Rape victim to pay child support to her rapist

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Of course it can, in the case of statutory rape.

The stat rape line is essentially arbitrary. It does not empirically define a 16 year old's ability to consent to sex.

If you agree that 17 is the place to draw the line, because 16 year olds cannot consent to sex in the way that 17 year olds can, that's one thing. But if it's that thing, then you must believe that when a more mature adult has sex with a "consenting" 16 year old in the UK, it's actually rape, even though the UK statute permits it.

If 16 year olds can consent, an arbitrary statute won't change that. If 16 year olds can't consent, then there are a lot of rapists running around the UK who mistakenly believe they're not.

This is all just equivocation over the word "consent". She could have spent a month begging him for sex, and then blackmailed him into it. Pgwenthold would say that she could not have consented to that sex, since she is too young. You are using consent to mean something like "willing". Pgwenthold is using it to mean "legal consent". You both know you are using the word in different ways.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

This is all just equivocation over the word "consent".

Just to equivocate a little further, she was seriously intoxicated when she had the sex. In many jurisdictions it would be considered that in that state, she was incapable of giving consent therefore it was rape.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Just to equivocate a little further, she was seriously intoxicated when she had the sex. In many jurisdictions it would be considered that in that state, she was incapable of giving consent therefore it was rape.

She says she was. Who knows?

[plague311]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

If you take her word for what happened. If you take Amber Heard's word for what happened with Johnny Depp, then you'd have been wildly mislead. We'd be fools for taking either side in a custody disputes word for any of this.

Let me make this clear to you so there is no confusion. I don't give a flying **** about the Depp\Heard case. Got me? I don't know anything about it, I don't read about it, and I couldn't care less if both died in a raging fire tomorrow. I'd still go about my day. Also, I'm not taking either side, I'm taking the side of the daughter who reported it to several people in authority. You're taking sides. You're dick riding this abuser like it's made of platinum.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

We really don't know what is going on here. It is perfectly possible that the mother is a far worse parent than the father, and that is why he pursued custody in the way he did.

Per the article in this thread the mother has no previous criminal convictions and she's never had a reported drug habit, or been in any form of rehab. I don't know what your ****** up qualifications for "worse parent" is, but I think raping your daughter might be high on the list of "things that make you the worst parent."

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Maybe she lost custody because she innocently bought her daughter a phone, or maybe she is telling us a misleading story here? There is insufficient information to be sure. Perhaps we will find out, or perhaps we won't.

There is plenty of information here. You just straight up don't believe it. So your opinion and assessment of the situation is skewed.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

You are relying on her story here for things you are asserting as facts. We know almost nothing that isn't a story told by her during a custody battle. By her own account, the custody hearing decided she was telling some pretty big lies. Maybe it was correct in that judgement, and maybe it wasn't. If it was correct, then can we take her word on anything?


Only if we take her word for what has happened.

If you would have read the court docs linked earlier, you'd realize that the judge seems to have some issues in this case.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

You are relying on her story here for things you are asserting as facts. We know almost nothing that isn't a story told by her during a custody battle. By her own account, the custody hearing decided she was telling some pretty big lies. Maybe it was correct in that judgement, and maybe it wasn't. If it was correct, then can we take her word on anything?


Only if we take her word for what has happened.

Yes, and im inclined to take her word on the strength of the fact that the hommes is demonstrably, mathematically guilty of statutory rape, yet is enjoying custody arrangements.

I don't get how some here are glossing over this. He is without question manipulating police and judges. Falling back on claims of "well it hasn't been proven in court" are ordinarily a strong argument, but here the police and courts themselves are flouting law with utter impunity.

If someone can propose a scenario where a demonstrable statutory rapist is granted custody, and the complaint of rape against him goes uninvestigated for years (in a very small town), and rape kits are "lost" (despite a hospital confirming that the daughter was consistent with forced rape, ie damage), then and only then will I treat the two sides as being on equal footing to play he said/she said.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by plague311

Let me make this clear to you so there is no confusion. I don't give a flying **** about the Depp\Heard case. Got me? I don't know anything about it, I don't read about it, and I couldn't care less if both died in a raging fire tomorrow. I'd still go about my day. Also, I'm not taking either side, I'm taking the side of the daughter who reported it to several people in authority. You're taking sides. You're dick riding this abuser like it's made of platinum.

