Hey, Can A Woman "Ask To Get Raped"?

@BillRM,

No one said you were trying to abduct a child.

But you were using the kittens as a a lure to get the children to interact with you. That is a well known tactic pedophiles use, it helps to break down the child's guard. The man who approached me on the street that day when I was 8 did so on a very busy main street, with other people all around, and first used the lure of soliciting my help--which worked--and then tried to entice me to a more private location by mentioning puppies I could play with. Fortunately, having been warned by parents, I recognized that as signaling danger, and I ran away.

You didn't sit down among the adults in that park, to find out whether any of them would be interested in adopting those kittens, or whether they would allow their child to have one. You targeted the children--and the kittens were your lure, that's why the children approached you. And, yes, other adults in a park should be appropriately suspicious, and concerned, when they see someone doing that with children. Had you any concern for the safety and welfare of children, you'd applaud their alert response and the concern behind having you removed from that park.

Child molesters don't just abduct children, they also inappropriately touch, or fondle them, or try to, and sometimes masturbate or expose themselves in the child's presence, often quite surreptitiously, in public. And that's also what the other adults in that park were trying to prevent when they had you removed.

The more you try to rationalize your inappropriate interactions with those children, the worse you sound. You're too stupid to know when to shut up.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Sorry I did not target children any more then I did in pet smart in so must as I would never never hand over an animal to a child care without the parent permission.

In fact I was more annoy then anything that more parents did not come over to me with their children and kept repeating over and over that if they wish a kitten they needed to get their parents over here to grant permission.

Quote:

You didn't sit down among the adults in that park,

The parents was not for the most part sitting down anymore then the children as they was moving around and I was not going to be chasing either children or adults around carrying a heavy cat carrier.

I was in the middle of the park in full view as in pet smart I was in the front of the store in full view.

Quote:

Child molesters don't just abduct children, they also inappropriately touch, or fondle them, or try to, and sometimes masturbate or expose themselves in the child's presence,

In the middle of a park with the kittens being a very large sign to pay attention to myself!!!!!!!!!!! You realty think that child molesters beat that kind of a drum when they are out hunting children?

Amazing thinking that anyone repeat anyone who have such evils in their heart would wish to maintain such a very large large profile.

Quote:

The more you try to rationalize your inappropriate interactions with those children, the worse you sound. You're too stupid to know when to shut up.

Sorry dear as this have nothing to do with my inappropriate interactions with children as in the dog park I go to no one ever raised an eyebrow when some kid or kids wish to come over and pet my dogs when I am setting at a park bench enjoying the bay side view and for that matter the twenty/thirty something women running around the running track at that park. Hmm I should visit the Kennedy running park again sometime in the near future even if I do not have dogs any longer. footnote to wife if you happen to read this I was just kidding about going to watch young women running around.............

Oh and I question if it had been my wife or if she had come along that day anyone would had consider the interactions inappropriate.

1 Reply

I really hope the judge in this case, who has now recused herself, winds up being strongly sanctioned for her outrageous comments. Someone like this shouldn't be sitting on the bench and trying sex crimes.

Quote:

Judge under fire for rape sentence, implying victim was promiscuous
By Nick Valencia, CNN
May 5, 2014

(CNN) -- She could have sentenced him to 20 years in prison after he admitted to raping a 14-year-old girl in her high school.

Instead, a Texas judge gave the defendant a 45-day sentence and probation after implying that the victim was promiscuous.

Judge Jeanine Howard told The Dallas Morning News that she based the sentence, in part, on medical records indicating that the girl had had three sexual partners and had given birth.

She told the newspaper that the victim "wasn't the victim she claimed to be" and said the defendant, 20-year-old Sir Young, "is not your typical sex offender."

Critics fear the decision could discourage other victims from reporting rapes.

"We're certainly concerned about the message that's being sent to victims of sexual assault," said Andrea Moseley, chief prosecutor for the Dallas County District Attorney's Office.

"We expect that our victims will be protected and that their reputations will be protected and that they will feel safe in coming forward and reporting these crimes."

But it wasn't just the sentence that drew criticism; it was the type of community service Young was also sentenced to.

