Rape victim to pay child support to her rapist

[lionking]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Utter rubbish! They didn't need to bloody well know!! The FACT of her age shows that the baby was conceived at a time when the girl was under age. This ought to have been reported, at the very least to Louisiana DCFS, so that they could investigate. First question they needed to ask was "who is the father?". If she refused to answer, report this to the Police for further investigation. It wouldn't take them long to get to the truth that she was raped by RapeGuy.

I don't buy the shtick that merely because she said "the boyfriend did it", that no further investigation need be carried out. If a girl turned up at to a hospital with a black eye and a fractured jaw, and said "the boyfriend did it", do you think the answer would be.... "OK, nothing to see here"? Of course, not. The hospital would immediately report this to Child Protection and probably the police.

Exactly.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Thermal

A thirty year old hounding on a 22?

STOP *******-WELL MISREPRESENTING ME!!

22 is NOWHERE NEAR the edge of the cliff. I'm talking 16, 17, 18 AND YOU KNOW IT!!

There is a vast difference in maturity between a teenager and a 22 year old.. VAST!

The rest of your post is irrelevant crap and I won't be bothering to address it!

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

STOP *******-WELL MISREPRESENTING ME!!

22 is NOWHERE NEAR the edge of the cliff. I'm talking 16, 17, 18 AND YOU KNOW IT!!

There is a vast difference in maturity between a teenager and a 22 year old.. VAST!

The rest of your post is irrelevant crap and I won't be bothering to address it!

The woman in question was using a fake ID in a bar. The minimum age to drink in the bar would be 21, so she had to be representing her age as that, at minimum. From the viewpoint of some guy picking her up, he might have every reason to believe she was at least 21. Even if he demanded ID.

So, the "edge of the cliff" isn't quite as easy to see as one might imply.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Warp12

The woman in question was using a fake ID in a bar. The minimum age to drink in the bar would be 21, so she had to be representing her age as that, at minimum. From the viewpoint of some guy picking her up, he might have every reason to believe she was at least 21. Even if he demanded ID.

So, the "edge of the cliff" isn't quite as easy to see as one might imply.

She was 16, representing her self as 21? Seriously? That's what you're going with? Are you so naive that you think no-one ever drinks in a bar under the legal drinking age?

Where is your evidence that she was trying to pass herself off as 21?

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Warp12

The woman in question was using a fake ID in a bar. The minimum age to drink in the bar would be 21, so she had to be representing her age as that, at minimum. From the viewpoint of some guy picking her up, he might have every reason to believe she was at least 21. Even if he demanded ID.

So, the "edge of the cliff" isn't quite as easy to see as one might imply.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

She was 16, representing her self as 21? Evidence?

The minimum drinking age was 21. She has represented that she used a fake ID at the bar.

Quote:

In 2015, Abelseth filed a complaint with the Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff's Office against Barnes, alleging he'd raped her on Dec. 13, 2005, after they'd both been drinking at a bar in Hammond, where Abelseth said she got in with a fake ID.

https://people.com/crime/woman-alleg...child-support/

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

You alluded some measure of experience with the tedium involved in checking ID's. You were able to put a time v benefit value to it, I just followed your previous reasoning in this thread and did the math.

It's sloppy math but it's your math...

My reasoning throughout this entire thread has been that 30 year-old men who **** 16 year-old girls are predators.

Remind me again where you come down on that issue?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

"Pedo guy" is simply heated rhetoric and not meant as a statement of fact. It's just slang for "creepy old guy". Ask Elon Musk.

Weird that the big takeaway for some people when a 30 year-old man rapes a 16 year-old girl is that it’s wrong to call him a pedo.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Warp12

The minimum drinking age was 21. She has represented that she used a fake ID at the bar.


https://people.com/crime/woman-alleg...child-support/

And you seriously expect me to believe that a 16 year old was able to fool someone into thinking she was 21. The barman and the rape guy need to be charged with serial stupidity and felony wilful blindness. FFS, you only have to talk to a 16 year old for two minutes to work out that aren't 21!!

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Warp12

The woman in question was using a fake ID in a bar. The minimum age to drink in the bar would be 21, so she had to be representing her age as that, at minimum. From the viewpoint of some guy picking her up, he might have every reason to believe she was at least 21. Even if he demanded ID.

So, the "edge of the cliff" isn't quite as easy to see as one might imply.

