do we allow a bank robber to keep the money they stole?

The money is for the maintenance of the daughter, not for him. Men who have been the victims of statutory rape have been made to pay child support, there is nothing new in that part of it.

smartcooky 16th June 2022 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 13835097)
Stat rape isn't much of a crime. Not when the victim is already past the AOC in a lot of jurisdictions. Australians, like UKians, don't see much of a problem with more mature adults having sex with willing sixteen year olds.

So, you're perfectly fine with men traveling to places like Thailand and having sex with 12 year olds. Got it.

The reality is, when you break a law in a place, its the laws of THAT place that apply, not those of other jurisdictions.

smartcooky 16th June 2022 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13835119)
The money is for the maintenance of the daughter, not for him. Men who have been the victims of statutory rape have been made to pay child support, there is nothing new in that part of it.

Yeah, right! You can;t be that naive, surely?

Matthew Best 16th June 2022 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13835119)
Men who have been the victims of statutory rape have been made to pay child support, there is nothing new in that part of it.

That seems wrong, too.

johnny karate 16th June 2022 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13835110)
I haven't either...except in this thread. The implication by some is that he was targeting underage girls.

Where would someone ever get the idea that a grown man who has sex with underage girls targets underage girls?

theprestige 16th June 2022 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13835114)
Because it makes him a criminal who benefits from the commission of his crime?

Do we allow person who murders their spouse to keep the insurance money?

Do we allow a bank robber to keep the money they stole?

Huh. I've never really thought of parenthood as a profit. Mostly I think of it as a heavy and demanding responsibility.

Kids aren't money.

shuttlt 16th June 2022 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13835122)
Yeah, right! You can;t be that naive, surely?

If maintenance payments just go to the parent rather than the child, why have them at all? The whole system sounds unfair if that is our assumption. Typically the parent who wins custody wants custody, so they are getting a benefit, and then getting extra money on top.

theprestige 16th June 2022 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13835120)
So, you're perfectly fine with men traveling to places like Thailand and having sex with 12 year olds. Got it.

The reality is, when you break a law in a place, its the laws of THAT place that apply, not those of other jurisdictions.

AOC in Thailand is 15.

I have no problem with applying the laws of a place to acts committed in that place.

But your moral outrage is not dictated by the laws of a place. And we know you don't think it's outrageous for 16 year olds to consent to sex. Or do you? Are you morally outraged by the UK AOC?

Thermal 16th June 2022 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13835103)
Incidentally, I wanted to say I appreciate you looking for the link, and asking for it. I'm maybe taking frustration out on you that you don't deserve.

Appreciated, but you've been fine, man. Its a charged subject, so we'll all get riled a bit. You've kept it non-personal even in disagreement. Thanks for the link, too.

johnny karate 16th June 2022 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 13835138)
AOC in Thailand is 15.

I have no problem with applying the laws of a place to acts committed in that place.

But your moral outrage is not dictated by the laws of a place. And we know you don't think it's outrageous for 16 year olds to consent to sex. Or do you? Are you morally outraged by the UK AOC?

I'll go on record saying that I think 16 is too young for the age of consent (depending on the age of the partner) regardless of the jurisdiction, but I don't necessarily get morally outraged about it.

I reserve my moral outrage for 30 year-old men who have sex with 16 year-old girls because it's gross and predatory - regardless of what the local laws dictate - and I'm really comfortable taking that position.

Thermal 16th June 2022 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 13835125)
Where would someone ever get the idea that a grown man who has sex with underage girls targets underage girls?

In fairness, the guy can plausibly looking to score a young hottie, without deliberately looking for a specifically underage hottie. Seeing what she looked like at the time might help to determine if it was credible that he should have suspected she was underage.

But yet again, for yours truly: if one side of that line is felony crime, stay way the hell away from that line. Like, I want to see some crows feet and ****.

johnny karate 16th June 2022 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thermal (Post 13835155)
In fairness, the guy can plausibly looking to score a young hottie, without deliberately looking for a specifically underage hottie. Seeing what she looked like at the time might help to determine if it was credible that he should have suspected she was underage.

Men who look for "young hotties" a) are gross and predatory, and b) don't deserve the benefit of the doubt when they "accidentally" **** an underage girl.

Quote:

But yet again, for yours truly: if one side of that line is felony crime, stay way the hell away from that line. Like, I want to see some crows feet and ****.
Yeah, this isn't really that hard, is it? I'm not sure why men who choose to walk that line deserve understanding when they cross it. A man who is on the prowl for some "barely legal" action is already a dirt bag. Crossing that line makes him a dirt bag and a felon.

smartcooky 16th June 2022 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13835137)
If maintenance payments just go to the parent rather than the child, why have them at all? The whole system sounds unfair if that is our assumption

Does a toddler old have a bank account? Do they get to decide how their child support money is spent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13835137)
Typically the parent who wins custody wants custody, so they are getting a benefit, and then getting extra money on top.

