Life in prison for letting a 13 year old boy touch your tits

[fr3d12]

us people? we take child abuse seriously and dont invent bullshit scenarios to excuse someone just because they're a woman



the vast majority of child abusers were abused as children. yes there should be more done to help them

but ultimately if they do not seek out help and if they proceed to pass their abuse down the line to the next generation then its time for the judicial system to punish them

There's a big difference between pedophiles who groom children for abuse through manipulation and fear etc and men who snatch children off the street and what this lady did.
It is possible her behaviour was a precursor for a more serious offense but she should not be punished just because of what she might do in the future.
The severity and disparity of the sentence is ridiculous, currently being held in an Irish prison awaiting an extradition hearing is according to the FBI the largest distributor of child porn ever, he has made millions from the abuse and torture of children and set up numerous websites on the dark web for sharing such vile images but if he is extradited and convicted of the charges against him in the US the maximum sentence he could receive is 30 years, does that seem like a fair sentence for this scumbag?

 

[karousing]

and that is why the usa, is not half.. but full retard

 

[ginjawarrior]

There's a big difference between pedophiles who groom children for abuse through manipulation and fear etc and men who snatch children off the street and what this lady did.
It is possible her behaviour was a precursor for a more serious offense but she should not be punished just because of what she might do in the future.
The severity and disparity of the sentence is ridiculous, currently being held in an Irish prison awaiting an extradition hearing is according to the FBI the largest distributor of child porn ever, he has made millions from the abuse and torture of children and set up numerous websites on the dark web for sharing such vile images but if he is extradited and convicted of the charges against him in the US the maximum sentence he could receive is 30 years, does that seem like a fair sentence for this scumbag?

A big difference really? Only difference I see is her gender and people's attitude on here

If this was just a discussion about the mandatory sentence then I wouldn't have issue

But it's "oh she's a women it's obviously not so bad bet the kid loved it"

Leaves a very bad taste in my mouth

 

[fr3d12]

The justice system in the US serves it's citizens well in cases such as murder and rape etc but like most westrn countries money talks and I know that if this lady had the means for decent attorneys the outcome would have been different.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2384773/Eric-Eoin-Marques-largest-child-porn-dealer-planet-extradited-FBI.html

 

[ginjawarrior]

and that is why the usa, is not half.. but full retard

If your trying to suggest that I'm American you would be mistaken

 

[fr3d12]

A big difference really? Only difference I see is her gender and people's attitude on here

If this was just a discussion about the mandatory sentence then I wouldn't have issue

But it's "oh she's a women it's obviously not so bad bet the kid loved it"

Leaves a very bad taste in my mouth

I never once suggested that the kid liked what happened nor did I say the sentence was disparite solely because of the offender being a woman.
She let the kid touch her breasts, breasts are not genitalia and the kid was not forced by her, yes it was wrong and she deserves to be punished but not with the taking of the rest of her live which in essence is what she got.
I fail to see how you can compare a deviant pedophile who habitually preys on children and this lady who quite possibly didn't have an agenda or realise the severity of her actions, that is no excuse but is a mitigating factor.

 

[ginjawarrior]

I never once suggested that the kid liked what happened nor did I say the sentence was disparite solely because of the offender being a woman.

while you may not have said those things they certainly are jist of thread

She let the kid touch her breasts, breasts are not genitalia

that distinction is a red herring

and the kid was not forced by her

At 13 year-old it doesn't matter if she physically forced him or if she led him onto doing it the 13 year-old part over runs all of it

yes it was wrong and she deserves to be punished but not with the taking of the rest of her live which in essence is what she got.

mandatory sentencing is wrong because she?

I fail to see how you can compare a deviant pedophile who habitually preys on children and this lady who quite possibly didn't have an agenda or realise the severity of her actions, that is no excuse but is a mitigating factor.

possibly? Possibly not a deviant paedophile? She's a woman so she might not realise?

she was an adult and as such should be treated the same as other adults (even the ones without vaginas)

 

[fr3d12]

while you may not have said those things they certainly are jist of thread

I reiterate I did not say those things nor suggested it in any way, don't put words in my mouth.

that distinction is a red herring

How is it a red herring, breasts are not genitalia, every 13 year old kid in America is desensitised to them thanks to the wonderful reality tv shows and the female celebrities who can't go for a coffee without showing them to the papparazzi.

At 13 year-old it doesn't matter if she physically forced him or if she led him onto doing it the 13 year-old part over runs all of it

Perhaps you should say that to all the parents of minors who have been charged as adults when it suited the justice system, hypocrisy is alive and well in the US.

mandatory sentencing is wrong because she?