Again, we are mostly taking the mothers word for all this. It was examined in court and they decided it was untrue. Maybe they have no basis for that judgement, and maybe they do. Who knows?

Originally Posted by plague311

Per the article in this thread the mother has no previous criminal convictions and she's never had a reported drug habit, or been in any form of rehab. I don't know what your ****** up qualifications for "worse parent" is, but I think raping your daughter might be high on the list of "things that make you the worst parent."

We don't know that he raped the daughter. The court didn't think so. Maybe they had no basis for making that judgement, or maybe they did. Who knows?

Originally Posted by plague311

There is plenty of information here. You just straight up don't believe it. So your opinion and assessment of the situation is skewed.

Most of what we know comes from one party to a custody battle, and the evidence she and the people acting for her have made public. What I've seen so far depends heavily on her reliability. None of this effects us personally, there should be developments in a month or so. There is no reason to rush to judgement.

Originally Posted by plague311

If you would have read the court docs linked earlier, you'd realize that the judge seems to have some issues in this case.

Sure. I've read it. I'm not going to care until both sides get to put their case. News media are awful at summarising documents fairly. Maybe they have done some straight arrow Walter Cronkite job, and maybe they haven't. Judging by the article I read, it is a pretty thin document that has been released.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Again, we are mostly taking the mothers word for all this. It was examined in court and they decided it was untrue. Maybe they have no basis for that judgement, and maybe they do. Who knows?

We don't know that he raped the daughter. The court didn't think so. Maybe they had no basis for making that judgement, or maybe they did. Who knows?

Most of what we know comes from one party to a custody battle, and the evidence she and the people acting for her have made public. What I've seen so far depends heavily on her reliability. None of this effects us personally, there should be developments in a month or so. There is no reason to rush to judgement.

Sure. I've read it. I'm not going to care until both sides get to put their case. News media are awful at summarising documents fairly. Maybe they have done some straight arrow Walter Cronkite job, and maybe they haven't. Judging by the article I read, it is a pretty thin document that has been released.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

We really don't know what is going on here. It is perfectly possible that the mother is a far worse parent than the father, and that is why he pursued custody in the way he did. Maybe she lost custody because she innocently bought her daughter a phone, or maybe she is telling us a misleading story here? There is insufficient information to be sure. Perhaps we will find out, or perhaps we won't.

It isn't a matter of picking the lesser of two evils, if a court decides that she is a bad parent and shouldn't have custody it doesn't strengthen the father's call to gain custody.

[cmikes]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Agreed, it sounds like full-blown rape on multiple criteria, enough so that I'm not holding any doubts. Yet I'd be willing to entertain the pure speculation that she was more willing than it sounded, partly because in her own description she just says "John Barnes proceeded to rape me on the couch." No talk of resisting or even saying "no". So maybe...just maybe...she was less resistant than "rape" makes it sound, which I think is Warp's point. She possibly agreed to the change of plans and was cooperative.

But it doesn't matter. She was drunk and unable to consent. Old guy picks up a drunk young girl, both complete strangers, and bangs her under the White Knight pretense of getting her home safely. None of this flies, before even getting into the fact that it was demonstrably felonious, whether you like the AOC or not.

As regards the highlighted, I thought that he had been drinking also? You probably could have gotten him on a DUI charge at time, but wouldn't that mean they raped each other? If they were too drunk to consent, wouldn't they be simultaneously both rapist and victim together?

As far as the age of consent goes, my understanding is that Louisiana doesn't have a "reasonable belief" exception like a lot of other states, so his not knowing that she was underage doesn't effect his being guilty.

On the other hand, I could see it definitely making a difference at a trial if he took the stand and said something like "I met her at a bar where she was partying and being served alcohol, I had every reason to believe that she was at least four years older than the age of consent." to the jury. Under those circumstances, could the prosecutor be confident of getting a conviction?

A lot of posters in this thread are taking the position that this guy's a pedophile who was out trolling for underage girls to abuse, but if that's the case, why was he hitting on and taking home a women being served alcohol in a bar? Is there any evidence that he knew she was underage before they sex with each other? Or after they had sex, for that matter?