Young, who was a schoolmate of the victim's when the rape occurred in 2011, was ordered to serve 250 hours of community service at a rape crisis center. The center later said he was not welcome there.

"Just having a criminal defendant in the office could be a triggering affect for many of our clients," Bobbie Villareal, director of the Dallas Rape Crisis Center, told CNN affiliate WFAA. "It's just not appropriate."

Young's defense attorney, Scottie Allen, told CNN's "New Day" on Monday that he felt the sentence was "fair and appropriate" given the circumstances, and he agreed with Howard that his client wasn't a normal sex offender.

"What we have here is an 18-year-old high school student who was very talented, very gifted," Allen said, adding that Young had scholarship offers from a "couple of universities."

Allen further claimed that the victim had agreed to have sex with Young, just not on campus, and "upon making this bad judgment, he admitted that he proceeded over her objections to stop, and he admitted that to the police."

"We don't think that he qualifies as your typical sex offender. This is not somebody who has preyed on some young kids or unsuspecting people."

HLN reached out to the judge for comment, but she has recused herself from the case.

A new judge will oversee the case moving forward, including a motion filed by prosecutors to add more restrictive requirements to Young's probation....

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/05/justice/texas-rape-sentence/

I have no problem with a sentence of probation, but the judge in this case failed to include the sex offender requirements--mandatory registration and treatment--which are standard in such cases to help protect the community, help to provide rehabilitation, and help to deter re-offense.

And, in mentioning anything about the 14 year old victim's past sexual history, the judge appears to have clearly violated rape shield laws--the judge, in her statements, introduced unsubstantiated information about the victim's past sexual history, not at all relevant to this case, which would be needlessly damaging to the girl's reputation. And she did so without apparent awareness that any past events would all have been considered rapes because the girl would have been under the age of 14.

Quote:

What Are Rape Shield Laws?

Rape shield laws expressly prohibit or limit the use of evidence of a victim's past sexual history to undermine that victim's credibility. These laws are intended to protect victims from invasions of their privacy, and to encourage them to come forward without having to fear that their sexual history will be used against them.

What Evidence Will Be Excluded?

Generally, rape shield laws will exclude any evidence that does not pertain directly to the sexual assault case at hand. This evidence can include:
◾Evidence regarding the victim's reputation: For example, rape shield laws will prevent a witness from testifying that the victim had a reputation for morally loose conduct.
◾Evidence of past sexual behavior not related to the rape accusation at hand: For example, the number of a victim's sexual partners usually cannot be brought in as evidence under the rape shield laws.
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/rape-shield-laws.html

Since when does a 14 year olds past sexual history mean she ""wasn't the victim she claimed to be"--particularly in a case where the defendant has admitted he committed a rape. The girl is most definitely a rape victim, under the laws that judge is bound to uphold. That judge's quite ill-considered comments are definitely the sort of thing that sends a terrible message to the public, and they might well discourage other victims of sexual assault/rape from coming forward.

Unfortunately, the judge was quite wrong when she described the defendant as being, "not your typical sex offender." He is quite typical of the type of adult sex offender who commits an acquaintance rape--he admitted that he proceeded over her objections to stop, and he admitted that to the police in his written confession. That's the definition of rape, and he admitted to it, and he pled guilty to the charge. His non-consensual sex with the victim, over her protestations and entreaties to stop, is not only "typical"--it's what defines the act as rape, quite beyond the fact of the 14 year old minor's age, and his adult status as an 18 year old, at the time the rape occurred.

While I am quite interested in hearing if a new judge will change the sentencing requirements in this case, I'm also interested in seeing whether any actions will be taken against Judge Howard for her ignorant, clearly biased, damaging, and possibly illegal, comments regarding the defendant.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

As I said...

The more you try to rationalize your inappropriate interactions with those children, the worse you sound. You're too stupid to know when to shut up..

2 Replies

I'd really like to move on, and away from the topic of BillRM's questionable interactions with children. So I'm re-posting this again. How judges are handling these cases should be of concern to everyone.