I agree with mandatory sentencing for serious crime and I wish we had it in this country but there has to be common sense.

possibly? Possibly not a deviant paedophile? She's a woman so she might not realise?

Again you try and twist my words.

she was an adult and as such should be treated the same as other adults (even the ones without vaginas)[

All adults regardless of gender have to account for their actions and she is no different but in my opinion the sentence does not fit the crime and the point I'm trying to make is about parity in sentencing.
This case was brought to my attention by a previous post and this guy deserves life so why did he only do 2 years when he was sentenced to a paltry 10.
http://www.bustedoffenders.com/texas/decatur/sex-offenders/jimmy-david-brazile/08210119

 

[ginjawarrior]

I reiterate I did not say those things nor suggested it in any way, don't put words in my mouth.

your "the thread"? I say "

• while you may not have said those things
  
  
  ​
  
  

And I'm putting words in your mouth?

Cool story bro... when's the harrowing movie rendition of your ordeal?

How is it a red herring, breasts are not genitalia, every 13 year old kid in America is desensitised to them thanks to the wonderful reality tv shows and the female celebrities who can't go for a coffee without showing them to the papparazzi.

Who said it had to be genitalia? Breasts also aren't sailing craft yet they're frequently used for motorboating

Next time your at work go round grabbing your female workmates breasts and tell them, human resources, and the sexual harassment court that it's ok because "breasts are not genitalia"

Go on see how far you get with that one

Perhaps you should say that to all the parents of minors who have been charged as adults when it suited the justice system, hypocrisy is alive and well in the US.

Brilliant child sex abuse is ok in your mind because minors have been charged as adults.....

I agree with mandatory sentencing for serious crime and I wish we had it in this country but there has to be common sense.

child sex abuse is a serious crime

Again you try and twist my words.

No

All adults regardless of gender have to account for their actions and she is no different but in my opinion the sentence does not fit the crime and the point I'm trying to make is about parity in sentencing.
This case was brought to my attention by a previous post and this guy deserves life so why did he only do 2 years when he was sentenced to a paltry 10.
http://www.bustedoffenders.com/texas/decatur/sex-offenders/jimmy-david-brazile/08210119

As I said a few posts ago if this was a pure discussion about mandatory sentencing I would have no problem

But

 

[fr3d12]

I have no harrowing story to tell so I'll warn you once only not to get personal.

If you touch a female co-worker on the arm or back of the neck you will get done for sexual harrassment, those body parts aren't genitalia.

Child abuse is never going to be ok and again you try and twist my words.

 

[Beefbisquit]

while you may not have said those things they certainly are jist of thread
that distinction is a red herring


At 13 year-old it doesn't matter if she physically forced him or if she led him onto doing it the 13 year-old part over runs all of it
mandatory sentencing is wrong because she?

possibly? Possibly not a deviant paedophile? She's a woman so she might not realise?

she was an adult and as such should be treated the same as other adults (even the ones without vaginas)

That's not a red herring.

There is a big difference between sex (vaginal, anal, oral) and touching a tit, there are tits on TV in the day time; when have you seen a cock and balls @ 2pm on TV? It has nothing to do with the fact that the kid enjoyed it or the predator was a woman. It has to do with the severity of the crime compared to the severity of the punishment.

I think the distinction people were trying to make, is that the mental duress of the victim plays a role in how victimized the person was. A thirteen year old boy is not in control of his faculties and would probably fuck a hole in the wall if you let him. It's the responsibility of the adult to know better, and the fact that the kid liked it is of no consequence. The law was designed to protect innocent youth, however, in this particular case the vagueness of the law normally designed to protect, allowed a woman who clearly needs psychiatric help, to herself be victimized by an unjust sentence that the judge had no control over.

Any child can flip on Nat Geo channel or Discovery channel and see tits all over the place, so obviously they're not that big a deal. Women breast feed in public (rightfully so), and most people don't make a stink about it, so it seems weird to have a law that allows this type of insane punishment.

It's like if a 27 year old guy asked a 13 year old girl (that was attracted to him) if she wanted to slap his bare ass. I don't think that's a tolerable act either, but I don't think the guy should go to "fuck-me-in the-ass forever max security prison" because of it.

 

[karousing]

the reason people arent allowed to go around grabbing tits and ass are not because they are genetalia, but because it isnt right to force yourself on someone..... are you fucking retarded ginja?

you inferred some mysterious message because you are fucking retarded.

males do not have breasts... oh wait... they do... with nipples and everything, they just arent as round.

breasts are not genetalia.

while it is child abuse, it does not deserve a life sentence. are you fucking retarded?

and all you can do is retaliate with "well you support child abuse". incorrect. you are a fucking retard. held back by your own idiocy and poor comprehension skills.