[plague311]

Originally Posted by cmikes

As regards the highlighted, I thought that he had been drinking also? You probably could have gotten him on a DUI charge at time, but wouldn't that mean they raped each other? If they were too drunk to consent, wouldn't they be simultaneously both rapist and victim together?

As far as the age of consent goes, my understanding is that Louisiana doesn't have a "reasonable belief" exception like a lot of other states, so his not knowing that she was underage doesn't effect his being guilty.

On the other hand, I could see it definitely making a difference at a trial if he took the stand and said something like "I met her at a bar where she was partying and being served alcohol, I had every reason to believe that she was at least four years older than the age of consent." to the jury. Under those circumstances, could the prosecutor be confident of getting a conviction?

A lot of posters in this thread are taking the position that this guy's a pedophile who was out trolling for underage girls to abuse, but if that's the case, why was he hitting on and taking home a women being served alcohol in a bar? Is there any evidence that he knew she was underage before they sex with each other? Or after they had sex, for that matter?

Ah, rapist apologetics. Gotta love 'em.

Well, I bet he figured out how old she was after when he took her to court to get 50/50 custody of the daughter. Also, as has been noted multiple times, your JAQ'ing session means nothing. What he believed, what he thought, what he assumed means **** all. Yes, the prosecutor could get a conviction, I have little doubts of that.

You're going with the "raped each other" excuse? Really? Even if that huge pile of bull **** were true, she was 16. Whether you, theprestige, Warp12 or any of the other "but, but, but he wasn't a rapist in the rest of the world" cheerleaders like or dislike the law, it's still the law. A law which he broke and as you point out, several others he broke as well.

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by plague311

You realize the daughter is claiming the father is currently drugging and raping her, right?

Yes, and?

Quote:

So, I'm not sure which pile of **** you're putting that poor girl in,

The quagmire of ***** that the whole travesty is. Nobody can see the truth for the pile of ***** that this has become. No doubt there is a terrible story in there somewhere but it's buried that deep in the **** that it's near impossible to read it.

**** like - "He's raping the daughter he produced by raping me!"
**** like - "She's grooming my daughter to have sex!"
**** like - "he made 'accusations against me', but refused to elaborate."

Quote:

but that's pretty ****** up that you would do it at all. Like, really ****** up.

Tell me exactly how and why this is ****** up?

Tell me more about how I've harmed this girl? Tell me in what demonstrable way have I hindered her case? Tell me in what way I've advanced Barnes case? Show me, with your workings, how I've favoured one side over the other?

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by cmikes

As regards the highlighted, I thought that he had been drinking also? You probably could have gotten him on a DUI charge at time, but wouldn't that mean they raped each other? If they were too drunk to consent, wouldn't they be simultaneously both rapist and victim together?

Well, the guy is fairly large, and with presumably a decade of drinking experience under his belt. Probably can stop at a bar for a couple without being intoxicated? At least as compared to a smallish girl, 5 years south of the legal line and with presumably little experience in alcohol consumption and being a lightweight to boot?

Anyway, most charges of rape deal with the penetrator, more than the penetratee.

Quote:

As far as the age of consent goes, my understanding is that Louisiana doesn't have a "reasonable belief" exception like a lot of other states, so his not knowing that she was underage doesn't effect his being guilty.

On the other hand, I could see it definitely making a difference at a trial if he took the stand and said something like "I met her at a bar where she was partying and being served alcohol, I had every reason to believe that she was at least four years older than the age of consent." to the jury. Under those circumstances, could the prosecutor be confident of getting a conviction?

Doubt it, seeing as the law spells out quite plainly that claiming "you thought she was old enough" is flat prohibited as a defense. Although it might soften the sentence if a pic of her at the time showed her to look fully like a 20 something, instead of 16. I would expect that appearance to be quite dramatic and convincing to be persuasive.

Quote:

A lot of posters in this thread are taking the position that this guy's a pedophile who was out trolling for underage girls to abuse, but if that's the case, why was he hitting on and taking home a women being served alcohol in a bar? Is there any evidence that he knew she was underage before they sex with each other? Or after they had sex, for that matter?

Still doesn't matter, literally to anyone. It was a felony, there and then. "Gee, sheooked fine to me" changes not a damned thing.