Oh good, at least you actually figured this bit out for yourself. :thumbsup:

Call me cynical if you like, but I am very suspicious of any grown adult in the ~25+ demographic, who thinks its OK to trawl teenage girls for sex - even worse if the adult is older... like 32

I am also suspicious of any rapist who want's anything to do with his child unless it benefits him in some way.

smartcooky 16th June 2022 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 13835161)
Men who look for "young hotties" a) are gross and predatory, and b) don't deserve the benefit of the doubt when they "accidentally" **** an underage girl.

Yeah, this isn't really that hard, is it? I'm not sure why men who choose to walk that line deserve understanding when they cross it. A man who is on the prowl for some "barely legal" action is already a dirt bag. Crossing that line makes him a dirt bag and a felon.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


I had a very simple rule when was out chasing tail as a young man... half my age + 8 years. Kept me out of trouble!

TomB 16th June 2022 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13834985)
The story was in the Mail. The reason you haven't seen these claims is because you haven't looked into the case and are relying on the summary from a social justice forum. You can not rely on this forum to accurately summarise these things any more than you can rely on this woman's advocacy group or some random journalist. I don't claim the Mail is the unalterable word of God either, but there are quotes in there that aren't in the article linked in the OP. Given how much was left out of the original article, how much more are we missing? Who knows!

The highlighted is false. I have read multiple versions of this story, as well as more local conversations about it on the Tigerdroppings message board. (It's, I think, an LSU centric board. Some of the people on it know the people involved. Opinions on the people involved seem to be divided.) Until it was mentioned on here, I had not encountered that portion of the story.

Apparently, the court recorde were unsealed yesterday. Here's a (non-Daily Mail) accunt:
https://www.wbrz.com/news/in-rape-pa...ult-complaints

Some points:
Quote:

The documents were unsealed in Tangipahoa Parish Wednesday evening and detail a years-long custody process beginning in 2011 when John Barnes found out he had a daughter with Crysta Abelseth.

In April 2013, Barnes began paying Abelseth $428 in child support for the daughter he fathered after a night of drinking. In July 2015, Crysta filed a police report for the 2005 rape that led to her daughter’s birth with the Tangipahoa Parish Sheriffs Office. That report sat on their shelf and was not assigned to a detective for seven years.

In August 2015, Judge Jeffrey Cashe was assigned the case.

Six months after Cashe took over the case, a split-custody agreement was reached, and he ordered Abelseth to pay $78.41 to Barnes increasing to $117.72 per month the following year.

Four years went by and nothing happened in the court record. Then, in December 2020, Barnes filed a motion to modify custody alleging his daughter is allowed to be unsupervised with her boyfriend in Abelseth’s home.
Trending News
Further:
Quote:

In January 2021, the child’s school counselor notified DCFS as a mandatory reporter that the child alleged Barnes physically and mentally abused her. Abelseth requested that Barnes custody be limited. Judge Cashe denied that motion.

By November, Barnes filed motions to have Abelseth held in contempt over a cell phone.

On Feb. 2, 2022, Cashe found Abelseth in contempt over the phone and ordered her to pay $500. Abelseth was instructed not to provide her daughter with a cell phone.

That same month— court records note for the first time that the child was conceived from a rape. It’s also alleged that Barnes drugged and sexually assaulted his daughter on Feb. 21, 2022 and Feb. 22, 2022.

“She was transported to New Orleans where she was evaluated and the doctor confirmed that there was evidence of forced entry congruent with sexual assault,” the document reads.

On March 18, 2022, Judge Cashe dismisses all of Abelseth’s claims saying all criminal charges have not been accepted and the evidence does not support the allegations made by the daughter.

Court records were not clear on what evidence led the judge to make his decision. An abuse advocate for Abelseth tells WBRZ the Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff's Office has not cooperated with the family over the location of the daughter's rape kit. The sheriff's office, once again, did not respond to requests for comment Thursday.
Quote:

Additional documents filed show the daughter continues to maintain her dad abuses her.

Judge Jeffrey Cashe notes in the court filings that April 26, 2022 is the first time anything has been mentioned about alleged felony carnal knowledge or rape — even though records indicate that was brought up two months earlier.
So...the daughter has been claiming abuse for a while (over a year), not just to her mother, but to a school counselor, who reported it to DCFS.

The daughter had a rape kit done, which has apparently been lost by the police.

The mother filed the police report, which the police chief admits they neglected to investigate, seven months before Barnes was awarded joint custody.