 

[ginjawarrior]

I have no harrowing story to tell so I'll warn you once only not to get personal.

If you touch a female co-worker on the arm or back of the neck you will get done for sexual harrassment, those body parts aren't genitalia.

Child abuse is never going to be ok and again you try and twist my words.

That's not a red herring.

There is a big difference between sex (vaginal, anal, oral) and touching a tit, there are tits on TV in the day time; when have you seen a cock and balls @ 2pm on TV? It has nothing to do with the fact that the kid enjoyed it or the predator was a woman. It has to do with the severity of the crime compared to the severity of the punishment.

I think the distinction people were trying to make, is that the mental duress of the victim plays a role in how victimized the person was. A thirteen year old boy is not in control of his faculties and would probably fuck a hole in the wall if you let him. It's the responsibility of the adult to know better, and the fact that the kid liked it is of no consequence. The law was designed to protect innocent youth, however, in this particular case the vagueness of the law normally designed to protect, allowed a woman who clearly needs psychiatric help, to herself be victimized by an unjust sentence that the judge had no control over.

Any child can flip on Nat Geo channel or Discovery channel and see tits all over the place, so obviously they're not that big a deal. Women breast feed in public (rightfully so), and most people don't make a stink about it, so it seems weird to have a law that allows this type of insane punishment.

It's like if a 27 year old guy asked a 13 year old girl (that was attracted to him) if she wanted to slap his bare ass. I don't think that's a tolerable act either, but I don't think the guy should go to "fuck-me-in the-ass forever max security prison" because of it.

the reason people arent allowed to go around grabbing tits and ass are not because they are genetalia, but because it isnt right to force yourself on someone..... are you fucking retarded ginja?

you inferred some mysterious message because you are fucking retarded.

males do not have breasts... oh wait... they do... with nipples and everything, they just arent as round.

breasts are not genetalia.

while it is child abuse, it does not deserve a life sentence. are you fucking retarded?

and all you can do is retaliate with "well you support child abuse". incorrect. you are a fucking retard. held back by your own idiocy and poor comprehension skills.

Prosecutor Chad Thompson argued the statute calls for a 10-year minimum with a possible life sentence with the possibility of parole. Thompson, in his argument to the justices, said there was skin-to-skin contact between the boy’s hand and Taylor’s breast. He also said Taylor tried to remove the boy’s clothing and demanded he have sex with her, rather than requested it.

Taylor, who lived in Jackpot, Nev., at the time of the crime, kissed a friend’s child, forced him to touch her breast and asked him to have sex with her in February 2008.

http://magicvalley.com/news/local/article_441731b0-5a17-5b4f-8890-a70bc318ae88.html

http://elkodaily.com/news/local/supreme-court-to-decide-on-elko-appeals/article_41994a10-4778-11e1-97f7-001871e3ce6c.html


.......

 

[karousing]

I had not seen those before. thank you for linking them. i have one question though which is about the viability of evidence and what that actually means. the emboldened statement in particular. i am not not advocating child abuse as you like to infer but finding out the truth is another matter. why is the evidence not viable upon review? this is a genuine question.

Michelle Taylor
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Michelle Taylor, a Jackpot woman convicted of lewdness with a minor. The case went to the Supreme Court in mid-October, at which time Taylor’s defense argued a life sentence for “asking a boy to have sex with her” was “cruel and unusual punishment.”
Prosecutor Chad Thompson argued the statute calls for a 10-year minimum with a possible life sentence with the possibility of parole. Thompson, in his argument to the justices, said there was skin-to-skin contact between the boy’s hand and Taylor’s breast. He also said Taylor tried to remove the boy’s clothing and demanded he have sex with her, rather than requested it.
Taylor’s defense had sought a review of the evidence in the case; not a re-trial or review of sentencing. However, the viability of the evidence would have had an impact on the trial’s outcome.
According to court records, Taylor was arrested for lewdness in February 2008 after the 13-year-old boy’s mother told sheriff’s deputies that Taylor had tried to have sex with her son.

 

[Beefbisquit]

http://magicvalley.com/news/local/article_441731b0-5a17-5b4f-8890-a70bc318ae88.html

http://elkodaily.com/news/local/supreme-court-to-decide-on-elko-appeals/article_41994a10-4778-11e1-97f7-001871e3ce6c.html


.......

...and that changes everything. It wasn't just titty touching.