Man sentenced to life in prison for sex with 13 year old

I guess Biden should be in prison then?

 

I guess you have something more substantial than a photo of him comforting his grandson at his son’s funeral?
I do wonder about the people making these allegations given how often this gaslighting has turned be an attempt at distraction

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...hecking-pedophilia-attacks-against-joe-biden/

 

How about video of him pinching the breasts of a little girl, her pulling away in discomfort and looking distraught and then confirming what we had all suspected later on, on social media?

Does that do the job?

https://trendingpolitics.com/rememb...grown-up-says-biden-pinched-her-nipple-crugg/

Before you try and deny her claims be careful. Remember we are to "believe all women" right? Dude straight up groped a small girl, she recoiled and then admitted to the groping later on.

I look forward to whatever bar you lower the standard of groping too to allow/excuse Joe Biden's tendencies.

Should be fun!

 

So??
Did they identify the factors underpinning this? Does it excuse the man who raped this child?

Now there is a vast difference between two 13 year olds experimenting and an older male grooming a 13 year old online before having sex with them. The difference is in the power ratio. Two 13 year old have similar psychological power profiles but a 13 and a 30 year old have a power imbalance.

I do wonder about the limitations of your quoted study as there could have been some bias in relation to the type of question and the context in which the questions were asked. Although this was a “national study” I cannot see where it was peer reviewed. Envelope the data in Guttmacher has a caveat

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/american-teens-sexual-and-reproductive-health

 

Your source is very very questionable

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/trending-politics/

And the person themselves has withdrawn the allegation. Meanwhile Trump was accused of raping a 13 year old whilst on his “best buddy’s” island. So if you want to drag politics into this we will do a comparison

 

Oh this is rich. Get ready to be torn down! I'll do it in list form;

1) You have your own eyes to watch Joe's hands make a pinching motion. Maybe your own eyes are questionable?
2) Then you have to discount her immediate reaction to recoil away from Joe's hands...which I mean, OF COURSE you would. Maybe she recoiled because she saw a bee? LOL But then why did she try immediately to pull away from Joe? Why is there a clear look of distress on her face?
3) Now you would have to question the source because nobody, BUT NOBODY is allowed to post anything negative towards dear ole Joe! Unfortunately the screenshots of her statement don't lie. Maybe it's an elaborate photoshop of someone taking a picture of a screengrab? Hahaha. No. And then there is the matter of the video which I mean...it's right there. I can see it. I'm sure you can see it. Maybe they are paid actors? LOL.
4) You think she retracted her statement? LOL that's amazing! No. She didn't. She merely deleted the post. Probably do to some pressure from her parents. Which makes this look even worse, because now you have a minor who's admitted to being groped by the president, stated that everyone would get mad at her if she brought it up...and then whom deletes her statement. She's been silenced. Which is disgusting because her truth is inconvienant...doesn't mean it didn't happen.
5) Trump is gone. He's been voted out. Whataboutism is not going to save you here, fella.
6) We are suppose to believe all women. Biden's own words, remember? Oh wait..."believe all women unless it's against me"? Is that how that works?

What we now have here is a minor who was groped on video by the current President who stated that she doesn't talk about it because people would get mad, and then she deletes her post because she's being silenced. If this were ANYONE on the right you would be all over this as it sounds really disgusting to see a minor admit to being groped and then immediately deleting that admission. That's incredibly concerning.

Oh what a web we weave...

I mean at this point you could maybe suggest that it was accidental? LOL That somehow the current President's right hand got away from his control around a minor? LOL Wait a second. That doesn't sound that good either...

 

Homosexuals tell us they can not be rehabilitated.

 

Just my honest opinion here, but you're all being insane, biased and illogical here.

And what exactly is your point, Bowerbird?

Yes, the law in that state does allow the judge to sentence the offender to life in prison, but that does not mean the law is right or fair.

Just because it can be defined as "child molestation" under the law, does not mean it actually is.

I would argue the state law is clearly flawed here, as far as it used the term "child molestation" to apply to an otherwise consensual act just because it involved an anal form of sex.

Please, Bowerbird, tell us exactly what your point was here? How does this bolster your argument in any way?
Yes, it was "legal", but that doesn't mean this punishment was right, and not insane.

 

Look, Matthewthf. I respect you as a poster, from your record of posts in other threads.
However, isn't this a totally disingenuous comment you are making here, since no rape was involved here? What part of that are you having trouble understanding?
"Statutory rape" is not the same thing as "rape", and the two are very different.

To just conflate the two together is classified under the equivocation fallacy in logic.

Using the word "rape" to refer to what happened here is very dishonest and disingenuous. Can you agree with that?


Just to emphasize again: The child was a teen, the child went on a gay dating app which is how the man met him, the child sent the man a picture of his genitals before the meeting.
The background details of the situation point to the sex being consensual (if it can be considered possible for a child of that age to consent).