The Daily mail article mentions that Barnes has had domestic violence claims made against him by the mother of another of his children.

Still looks pretty bad for the guy to me.

TomB 16th June 2022 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13835137)
If maintenance payments just go to the parent rather than the child, why have them at all? The whole system sounds unfair if that is our assumption. Typically the parent who wins custody wants custody, so they are getting a benefit, and then getting extra money on top.

Child support goes into the custodial parent's bank account. They are used to defray the everyday expenses of caring for a child: rent/mortgage, groceries, clothes transportation, etc. There is no accounting that it is used directly for the child, but the assumption is that it helps improve the standard of living for the custodial family.

My wife's ex got reamed by a judge for telling the kids that the child support money was for toys and stuff.

Child support isn't the only expense that the non-custodial parent is expected to pay. They may be required to carry insurance through their employment, pay half of childcare costs and medical expenses, and half of college tuition. A lot of this depends on the relative income of the parents at the time of the ruling. (Assuming able to provide a home, financial status is not generally a reason to assign custody, so the custodial parent may have a much higher income and standard of living.)

TomB 16th June 2022 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13835194)
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


I had a very simple rule when was out chasing tail as a young man... half my age + 8 years. Kept me out of trouble!

By the time I was 30, 21 year olds pretty much looked like kids to me. So someone who was a friend of my friend's sister who was in high school would be a red flag to me.

On the other hand, when I was 23, my first girlfriend after my divorce was 32. But then, we met at a friend's party and knew each other's backgrounds before we started dating. Had I been a couple years younger the relationship would not have happened. As it was, it didn't last long as the age difference was too much for her.

lionking 16th June 2022 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomB (Post 13835240)
The highlighted is false. I have read multiple versions of this story, as well as more local conversations about it on the Tigerdroppings message board. (It's, I think, an LSU centric board. Some of the people on it know the people involved. Opinions on the people involved seem to be divided.) Until it was mentioned on here, I had not encountered that portion of the story.

Apparently, the court recorde were unsealed yesterday. Here's a (non-Daily Mail) accunt:
https://www.wbrz.com/news/in-rape-pa...ult-complaints

Some points:


Further:




So...the daughter has been claiming abuse for a while (over a year), not just to her mother, but to a school counselor, who reported it to DCFS.

The daughter had a rape kit done, which has apparently been lost by the police.

The mother filed the police report, which the police chief admits they neglected to investigate, seven months before Barnes was awarded joint custody.

The Daily mail article mentions that Barnes has had domestic violence claims made against him by the mother of another of his children.

Still looks pretty bad for the guy to me.

Judge Cashe looks like a real piece of work.

The negligence of the Hicksville Police Force is breathtaking. It is certainly feasible that such a small force could be influenced by Barnes, who is a contractor to said force.

Thermal 16th June 2022 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 13835252)
Judge Cashe looks like a real piece of work.

The negligence of the Hicksville Police Force is breathtaking. It is certainly feasible that such a small force could be influenced by Barnes, who is a contractor to said force.

The parish sheriff is also the brother of the Louisianna governor, so being tight with the Hicksville sherrif could turn out to have major influence. It's the first viable part I read that could explain a rapist having any custodial standing at all.

TomB 16th June 2022 09:18 PM

Small correction. The joint custody was already in effect when she filed the report. But there was "agreement" reached seven months later in which instead of Barnes paying $428/mo in child support, Abelseth would have to pay him $78.41. Unless this is reported incorrectly, it sounds like Cashe made Barnes the custodial parent in 2015.

For those who don't know, joint custody does not mean no child support. But given a 50/50 split and the presumption that he has the higher income, this seems...odd.

TomB 16th June 2022 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 13834979)
Ten years maximum, for felony statutory rape in Louisiana.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.co...-rape-laws.htm

To be clear, that was a quote tag I screwed up, not something I was saying. I don't think a life sentence is warranted for statutory rape.

Actually, this is where I accept the mistake of age defense. If proven that age was misrepresented and there was no reason to suspect the actual age, I think sentencing is the appropriate place for mitigation. Conceivably to the point of serving no time, but probation instead. At least for a first offense.

I'm not even sure this guy should get 10 years, although some of the new information makes him look pretty bad.

In a bit of defense(?) of the judge, I can entertain the case that criminal allegations that don't directly involve the child should not be taken into account until a conviction. However, neither should they be dismissed.

His court isn't investigating or trying either rape charge or, presumably, the allegations of child abuse. Those are criminal charges to be dealt with in a criminal court. But the existence of unresolved allegations should be taken into account before modifying custody, deferring to ongoing investigations and procedures in other venues.