And it's not really about his apparent high interest in sex with children. This is strictly about how he could puppet master the judges and police so profoundly. I mean, he ran some website gig. Not exactly a Kingmaker CV.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

Tell me exactly how and why this is ****** up?

Tell me more about how I've harmed this girl? Tell me in what demonstrable way have I hindered her case? Tell me in what way I've advanced Barnes case? Show me, with your workings, how I've favoured one side over the other?

Well, first off, I never said you did any of those things, but now that you've built all those strawmen you might as well have a tea party.

Lets break it down though. I said that you believing the daughter had a role to play in this was ****** up, I didn't say you actively ****** anything up for her. Got it? Good, moving on.

Just for the sake of argument, lets take the mother completely out of the picture. We'll pretend like she died. She's gone.

So now we have a 15-16 year old girl who told her counselor that her father is physically, emotionally, and, later alleged, sexually abusing her. That has absolutely nothing at all to do with the mother. The mother isn't making the claim, the child is.

The hospital confirmed that she has sexual trauma, and did a rape kit. Oddly enough, the police happened to have just lost that rape kit. Weird, right?

I don't really give a **** about your opinion of the mother, or the father. The fact is he's causing damage to a child, and the rapist apologists here are finding a way to ignore it because it's possible, maybe, that the mother might be...something. I'm not sure but she can't be believed!

That's ****** up about it. That's what hits me as strange. Glad I could help.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Well, the guy is fairly large, and with presumably a decade of drinking experience under his belt. Probably can stop at a bar for a couple without being intoxicated? At least as compared to a smallish girl, 5 years south of the legal line and with presumably little experience in alcohol consumption and being a lightweight to boot?

Anyway, most charges of rape deal with the penetrator, more than the penetratee.

I'm sorry, but it's so strange you have to explain this. Obviously the male is giving consent in this situation because he's the one "driving the bus" as they say. The victim isn't in control of the situation. I can't believe that this needs to be broken down. It's mind boggling.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Darat

It isn't a matter of picking the lesser of two evils, if a court decides that she is a bad parent and shouldn't have custody it doesn't strengthen the father's call to gain custody.

He already had custody. None of the accusations were made when he got custody. The issue is about losing custody.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

He already had custody. None of the accusations were made when he got custody. The issue is about losing custody.

Again, no. The issue is how he got the police and courts to ignore law and common decency and award a demonstrable statutory rapist any say whatsoever.

Anything else to do with court rulings falls under that same shade.

[TomB]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Prove it in court.

We are innocent until proven guilty of charges. Not the other way around.

Incorrect.

We are considered innocent in court until proven guilty.
The way you phrase it, whoever Jack the Ripper was is innocent of the murders because he never stood trial.

Which is plain stupid.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Again, no. The issue is how he got the police and courts to ignore law and common decency and award a demonstrable statutory rapist any say whatsoever.

Anything else to do with court rulings falls under that same shade.

Nobody had made a complaint to the police at the time he was originally awarded custody, so I don't see what they were supposed to do at that point. The mother didn't make a complaint to the court either. I'm not quite clear to what extent the judge in these cases is supposed to be an investigating magistrate, rather than relying on what both parties bring to the table. If you are going to come at this from the perspective that "he got the police [etc]" to do this, then you are already taking sides and there is no point in talking. We might as well just have this as another ISF thread where people who agree with each other chat amongst themselves. Did anybody argue when custody was awarded that he was a danger to the child? Maybe he is some local kingpin? With all the attention the case is getting, presumably either that will turn out to be the case, or the whole thing will quietly fade away...

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by sarge

Nonsense. You are conflating the fact that there was a statutory rape with the notion that as presented at the time of the birth there was indication that there was a statutory rape.

Yes, I am, because they are directly related to each other. THE MATH DOES NOT LIE!

If a woman gives birth to a full term baby at a specific age, the date of conception is approximately 280 days, or 40 weeks prior to that date. This is a medical and scientific fact

Originally Posted by sarge

At the time of the birth the girl was of an age that is not at all unusual.

Irrelevant!

Originally Posted by sarge

The mother, at the time of the birth, not only made no allegation of statutory rape, she actively covered up the fact by listing as the father a former boyfriend of hers.

And?