Cool, but you’re still defending a rapist.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

And you seriously expect me to believe that a 16 year old was able to fool someone into thinking she was 21. The barman and the rape guy need to be charge with serial stupidity FFS, you only have to talk to a 16 year old for two minutes to work out that aren't 21!!

A lot of bars don’t care, and a bartender not caring if this girl was underage is a lot more plausible than her being a master of disguise with flawless credentials.

But this is all academic anyway.

The guy is still a rapist, regardless.

But at least he’s got a dedicated fan base.

[TomB]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

STOP *******-WELL MISREPRESENTING ME!!

22 is NOWHERE NEAR the edge of the cliff. I'm talking 16, 17, 18 AND YOU KNOW IT!!

There is a vast difference in maturity between a teenager and a 22 year old.. VAST!

The rest of your post is irrelevant crap and I won't be bothering to address it!

The point is that in most areas of the U.S. you must be 21 to even be allowed inside a bar, let alone drink. Therefore, someone in a bar drinking is a good clue that they are at least 21.

But this is not true everywhere. Where I live (a college town) you can enter a bar at 19, but can't drink until you are 21. However, being a college town, there are a ton of fake IDs so if you assume someone's ages based on being in the bar and drinking, you are a fool.

In Louisiana, apparently, the age to enter a bar is 18:

Quote:

Q: What is the minimum age to work in or enter a bar?

No one under the age of 18 years is permitted on a bar premises at any time (even during private events), unless the person under the age of 18 years is a musician performing in a band on the premises under written contract with the permittee for a specified period and is under the direct supervision of his/her parent or guardian during such time.

Q: Can a minor play in a band in a bar?

A: Yes, if the minor is on the premises under written contract with the bar permit holder for a specified period and is under the direct supervision of his/her parent or guardian during such time.

Q: Can a minor sit at the bar in a restaurant?

A: Persons under the age of 18 years are prohibited in any area where the principle commodity served is alcoholic beverages.

https://atc.louisiana.gov/AlcoholFAQs.php

So to get into the bar you don't need to pass for 21, just 18. Which is a bit closer to the edge of that cliff. (Different bars and localities may require a higher age. Not sure of this locality.) And drinking in the bar does not mean the bartender served you. When I was in college, the 17 and 18 year olds would get in the door with a fake ID and their over 21 friends would buy the drinks (usually pitchers). Some of the townie high school kids who were even younger would as well.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by TomB

In Louisiana, apparently, the age to enter a bar is 18:

https://atc.louisiana.gov/AlcoholFAQs.php

So to get into the bar you don't need to pass for 21, just 18. Which is a bit closer to the edge of that cliff. (Different bars and localities may require a higher age. Not sure of this locality.) And drinking in the bar does not mean the bartender served you. When I was in college, the 17 and 18 year olds would get in the door with a fake ID and their over 21 friends would buy the drinks (usually pitchers). Some of the townie high school kids who were even younger would as well.

Absolutely! Its just that our resident rape apologists love pulling more and more feeble excuses out of their buttholes in defence of the poor widdle 32 year old rapist who was conned by the evil 16 year old girl.

This pattern is a familiar one on this forum!

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Absolutely! Its just that our resident rape apologists love pulling more and more feeble excuses out of their buttholes in defence of the poor widdle 32 year old rapist who was conned by the evil 16 year old girl. The pattern is a familiar one!

Not that it matters much, but his age was 30 at the time. I noticed you keep repeating the 32 number. The mother is 32 now.

Obviously she was misrepresenting her age in some capacity, that she was allowed in the bar and to drink. And she admitted to the fake ID. This is not requiring a lot of imagination to suggest that she was operating in a deceitful manner.

[johnny karate]

Quick question for the men here who support the theory that men are blameless when they accidentally have sex with underage girls.

How many underage girls have you accidentally had sex with?

I’m not asking for an exact number. Just ballpark it.

[TomB]

Here are a couple details that are new to me:

Quote:

Abelseth also alleges that she lost partial custody because she gave her 16-year-old daughter a cellphone.

“Crysta did not give her 15-year-old another cellphone. It was an allegation that was made. An ex parte was filed, and Crysta lost custody. She wasn’t able to defend herself,” Tiche said.

Abelseth said that she’s only able to visit her daughter during supervised visitations every other weekend. “He’s blocked my number. He will not let me speak to her, and that’s been a few weeks.”

https://www.wkbn.com/news/national-w...im-speaks-out/

The "ex parte" part is significant. An ex parte is motion granted without the other side getting a chance to respond.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Not that it matters much, but his age was 30 at the time. I noticed you keep repeating the 32 number. The mother is 32 now.