I also think that the order to not give a teenager a cell phone was out of line.

johnny karate 16th June 2022 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomB (Post 13835240)
The highlighted is false. I have read multiple versions of this story, as well as more local conversations about it on the Tigerdroppings message board. (It's, I think, an LSU centric board. Some of the people on it know the people involved. Opinions on the people involved seem to be divided.) Until it was mentioned on here, I had not encountered that portion of the story.

Apparently, the court recorde were unsealed yesterday. Here's a (non-Daily Mail) accunt:
https://www.wbrz.com/news/in-rape-pa...ult-complaints

Some points:


Further:




So...the daughter has been claiming abuse for a while (over a year), not just to her mother, but to a school counselor, who reported it to DCFS.

The daughter had a rape kit done, which has apparently been lost by the police.

The mother filed the police report, which the police chief admits they neglected to investigate, seven months before Barnes was awarded joint custody.

The Daily mail article mentions that Barnes has had domestic violence claims made against him by the mother of another of his children.

Still looks pretty bad for the guy to me.

Wow, that’s… a lot.

I hope the fan boys for this rapist rest up tonight. They’ve got a big day of hand waving and victim blaming tomorrow.

smartcooky 17th June 2022 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomB (Post 13835240)
Quote:

On Feb. 2, 2022, Cashe found Abelseth in contempt over the phone and ordered her to pay $500. Abelseth was instructed not to provide her daughter with a cell phone.

That same month— court records note for the first time that the child was conceived from a rape. It’s also alleged that Barnes drugged and sexually assaulted his daughter on Feb. 21, 2022 and Feb. 22, 2022.

“She was transported to New Orleans where she was evaluated and the doctor confirmed that there was evidence of forced entry congruent with sexual assault,” the document reads.

So...the daughter has been claiming abuse for a while (over a year), not just to her mother, but to a school counselor, who reported it to DCFS.

The daughter had a rape kit done, which has apparently been lost by the police.

The mother filed the police report, which the police chief admits they neglected to investigate, seven months before Barnes was awarded joint custody.

The Daily mail article mentions that Barnes has had domestic violence claims made against him by the mother of another of his children.

Still looks pretty bad for the guy to me.

Not hard to see why both the Police and Rapedaddy wanted those records kept sealed is it? The police didn't want their litany of incompetence exposed, and Rapedaddy didn't want his continuing penchant for sexual encounters with under-aged girls being made public.

His behaviours with his own daughter somewhat leans toward indicating that he did rape the mother.

Some of the rape apologists here, who have been clearly siding with Team Rapedaddy need to have a long, serious look at themselves.

ETA: But don't worry folks. Once the usual suspects have had some time to think about it, I'm sure they will be back with some completely over-the-top BS made from whole cloth to explain everything as to why the mother is the bad one here.

lionking 17th June 2022 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13835322)

ETA: But don't worry folks. Once the usual suspects have had some time to think about it, I'm sure they will be back with some completely over-the-top BS made from whole cloth to explain everything as to why the mother is the bad one here.

At the same time explaining why they are indeed True Skeptics.

Darat 17th June 2022 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmikes (Post 13834850)
I don't think anyone's disputing that, but the fact that she never claimed she was raped until years later in the midst of a custody dispute muddies the waters so much that it's probably impossible to determine the truth at this late date.

IF he actually raped her, he deserves to go to prison for the rest of his life, but with no evidence, he'll probably get away with it, if he did it.

On the other hand, it seems pretty clear they have a slam dunk on the statutory rape charge, especially going by what's been posted in this thread, that Alabama doesn't have a "well, she was drinking in a bar so I didn't know she was underaged" exception.

The only question I have what is the statute of limitations on statutory rape in Alabama, if any?

ETA: Louisiana not Alabama. And a quick google search seems to say that for sex crimes against children, the statute of limitations is thirty years in Louisiana, so a statutory rape charge could still be in play.

Sorry to say this but that sounds like "It wasn't like rape rape". Whether we agree with the law or not he is a rapist, even if she was 100% cold sober and kept saying yes.

The reason this is important is because of the custody of the kid, he is a rapist and I don't believe that a rapist can be a fit parent and should have zero input into the kid's life (unless instigated by the child when they are old enough to understand).

bluesjnr 17th June 2022 02:45 AM

Having read the entire thread and taken account of the reasonable discussion surrounding what is alleged as well as the pure speculation on other issues and finally the, "disagree? RAPIST!" contingent, I conclude that this is a huge, steaming pile of *****.

Both protagonists seem untrustworthy in conclusion.

When I'm confronted by such a huge pile of ****, I tend to step over or around it.

Stepping in it leaves **** on me and both sides here should check their shoes.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:31 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.