Originally Posted by sarge

The ‘age of consent’ does not apply to the situation as it was presented by the mother at the time of the birth.

the situation "as presented" has ZERO effect on the medical and scientific facts.

17Y 3M - 0Y 9M = 16Y 6M

THE GIRL WAS UNDER AGE WHEN THE CHILD WAS CONCEIVED.

The circumstances of that conception are IRRELEVANT to the facts.

Originally Posted by sarge

It was irrelevant until 5 years after the birth and only became relevant because the rapist identified himself as the father. Until that happened there was zero indication that a rape had occurred.

NO! JUST NO!!!!! This is wrong!

Originally Posted by sarge

As for the police…..there was no reason at all for the police to have ever been notified. No chance for them to investigate anything at the time of the birth. A 17 year old girl had a baby and named another teen as the father. That is such an ordinary, non-rape event that it would have been strange if the police had been alerted.

And yet they are alerted

https://gilaherald.com/police-invest...exual-assault/

Police investigating young girl’s pregnancy for sexual assault
According to the nurse practitioner, the 13-year-old girl is 34 weeks pregnant and it was her first prenatal visit. The nurse advised the patient’s stepmother was “guarded” about the patient being seen and would not allow her to answer any questions during the exam including who the father is.

In fact, in some jurisdictions, schools are legally required to report teenage pregnancies to the Police

https://www.skillsportal.co.za/conte...eported-police

[casebro]

I know since 'me too' the states of limitations for sexual assaults have stretched to infinity, but what was the statute of limitations on statutory rape back when it supposedly happened? Back then, a misdemeanor? Changing the s-o-l is considered ex post facto. So maybe he isn't even a statutory rapist?

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Nobody had made a complaint to the police at the time he was originally awarded custody, so I don't see what they were supposed to do at that point. The mother didn't make a complaint to the court either. I'm not quite clear to what extent the judge in these cases is supposed to be an investigating magistrate, rather than relying on what both parties bring to the table. If you are going to come at this from the perspective that "he got the police [etc]" to do this, then you are already taking sides and there is no point in talking. We might as well just have this as another ISF thread where people who agree with each other chat amongst themselves. Did anybody argue when custody was awarded that he was a danger to the child? Maybe he is some local kingpin? With all the attention the case is getting, presumably either that will turn out to be the case, or the whole thing will quietly fade away...

The paternity test Barnes ordered and their simple ages should have solidified it, with like no thinking involved at all. Literally just glancing at the age of the teen mother should have sent bells and whistles and red flags flying.

I'm putting my money on Barnes being tight with the sherrif, who happens to be the brother to the State's governor. That gets things done.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by TomB

Incorrect.

We are considered innocent in court until proven guilty.
The way you phrase it, whoever Jack the Ripper was is innocent of the murders because he never stood trial.

Which is plain stupid.

When we talk innocent until proven guilty, I would say that typically implies a court setting. The fact that I prefaced it with, "prove it in court" fairly makes that clear in this case, I'd say.

In this case, a claim that she was too intoxicated to consent would need to be proven in court, if any associated charge/sentence were to take that into account. Of course if you just want to take her on her word, we don't need anything further in order to proclaim guilt.

[sarge]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Yes, I am, because they are directly related to each other. THE MATH DOES NOT LIE!

Math that is irrelevant does not tell the truth, either.

Quote:

If a woman gives birth to a full term baby at a specific age, the date of conception is approximately 280 days, or 40 weeks prior to that date. This is a medical and scientific fact

And irrelevant unless it is k own or suspected that the father is of an age to make the sexual encounter statutory rape. There was absolutely no indication, no evidence at all that this was the case. Therefore, the fact of her pregnancy was in no way at all indication that statutory rape had occurred.

Quote:

Irrelevant!



And?



the situation "as presented" has ZERO effect on the medical and scientific facts.

17Y 3M - 0Y 9M = 16Y 6M

THE GIRL WAS UNDER AGE WHEN THE CHILD WAS CONCEIVED.

The circumstances of that conception are IRRELEVANT to the facts.



NO! JUST NO!!!!! This is wrong!