I really hope the judge in this case, who has now recused herself, winds up being strongly sanctioned for her outrageous comments. Someone like this shouldn't be sitting on the bench and trying sex crimes.

Quote:

Judge under fire for rape sentence, implying victim was promiscuous
By Nick Valencia, CNN
May 5, 2014

(CNN) -- She could have sentenced him to 20 years in prison after he admitted to raping a 14-year-old girl in her high school.

Instead, a Texas judge gave the defendant a 45-day sentence and probation after implying that the victim was promiscuous.

Judge Jeanine Howard told The Dallas Morning News that she based the sentence, in part, on medical records indicating that the girl had had three sexual partners and had given birth.

She told the newspaper that the victim "wasn't the victim she claimed to be" and said the defendant, 20-year-old Sir Young, "is not your typical sex offender."

Critics fear the decision could discourage other victims from reporting rapes.

"We're certainly concerned about the message that's being sent to victims of sexual assault," said Andrea Moseley, chief prosecutor for the Dallas County District Attorney's Office.

"We expect that our victims will be protected and that their reputations will be protected and that they will feel safe in coming forward and reporting these crimes."

But it wasn't just the sentence that drew criticism; it was the type of community service Young was also sentenced to.

Young, who was a schoolmate of the victim's when the rape occurred in 2011, was ordered to serve 250 hours of community service at a rape crisis center. The center later said he was not welcome there.

"Just having a criminal defendant in the office could be a triggering affect for many of our clients," Bobbie Villareal, director of the Dallas Rape Crisis Center, told CNN affiliate WFAA. "It's just not appropriate."

Young's defense attorney, Scottie Allen, told CNN's "New Day" on Monday that he felt the sentence was "fair and appropriate" given the circumstances, and he agreed with Howard that his client wasn't a normal sex offender.

"What we have here is an 18-year-old high school student who was very talented, very gifted," Allen said, adding that Young had scholarship offers from a "couple of universities."

Allen further claimed that the victim had agreed to have sex with Young, just not on campus, and "upon making this bad judgment, he admitted that he proceeded over her objections to stop, and he admitted that to the police."

"We don't think that he qualifies as your typical sex offender. This is not somebody who has preyed on some young kids or unsuspecting people."

HLN reached out to the judge for comment, but she has recused herself from the case.

A new judge will oversee the case moving forward, including a motion filed by prosecutors to add more restrictive requirements to Young's probation....

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/05/justice/texas-rape-sentence/

I have no problem with a sentence of probation, but the judge in this case failed to include the sex offender requirements--mandatory registration and treatment--which are standard in such cases to help protect the community, help to provide rehabilitation, and help to deter re-offense.

And, in mentioning anything about the 14 year old victim's past sexual history, the judge appears to have clearly violated rape shield laws--the judge, in her statements, introduced unsubstantiated information about the victim's past sexual history, not at all relevant to this case, which would be needlessly damaging to the girl's reputation. And she did so without apparent awareness that any past events would all have been considered rapes because the girl would have been under the age of 14.

Quote:

What Are Rape Shield Laws?

Rape shield laws expressly prohibit or limit the use of evidence of a victim's past sexual history to undermine that victim's credibility. These laws are intended to protect victims from invasions of their privacy, and to encourage them to come forward without having to fear that their sexual history will be used against them.

What Evidence Will Be Excluded?

Generally, rape shield laws will exclude any evidence that does not pertain directly to the sexual assault case at hand. This evidence can include:
◾Evidence regarding the victim's reputation: For example, rape shield laws will prevent a witness from testifying that the victim had a reputation for morally loose conduct.
◾Evidence of past sexual behavior not related to the rape accusation at hand: For example, the number of a victim's sexual partners usually cannot be brought in as evidence under the rape shield laws.
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/rape-shield-laws.html

Since when does a 14 year olds past sexual history mean she ""wasn't the victim she claimed to be"--particularly in a case where the defendant has admitted he committed a rape. The girl is most definitely a rape victim, under the laws that judge is bound to uphold. That judge's quite ill-considered comments are definitely the sort of thing that sends a terrible message to the public, and they might well discourage other victims of sexual assault/rape from coming forward.