Correct, I stand corrected.

Originally Posted by Warp12

Obviously she was misrepresenting her age in some capacity

Irrelevant: Not a defence against statutory rape

Originally Posted by Warp12

...that she was allowed in the bar and to drink.

Irrelevant: Not a defence against statutory rape

Originally Posted by Warp12

And she admitted to the fake ID.

Irrelavant: Not a defence against statutory rape

Originally Posted by Warp12

This is not requiring a lot of imagination to suggest that she was operating in a deceitful manner.

Irrelevant: Not a defence against statutory rape

Got any other excuses you'd like to try pulling out of your butt?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by TomB

Here are a couple details that are new to me:

https://www.wkbn.com/news/national-w...im-speaks-out/

The "ex parte" part is significant. An ex parte is motion granted without the other side getting a chance to respond.

It sounds more and more like Rapedaddy has got friends and infleunce in high places including Law Enforcement, and the woman is being railroaded.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

And you seriously expect me to believe that a 16 year old was able to fool someone into thinking she was 21. The barman and the rape guy need to be charged with serial stupidity and felony wilful blindness. FFS, you only have to talk to a 16 year old for two minutes to work out that aren't 21!!

Also, I’m pretty certain minimum wage bar or security staff are not going to forensically examine ID waved in front of them. One of my sons went to Hawaii at 18 and only realised a few days before that legal drinking age was 21. He put together ridiculous ID. It got him into bars. The day before he left a security guy at a bar he often went to asked “when are you leaving” “tomorrow” said my son “good, I won’t have to see your stupid ID anymore”.

My assumption is that bar staff knew she was under 21 but didn’t care. Barnes had to ensure she was above the AoC. He didn’t, so a rapist by definition.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Where do you stand on 30 year-old men raping 16 year-old girls?

Do you think that’s a bad thing or not a big deal?

Bad thing, duh. Now prove it was rape rape to use Whoopi's formulation, or prove that he knew she was underage.

Let me put it a different way. Where do you stand on 30-year-old men picking up what they assume to be 21-year-old women, based on the fact that they encounter them drinking in a bar?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Bad thing, duh. Now prove it was rape rape to use Whoopi's formulation, or prove that he knew she was underage.

I don’t need to prove he knew she was underage. It’s rape either way. And why would we use Whoopi’s formulation? Rape is rape.

Quote:

Let me put it a different way. Where do you stand on 30-year-old men picking up what they assume to be 21-year-old women, based on the fact that they encounter them drinking in a bar?

Still kind of gross, but not illegal. And for the creepy dudes who engage in this practice and then somehow get tricked into sex with an underage girl, I have no sympathy for you. Stop preying on women that young,and that much younger than you, and maybe accidentally becoming a rapist will no longer be something you have to worry about.

Unfortunately for the 30 year-old in question, this is an irrelevant question. He’s still a rapist.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Bad thing, duh. Now prove it was rape rape to use Whoopi's formulation, or prove that he knew she was underage.

Let me put it a different way. Where do you stand on 30-year-old men picking up what they assume to be 21-year-old women, based on the fact that they encounter them drinking in a bar?

Others have said under age drinking is rife in the US, if not everywhere. The onus is on Barnes to establish his victim’s age, not to assume anything. The law has been quoted more than once in this thread. You may not like the way it is written, but your views are irrelevant.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Bad thing, duh. Now prove it was rape rape to use Whoopi's formulation, or prove that he knew she was underage.

Irrelevant: Not a defence against statutory rape

Originally Posted by Brainster

Let me put it a different way. Where do you stand on 30-year-old men picking up what they assume to be 21-year-old women, based on the fact that they encounter them drinking in a bar?

Irrelevant: Not a defence against statutory rape

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by lionking

Others have said under age drinking is rife in the US, if not everywhere. The onus is on Barnes to establish his victim’s age, not to assume anything. The law has been quoted more than once in this thread. You may not like the way it is written, but your views are irrelevant.

Yeah, if your thing is picking up young girls, you really need to do your due diligence. Skirting the edge of felony rape should not be a careless enterprise.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by lionking

Others have said under age drinking is rife in the US, if not everywhere. The onus is on Barnes to establish his victim’s age, not to assume anything.