And yet they are alerted

https://gilaherald.com/police-invest...exual-assault/

Police investigating young girl’s pregnancy for sexual assault
According to the nurse practitioner, the 13-year-old girl is 34 weeks pregnant and it was her first prenatal visit. The nurse advised the patient’s stepmother was “guarded” about the patient being seen and would not allow her to answer any questions during the exam including who the father is.

In fact, in some jurisdictions, schools are legally required to report teenage pregnancies to the Police

https://www.skillsportal.co.za/conte...eported-police

What happens in ‘some jurisdictions’ and in the case of pregnant 13 year olds is irrelevant to this circumstance.

Your claim was that there was ‘indication’ of statutory rape at the birth. There was none. You’ve quoted irrelevant facts…even capitalized some of them. Here are the relevant facts:

A 17 year old girl had a baby and listed as the father a teen that could not have been guilty of statutory rape. There was no indication at all that any crime had been committed until 5 years after the birth. These are the only facts relevant to your claim. You are wrong, entirely, and your histrionics do nothing to alter this.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by sarge

Math that is irrelevant does not tell the truth, either.



And irrelevant unless it is k own or suspected that the father is of an age to make the sexual encounter statutory rape. There was absolutely no indication, no evidence at all that this was the case. Therefore, the fact of her pregnancy was in no way at all indication that statutory rape had occurred.





What happens in ‘some jurisdictions’ and in the case of pregnant 13 year olds is irrelevant to this circumstance.

Your claim was that there was ‘indication’ of statutory rape at the birth. There was none. You’ve quoted irrelevant facts…even capitalized some of them. Here are the relevant facts:

A 17 year old girl had a baby and listed as the father a teen that could not have been guilty of statutory rape. There was no indication at all that any crime had been committed until 5 years after the birth. These are the only facts relevant to your claim. You are wrong, entirely, and your histrionics do nothing to alter this.

And when Barnes ordered the paternity test to gain custody rights, and the math became crystal clear that the child, confirmed now as Barnes', was the product of a rape?

And when it was officially noted in 2012 that the child was the product of a rape?

Why wasn't Barnes summarily charged, instead of gaining custody rights?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Thermal

And when Barnes ordered the paternity test to gain custody rights, and the math became crystal clear that the child, confirmed now as Barnes', was the product of a rape?

Who was doing the math? Do courts usually consider questions they aren't asked?

Quote:

And when it was officially noted in 2012 that the child was the product of a rape?

Statutory rape. Is a criminal record an automatic disqualifier? If not, then it becomes a question of what crimes, and how much of a record.

Quote:

Why wasn't Barnes summarily charged, instead of gaining custody rights?

Summarily charged by whom? Was the district attorney supposed to kool-aid man into the courtroom waving an indictment?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

She says she was. Who knows?

You are good at putting forward theories here. Do you mind explaining the behaviour of the police force in question? Particularly the seven year delay in even “investigating” the mother’s statement? Or is this another “who knows?” answer?

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by plague311

Well, first off, I never said you did any of those things, but now that you've built all those strawmen you might as well have a tea party.

OK, let's accept that with the caveat that your "****** up" accusation was somewhat....... vague.

Quote:

Lets break it down though. I said that you believing the daughter had a role to play in this was ****** up,

What? You don't think any of the daughters has a "role", some "role", however small, to play in this? Innocent or guilty? Any alleged claims puts both at the centre of the issue.

I don't believe any of the daughters have a "role" in this, I ******* know that they do. The "role" that they, currently, have is besmirched with *****. Claim and counter claim and you are not in the position to arbitrate.

It's interesting that you are focusing on what "role" I believe the girls had and are completely, utterly and with gay abandon not mentioning what role the father might have. Where did you see me let him off the hook?

Quote:

I didn't say you actively ****** anything up for her. Got it? Good, moving on.

Granted and agreed.

Quote:

Just for the sake of argument, lets take the mother completely out of the picture. We'll pretend like she died. She's gone.

So now we have a 15-16 year old girl who told her counselor that her father is physically, emotionally, and, later alleged, sexually abusing her. That has absolutely nothing at all to do with the mother. The mother isn't making the claim, the child is.

OK, First dump.... maybe true, maybe not but the **** drops. We don't know, we can't know.

Quote:

The hospital confirmed that she has sexual trauma, and did a rape kit. Oddly enough, the police happened to have just lost that rape kit. Weird, right?