Unfortunately, the judge was quite wrong when she described the defendant as being, "not your typical sex offender." He is quite typical of the type of sex offender who commits an acquaintance rape--he admitted that he proceeded over her objections to stop, and he admitted that to the police in his written confession. That's the definition of rape, and he admitted to it, and he pled guilty to the charge. His non-consensual sex with the victim, over her protestations and entreaties to stop, is not only "typical"--it's what defines the act as rape, quite beyond the fact of the 14 year old's age.

While I am quite interested in hearing if a new judge will change the sentencing requirements, I'm also interested in seeing whether any actions will be taken against Judge Howard for her ignorant, clearly biased, damaging, and possibly illegal, comments regarding the victim.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Sorry my friend but trying to find homes for kittens by sitting in the park and being willing to talk to anyone and when it came to children telling them they would need to have their parents come over to adopt a kitten is not inappropriate in any manner any more then sitting on a bench and allowing children to pet my dogs in a dog park if they care to.

If some parents had a problem/concern they could had check me out themselves or told their own children not to come over to me.

Zero wrong with trying to find homes for kittens in a park next to my home and I would had been happier if only adults or adults and children would had come to me as once more I would never hand over a kitten to a child without a parent approval.

Only evil minded people like you and Izzy would think that anyone drawing that amount of attention to himself would desire to harm children or be hunting children instead of trying to save the lives of kittens from having short and ugly lives

Second if it had been the animal friendly park so the excuse I was given could not be used I would never had let at all over whatever evilness might be in someone else mind should be their problem not mine.

Neither my wife or myself had grown up in a society that tend to view all males as likely child molesters and or rapists and I see no reason to allow you and people like you to dictate my acting as if your views of men are reasonable in any way or in any manner.

My wife and I should not need to take your fears and view of men into account when it come to our actions.

footnote my wife that day stated that when she needed to find homes for her dog Muffin puppies she had her two daughters take them over to a park next to a high end hotel and offer them to any well dress person and the girls was able to adopt all of the puppies out.

Seem like a good idea to me that I used the park next door in the same manner and neither of us however took into account evil minded people like you and we should not needed to do so either.

0 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

As I said...

The more you try to rationalize your inappropriate interactions with those children, the worse you sound. You're too stupid to know when to shut up..

He had more than enough rope long long ago. While BillRM's opinions can be quite disturbing when he's talking about hypothetical wronged men and manipulative women/children, it's quite something else entirely to see his unequivocal support for convicted paedophile Max Clifford.

What Max Clifford did to those children was disgusting and that was compounded by the may he dismissed and taunted them during the trial. He hasn't shown an ounce of remorse whatsoever. Living in America you may not have realised how powerful he was. His relationship with the tabloid media meant he could get about any story he wanted printed. Cross Max Clifford at your peril. Journalist Louis Theroux, did a fly on the wall documentary about him. This was not an expose or investigation by any means, it was done with Clifford's permission and was a man behind the headlines, day in the life sort of thing. Half way through filming stories about Theroux started appearing in the mirror, more scurrilous than anything else, but they were a clear warning by Clifford about just how powerful he was.

That's the man BillRM is rooting for.

1 Reply

Quote:

Arizona teen a 'serial rapist' who victimized 18 girls, sheriff says
Paresh Dave
May 2, 2014

An 18-year-old high school student in Arizona has been arrested on suspicion of sexually assaulting at least 10 and as many as 18 high school girls, and authorities continued to plead Friday for any additional victims to come forward.

Tyler Kost was being held without bond after being arrested late Thursday. In court documents and statements, the Pinal County Sheriff’s department has described Kost as a “serial rapist” who impregnated a 15-year-old and allegedly threatened to shoot in the head each girl who rejected his sexual advances.

His three-plus years of suspected escapades appeared to be well-known around school, and some of the assaults allegedly involved girls whom Kost was dating.

Girls and their family members accused Kost of using texting, Facebook and other messaging apps, including Snapchat and Kik, to befriend girls, invite them on dates and then kiss them before growing rougher. The assaults are suspected to have taken place in his San Tan Valley bedroom, girls’ bedrooms and in public spaces, such as parks and parking lots.