So you say, but suppose he asked her for the ID that she was using to get served at the bar? Is he better equipped to check that ID than the bar was? And as for underage drinking yes, I am sure it is rife, but it is hard for me to believe that a lot of 16-year-old girls are getting served unless they have really good fake ID, or they are obviously a mammal (as was her case, check out some of the pix).

Quote:

The law has been quoted more than once in this thread. You may not like the way it is written, but your views are irrelevant.

Actually I think there are some issues with the law and I suspect that's why he was never prosecuted. The law may say that he is guilty, but you can see based on the responses around here that it is unlikely twelve jurors would find him guilty on the statutory charge based on the situation. As for the rape rape part, yes, I suspect the sheriff's department was not inclined to push too hard on a rape claim where the victim:

1) Was coming forward 10 years later.
2) Had no evidence for the rape rape claim, just the sex claim.
3) Had been sharing custody of her daughter with her claimed rapist for 5 years at the time.

I do get that this is just another jacking off while Black thread only about a woman and we are all apparently to tut-tut at the injustice of it all without ever questioning the story. This is apparently skepticism 2022-style.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Irrelevant: Not a defence against statutory rape




Irrelevant: Not a defence against statutory rape

So bring the charges! I know, I know, you are so much better at understanding the law and juries than some hick LA prosecutor. And perhaps you are swayed by the confirmed evidence in the article that the rapist designed the website for the local sheriff. I know that I am impressed; my god he must be a millionaire if he is designing websites for county sheriffs.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Brainster

So bring the charges! I know, I know, you are so much better at understanding the law and juries than some hick LA prosecutor. And perhaps you are swayed by the confirmed evidence in the article that the rapist designed the website for the local sheriff. I know that I am impressed; my god he must be a millionaire if he is designing websites for county sheriffs.

You are trying to make excuses for the rapist. This does not surprise me in the least.


ETA: and this might interest you (but probably not)

https://nypost.com/2022/06/18/sherif...eth-rape-case/

"A Louisiana sheriff admits his office “absolutely dropped the ball” in a 2005 rape claim that was never investigated — a screw-up that gave the rapist partial custody of the child that resulted from the alleged attack.

Tangipahoa Sheriff Daniel Edwards said his department recently discovered that Crysta Abelseth’s complaint of being raped — which was filed in 2015 a decade after the alleged attack — never got properly assigned to be investigated, WBRZ reported.

Against her wishes, the alleged rapist currently shares custody of a child conceived during the incident.

“Our department absolutely dropped the ball, and we simply must own our mistake,” Edwards said in a statement Thursday."

The case has been turned over to the DA's office.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Brainster

So bring the charges! I know, I know, you are so much better at understanding the law and juries than some hick LA prosecutor. And perhaps you are swayed by the confirmed evidence in the article that the rapist designed the website for the local sheriff. I know that I am impressed; my god he must be a millionaire if he is designing websites for county sheriffs.

Okay I’ve asked others, now over to you. How do you explain Hicksville PD keeping the mother’s complaint untouched for seven years? Crickets is what I expect.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by lionking

Okay I’ve asked others, now over to you. How do you explain Hicksville PD keeping the mother’s complaint untouched for seven years? Crickets is what I expect.

Woman comes forward 10 years after the supposed rape and reports it. Do you know who raped you? Why yes, it's the guy I've been sharing custody with for the last 5 years.

Yeah, that's about when I expect she heard the crickets.

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Weird that the big takeaway for some people when a 30 year-old man rapes a 16 year-old girl is that it’s wrong to call him a pedo.

Who said that? Can you link to the post?

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

You are trying to make excuses for the rapist. This does not surprise me in the least.


ETA: and this might interest you (but probably not)

https://nypost.com/2022/06/18/sherif...eth-rape-case/

"A Louisiana sheriff admits his office “absolutely dropped the ball” in a 2005 rape claim that was never investigated — a screw-up that gave the rapist partial custody of the child that resulted from the alleged attack.

Tangipahoa Sheriff Daniel Edwards said his department recently discovered that Crysta Abelseth’s complaint of being raped — which was filed in 2015 a decade after the alleged attack — never got properly assigned to be investigated, WBRZ reported.

Against her wishes, the alleged rapist currently shares custody of a child conceived during the incident.

“Our department absolutely dropped the ball, and we simply must own our mistake,” Edwards said in a statement Thursday."

The case has been turned over to the DA's office.

Cool, the attention will probably get us closer to an understanding of what happened and what should be happening with the daughter.