Yup, second pile to wade through. Get where I'm coming from?

Quote:

I don't really give a **** about your opinion of the mother, or the father. The fact is he's causing damage to a child,

Check your shoes, you're trailing ****.

Quote:

and the rapist apologists here are finding a way to ignore it because it's possible, maybe, that the mother might be...something. I'm not sure but she can't be believed!

That you have gently twisted things in such a way JUST to make that accusation is your M.O. I'd give more credence to your words if, that in every post of yours, in every thread you participate in that I see, that that wasn't your end game.

Quote:

That's ****** up about it. That's what hits me as strange. Glad I could help.

There is nothing "****** up" about my post at all, nor "strange".

[sarge]

Originally Posted by Thermal

And when Barnes ordered the paternity test to gain custody rights, and the math became crystal clear that the child, confirmed now as Barnes', was the product of a rape?

And when it was officially noted in 2012 that the child was the product of a rape?

Why wasn't Barnes summarily charged, instead of gaining custody rights?

How could I possibly answer that?

He is a rapist. None of the ‘he might have been drunk too’ obfuscation can change that for me. There are some elements of her story that don’t seem quite right, but that he is a rapist is indisputable. And how a rapist ever got 50/50 custody in the first place is ….bizarre.

Don’t conflate my position that there was no indication of rape at the time of the birth with me not believing this was rape or that the system in backlandistan LA hasn’t failed both the mother and the child.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by TomB

Originally Posted by Warp12

We are innocent until proven guilty of charges. Not the other way around.

The way you phrase it, whoever Jack the Ripper was is innocent of the murders because he never stood trial.

Which is plain stupid.

Warp12 is actually correct. Whoever might have been accused of being Jack the Ripper is innocent because he has never stood trial.

[TomB]

quote of moderated content removed

Responding to this mod box in thread will be off topic Posted By:jimbob

In fairness, if they are required to report a teenage birth, they probably did so as a matter of procedure. But the report would contain the information that she names the father as her boyfriend of the same age. (Which she may have believed or hoped to be true at the time.)

With that information, i imagine any "investigation" would have been cursory at best. Teenage pregnancies are not exactly rare. Usually, the father is a boyfriend of similar age. If such an individual is named as the father, no one likely probes too deeply.

The point where it became obvious there was a crime is when he claimed paternity, got a test ordered, and was confirmed as the father. Granted, it's possible no one did the math, but given that the mother of the five year old was so young, I would have thought it would have raised an eyebrow or two.

But the inexcusable failure is that of the police failing to follow up after being explicitly informed of the crime. This failure also gives cover/justification (depending on your viewpoint) to the judge not taking the rape into account absent charges/conviction.

[TomB]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Warp12 is actually correct. Whoever might have been accused of being Jack the Ripper is innocent because he has never stood trial.

No. Whoever did the crimes is guilty regardless of standing trial.
Anyone who might be accused is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

The presumption of innocence is a principal that guides legal proceedings. But the terms guilt and innocence have context beyond that of the legal system.

So the person who committed the Jack the Ripper murders was guilty of those crimes even though he had not been found so in court and was not considered guilty in a legal sense.

ETA the below:

Quote:

What is an acquittal?

In criminal law, an acquittal means that the accused is free from the charge and it occurs in a criminal case where a defendant is found not guilty by a judge or jury. This doesn’t mean the accused is innocent, it only means the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is what it means to be acquitted.

https://thelawdictionary.org/article...-be-acquitted/

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by TomB

No. Whoever did the crimes is guilty regardless of standing trial.

Well duh!

The question the court has to consider is whether the accused is the one "whoever did the crimes" (assuming that there is no question that a crime has been committed).

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Warp12

The primary issue for people is that 16 y/o thing. As mentioned numerous times, the age of consent in most of the western world is 16, and that includes 31 states. The pretend outrage is amazing, and quite unconvincing. I don't think there is any amount of debate that can get around a position so steeped in emotion.

It’s weird that you think outrage over the felony rape of a 16 year-old girl is pretend.

Even weirder that the felony rape of 16 year-old girl doesn’t bother you in the slightest.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Well duh!