"He was, from all of the accounts of the victims, somebody who was highly manipulative, very charismatic and charming,” Sheriff Paul Babeau said at a press conference Friday.

Kost's attorney, Joey Hamby, declined to comment. But in court Friday, he unsuccessfully sought a gag order to prevent the sheriff from making what he said were damaging statements about Kost before the case was even brought before a judge.

Florence Unified School District officials told reporters that Kost had been taking classes online since February after he reported that girls at the school were bullying him.

The sheriff's investigation began in late March when a male tipster reported several of the suspected assaults after hearing from one of the victims. Deputies spent April tracking down victim after victim, coming up with 13 by Monday and then an additional five after the case against Kost was publicly announced.

Last October at the age of 17, authorities said, Kost is suspected of raping a 15-year-old girl in a park after the Poston Butte High School homecoming dance. The girl told police she ran home crying when a passing car startled Kost and allowed her to escape. When she learned she was pregnant, police said, she confronted Kost. He threatened to smear her reputation if she underwent an abortion, she told investigators.

All of the victims' names are redacted in court documents provided by the sheriff’s department.

In November 2012, a girl was on a first date with Kost at his family’s home and told police that the teen raped her despite her physical and verbal demands that he stop. He briefly stopped when a younger sibling walked in on them, according to the court documents.

Kost then carried the girl downstairs and raped her again, the girl told police. She said she was manipulated and threatened into dating him for 10 months.

A similar assault took place in Kost’s family home last spring, a different victim said.

Another girl said Kost drove her deep into the desert and refused to take her back unless she had sex with him, according to the court file.

In one situation this past February, Kost is accused of chasing a girl around a parking lot. She eventually reached her car, but couldn’t roll up the manual window before Kost allegedly molested her, according to court documents.

Two rape victims were so traumatized that they left the state, the sheriff said. One of them required hospitalization following a suicide attempt, deputies said.

Kost was initially arrested Monday, but posted $10,000 bond later that day. Deputies said they worked around the clock to process new tips to rearrest him and and then asked a judge to hold him without bond.

The suspected sexual assaults appear to date to at least spring 2011 and continued through last month, according to the sheriff’s account. The victims range in age from 13 to 17 years old.

So far, Kost faces seven counts of sexual conduct with a minor under the age of 15, seven counts of sexual assault, seven counts of sexual conduct with a minor, three counts of sexual abuse of someone under the age of 15 and one count of sexual abuse.

The counts stem from 10 of the 18 cases and carry a statutory minimum of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-arizona-teen-serial-rapist-18-girls-victims-police-say-20140502,0,1385344.story#ixzz30s6wlvmM

0 Replies

From your last two posts.
Maybe our culture is changing; by small degrees.

1 Reply

@panzade,

Can you elaborate on what you mean?

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, and I'm interested in your opinions.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

convicted paedophile Max Clifford.

First it is my understanding that the women/girls involved was in the late teens age range and so he would not be a paedophile as that term apply to children that are prepubescent not fully sexually mature.

Quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger

Second I have no problem if he had sex with underage girls/women being punished for doing so I just think that the method as I understand was used of mass interviews/screening of women over a three or so decades time frame who the police reached out to instead of the other way around.

If the police had for example taken the whole female patients list of a doctor at random for over thirty years of his career the odds seems not small that a few of those women might go along with what the police was looking for an agree that he had misbehavior toward them in a sexual manner whether he had or have not.

From the story as I understand it the police methods/processes in this case have problems of that nature along with bringing such charges after such a time period would made it damn hard fro anyone to challenge any details of the charges to defend oneself by proving for example he was not where his accuser claimed he was.

Saying any of the above is not in fact supporting Max Clifford it just having some concerns with a case I had yet to do any real research about.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

You can play around with words as much as you want, but Max Clifford is a convicted paedophile.

To argue that Clifford is not a paedophile because the girl he assaulted in a hot tub was the ripe old age of 12 and not 11, is beneath contempt.