I'll admit a bit part why I was blase about the case was that there had been no action on it. If the DA is taking up the case it sounds like there might be an attempt at prosecution, and let's say the obvious, that the guy's website design business is defunct, whether he did it or not.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Woman comes forward 10 years after the supposed rape and reports it. Do you know who raped you? Why yes, it's the guy I've been sharing custody with for the last 5 years.

Yeah, that's about when I expect she heard the crickets.

So no explanation. Expected.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Cool, the attention will probably get us closer to an understanding of what happened and what should be happening with the daughter.

I'll admit a bit part why I was blase about the case was that there had been no action on it. If the DA is taking up the case it sounds like there might be an attempt at prosecution, and let's say the obvious, that the guy's website design business is defunct, whether he did it or not.

So he’s been punished enough?

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by lionking

So no explanation. Expected.

So ignored explanation, not really expected but -1, what can I say?

Like I said, though, apparently there is an investigation ongoing and I will await the results.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by lionking

So he’s been punished enough?

Depends on what he's convicted of, right? Or are you a big fan of extrajudicial punishment?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Depends on what he's convicted of, right? Or are you a big fan of extrajudicial punishment?

No. I dearly want rapist Barnes to appear before court. Soon.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by lionking

No. I dearly want rapist Barnes to appear before court. Soon.

Agreed and I will abide by the result of the trial because I have no real stake in the case. But here is the problem. The DA is almost certain not to get the conviction on the statutory count despite our local IANALs. She was in a bar and drinking, which gives the defendant a huge out, no matter what the law says. As for the rape rape claim, I suspect jurors are suspicious of those claims when they come up years later in the context of a custody hearing. Terribly un-PC of them but probably rational.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Utter rubbish! They didn't need to bloody well know!! The FACT of her age shows that the baby was conceived at a time when the girl was under age. This ought to have been reported, at the very least to Louisiana DCFS, so that they could investigate. First question they needed to ask was "who is the father?". If she refused to answer, report this to the Police for further investigation. It wouldn't take them long to get to the truth that she was raped by RapeGuy.

I don't buy the shtick that merely because she said "the boyfriend did it", that no further investigation need be carried out. If a girl turned up at to a hospital with a black eye and a fractured jaw, and said "the boyfriend did it", do you think the answer would be.... "OK, nothing to see here"? Of course, not. The hospital would immediately report this to Child Protection and probably the police.

But she didn't she told them it was her boyfriend so there was no reason for them to have considered it was rape. I was like you at the start wondered why the birth wasn't notifiable. The reason it wasn't is that there wasn't any reason for the medical staff at the time to think statutory rape had happened.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Weird that the big takeaway for some people when a 30 year-old man rapes a 16 year-old girl is that it’s wrong to call him a pedo.

But it should be a takeaway of some sort- sadly it has come to be a way society shields itself from the abuse of children. The same way a paedophile used to be called a "kiddy fiddler" it minimises what paedophiles are and what they do. A paedophile rapes a 12 month baby, they rape a 6 year old child. Confusing the term with someone who targets those beyond puberty does a disservice and helps society to continue to not have to think about the sheer horror of paedophiles.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Darat

But she didn't she told them it was her boyfriend so there was no reason for them to have considered it was rape. I was like you at the start wondered why the birth wasn't notifiable. The reason it wasn't is that there wasn't any reason for the medical staff at the time to think statutory rape had happened.

Do you really think this is how things happen in the real world? That competent medical authorities simply accept what they are told when an underage girl gives birth? Christ, how naive.

It looks like you have weighed into this thread to defend Sarge without thinking.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Brainster

...snip...


Actually I think there are some issues with the law and I suspect that's why he was never prosecuted. The law may say that he is guilty, but you can see based on the responses around here that it is unlikely twelve jurors would find him guilty on the statutory charge based on the situation. As for the rape rape part, yes, I suspect the sheriff's department was not inclined to push too hard on a rape claim where the victim:

Seriously doubt that, it a is a very strict and clear law, if he had sex with her under the age of consent it is rape, a jury would be instructed they have to decide based on the law as it was/is, a birth certificate and the paternity confirmation is the only evidence a prosecution would bring into the court. Unless the defence can make the jury believe those two documents are unreliable there is no defence the rapist could put forward. If the defence tried the "and you thought she was 21" approach the prosecution would object and it wouldn't be allowed as it has no relevance to the law he is being prosecuted under.