The question the court has to consider is whether the accused is the one "whoever did the crimes" (assuming that there is no question that a crime has been committed).

The court does not consider anything until the accused is brought before the court with charges tendered.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Hey, let's remember to "be civil."

We can't just go calling people racist rape apologists even if their statements and views are entirely indistinguishable from any other obvious racist rape apologist.

We could save a lot of time and trouble if certain posters in this thread would just come right and say that they’re grown men who want to **** teenage girls. All this tap dancing around it is becoming quite tedious.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by lionking

Two things. Firstly I thing smartcooky’s interpretation of your posts here are reasonable.

It's never "reasonable" to call someone a defender of a hideous crime, when they say repeatedly they condemn it, and are simply straightening out details for accuracy. Sarge was correctly stating that rape was not even alluded to early on. He is entirely correct in that. Can you explain how that is defending rape? If not, he was being hard core trolled, with severe dishonesty.

Quote:

Secondly, this post is not one worthy of a moderator. Look in the mirror and control your responses. Posts like this drive people away from this forum.

That's exactly what trolling does, and is intended to do: get a rise out of a poster.

Calling anyone in this thread a "rape apologist" is dead-ass trolling. No one, but no one, in this discussion is saying rape is ok. We can argue about whether the AOC is a bit archaic compared to the rest of the country, and whether doing due diligence to verify age should be a mitigating factor. But not a single poster is defending, or providing apologetics, for the act of rape.

[Thermal]

Response to Rule 12 derail removed

Responding to this mod box in thread will be off topic Posted By:jimbob

We go through this all the time on these threads. A rape apologist, in this case, would be defending rape. He is not remotely doing so. He is scrutinizing details to get a clear picture of what happened. That's a good thing, because it's so difficult to figure out how the hell any of this went down the way it did.

Barnes first learned of the daughter he for whatever reason was confident was his in 2011 (no reason for him to think that he was the only possible man in her life at that approximate time, right?). So he moves for a paternity test that slam dunks him as the father, and consequently a statutory rapist. Abseleth really has no option to continue to hide this anymore, and comes clean about the rape, now that he is the proven father who is moving for custodial rights. The next year, 2012, it is officially entered into the case that the child is the product of a rape, and since Barnes is the admitted father, he is the admitted rapist.

So starting there: how the hell does any of this proceed? How is he granted custody when it is a matter of record that he raped Abseleth?

I think it's fair to coldly analyze the details to get some clue as to what the **** went wrong here, even if those details run counter-narrative.

[Warp12]

Interesting further developments:

1) Now it is stated that she was using a fake ID that evening.

Does it matter in LA? No, it doesn't. But it does further support the idea that the man was misled about her age. To me that is important in how I view any consensual sex that may have occurred. Certainly some here do not care of such things.

2) She has now made four claims regarding the incident:

A) That he raped her on the couch.
B) That she was too intoxicated to consent because she was passed out.
C) That she was possibly drugged, because she "couldn't move" while he was raping her.
D) That she woke up on the bathroom floor.

I don't really find all of these statements to be in agreement. Some will argue that they are, no doubt. It sounds to me like she is either fabricating some of these details, or really has no solid recollection of the encounter.

[sarge]

Originally Posted by lionking

So what? Is there a time limit in declaring you were raped?

Sarge’s conjecture that the mother might not have been raped is rubbish and therefore rape apologism.

I never once made such a claim. That statement is either an honest mistake or a lie.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Interesting further developments:

1) Now it is stated that she was using a fake ID that evening.

Does it matter in LA? No, it doesn't. But it does further support the idea that the man was misled about her age. To me that is important in how I view any consensual sex that may have occurred. Certainly some here do not care of such things.

2) She has now made four claims regarding the incident:

A) That he raped her on the couch.
B) That she was too intoxicated to consent because she was passed out.
C) That she was possibly drugged, because she "couldn't move" while he was raping her.
D) That she woke up on the bathroom floor.

I don't really find all of these statements to be in agreement. Some will argue that they are, no doubt. It sounds to me like she is either fabricating some of these details, or really has no solid recollection of the encounter.

Yeah, but they are all somewhat peripheral. Does it really matter exactly what kind of rape took place? He did rape her, one way or another, under Louisiana law. So how is he granted any custody rights whatsoever?