The fact that you play about with words like that shows how your mind works, and validates everything FF and I have posted about you.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

To argue that Clifford is not a paedophile because the girl he assaulted in a hot tub was the ripe old age of 12 and not 11, is beneath contempt.

12? are you referring to some event that was supposed to had happen in Spain that the English judge stated he think Clifford is guilty of during sentencing however he was not convicted of either under UK laws or Spanish laws?

The youngest girl he was convicted of having sex with I think was 15 years old at the time and the others ran older up to just short of 18 years old.

If any of the above is wrong please let me know.

Oh speaking of being beneath contempt how the EU nations had deal with the Roman Polanski case would be cover by those terms.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

You are sick, the judge took it into account because it happened. The reason Clifford was not prosecuted for it, was due to a legal technicality, down to the court's jurisdiction and nothing else.

What you're saying is that you find it morally acceptable for a powerful man like Clifford to rape a 12 yr old girl, as long as he has the lawyers to make sure he dodges it on a technicality. In your world what is right is what you can get away with.

You are beneath contempt.

Polanski is not under British jurisdiction, and is irrelevant. You're trying to change the subject now people can see you for what you are.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

You are sick, the judge took it into account because it happened.

Sick so person does not need to be found guilt of a crime before a UK court will consider it in sentencing?

I frankly was surprise that a UK judge would refer to crime he was not charge less alone found guilt of.

In the US, if a judge did that the government would likely need to do all the trial over again as it would be consider serous misconduct by the judge.

Next Polanski does not come and go into and out of the UK as he see fit without fear he well end up on a plane to the US?

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

You are sick, the judge took it into account because it happened. The reason Clifford was not prosecuted for it, was due to a legal technicality, down to the court's jurisdiction and nothing else.

this is the sort of thing I am talking about when I say that we have lost all comprehension of what justice is.....if the individual never sat in the judgement of a court then he can not be judged to be guilty. there has to be a process which is followed and which concludes that something happened, and we civilized people believe that the accused must get the chance to defend himself against the charges before any state says that he is guilty. We have seen in the DSK and Zimmerman cases that too often judges are not up to doing their jobs correctly, which is even more disturbing than all of the prosecutorial misconduct that we see, because the judge is the last human to stand between the citizen and his abuse by the state.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

I say that we have lost all comprehension of what justice is

We have, the judge should have been able to try him under today's laws and send him away for life.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Quote:
I say that we have lost all comprehension of what justice is

We have, the judge should have been able to try him under today's laws and send him away for life.

so if you buy a car today can the seller come back and charge you more three years from now because the price has gone up? Of course not, because this would not be fair, you would never know how much the car is going to cost you.

You may or may not be a smart fellow, but your brain continually short circuits due to your being overly emotional. We see it here again, you are desperate for a guy to fry so you are willing to violate all logic to get to the conclusion that you want.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

too often judges are not up to doing their jobs correctly, which is even more disturbing than all of the prosecutorial misconduct that we see, because the judge is the last human between the citizen and his abuse by the state.

So where is your outrage at that Texas judge who declared that the 14 year old victim of an admitted, and convicted, rapist “wasn’t the victim she claimed to be,” thereby casting doubt on the victim's credibility, and further slamming the victim's reputation by asserting she had a history of promiscuity?

Is this the treatment rape victims deserve?

And there is no issue the girl was raped--testimony by both the victim and the defendant acknowledged that the sexual assault took place despite the girl's repeatedly saying, "no" and "stop"--and the defendant, who entered a guilty plea, admitted to this in his signed confession.

Where is your outrage when rape victims are abused by judges? Where is your outrage at this Texas judge's clear misconduct?

You're full of hot air, but your lack of consistent moral convictions shows just what a phony you are when it comes to having any real principles.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

Where is your outrage when rape victims are abused by judges? Where is your outrage at this Texas judge's clear misconduct?

I am not familiar with that case. I am however rather confident that the shoddy work of those in the justice system works against all parties eventually, and that the finger on the scale does not always fall on the same side in every mis-processed case.

1 Reply

Hey, Can A Woman "Ask To Get Raped"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know