 

What happened here was not exactly "molestation" in the usual sense.

The child was 13 years old.

Yes, some analogy can be made between this situation and molestation, and maybe someone could claim this does lie somewhere on the spectrum of molestation, but it's very close to the edge. If traditional molestation involves a man forcing himself on a 5 year old who's too young to know what's happening, then this is only 2 percent of that.

I think we can all infer that by 13 years old a child certainly already has some idea of what sex is and some great degree of mental consent is already there, if not legally.

And if this was an African American child, half these boys in these neighborhoods are already going out having sex by that age. That is another not completely insignificant factor that should be taken into account.


You might argue this man is likely to continue to have the same problem and do the same thing again and again, but this is still wrong. The level of punishment does not fit the crime.

The article does not give the details of his previous crime but I think we can infer the child in that situation may have been older than 13, since this man only spent 11 years in prison for that crime compared to being sentenced to life for this crime.

This was not a case of a perpetrator forcing himself on to someone else. It was not rape. It was a case of what is referred to as "statutory rape".
Calling it "molestation" is mostly absurd. The child was already a teen.
"Molestation" implies the child is younger and doesn't have the mental capacity to understand what's going on or resist.

 

A 13 year old boy is not exactly a "little child".

Especially if this had been a Black boy, which tend to physiologically develop 2 or 3 years faster than Caucasians, at least in terms of body growth and sexual development.

A long time ago there used to be a 13 year old girl who lived on my street who (by several indicators) was a total slut and was hooking up with lots of boys 15 and 16 years old. She was a Hispanic girl, dressing in excessively slutty clothing for her age and playing loud music that involved obviously slutty lyrics that described sex acts. Her family, due to their culture, seemed to regard that as normal.

Maybe, but you can't just dismiss it as there being no truth to that.
Do we just ignore logic and reality just because a fact may be inconveniently "racist"?
Especially when we are talking about a matter of a person sentenced to life in prison who maybe shouldn't have been?
I think you owe it to this man to face the truth and not let your bias get in the way of your judgement.

 

I personally suspect it has a lot more to do with genetic factors than economic factors, but that would be a separate discussion.

 

A 13 year old doesn't send a picture of his penis to a man on a gay dating app unless he wants to have sex with him.
Especially since the older man had already sent a picture of his face before the teen chose to send the picture.

(And look, I'd have a very different opinion on this if the older man had sent a fake picture and been deceptive, which was the case in this story: "Trans" Tinder date stomped to death , where I argued that the older perpetrator got what he deserved, despite all the arguments from everyone else)

 

All of those cities have very high black or hispanic populations.

 

If it could be demonstrated that perhaps he didn't know how young the child was, I would agree this is overly severe. That doesn't seem to be the case tho. He's established himself as a repeat deliberate sexual predator of children and needs to be forcibly kept away from them.

I do think it would be preferable if there was a community where people like this, who arent really a threat to anyone but children, could live out their lives in an otherwise relatively normal manner but away from children. But one way or another, society has an obligation to protect children from people like this.

 

That's not the point. Yes, it's possible (especially if the child was African American) the man might have thought the child was 15 or 16, but he still must have known the child was underage.

But you seem to be unnecessarily trying to make this a black or white thing (no pun intended). Your logic seems to be if it was against the law, you have no sympathy whatsoever to the man and don't care if he gets life in prison.
That's just not logical.

You can still believe this man should face prison time while at the same time believing a sentence of life in prison is unjust and totally insane.

I just don't understand the insanity of those who believe "he deserves life in prison because it was illegal and should be illegal".

 

Yes, but again, you seem to be using an equivocation fallacy there in your thinking.

That means you translate details into a label, and then carry that label away to justify something else in your thinking, even though the exact original meaning you used to assign that label has been lost.

It's a totally obvious logicaly fallacy. I can't believe so many of you could be this stupid. I have to instead believe it's a case of unconscious bias.

 

By which comment, you are suggesting that you believe that this does not ring true, among poor whites (who were certainly still a big part of the sampling)?

 

Well, I suspect it is more true among poorer white segments among the population, but mostly associated with poorer racial minorities. It might be about half and half.
Probably if you looked at the statistics, race would show a little bit more of a correlating factor than socioeconomics when looking within a random population sample of the same race.

The original point was that this was likely not just some totally "innocent" little child.

 

Your defense of a child rapist is noted. Especially repugnant is saying it's OK because black kids look older.

It is rape because young children can be co-erced , they haven't the maturity to judge their own actions ot the actions of others...

....they are CHILDREN, ya know those PRECIOUS LIVES that you so desperately want to protect BEFORE BIRTH...

BUT NOT AFTER.

 

You're just being intellectually dishonest.

There was no rape.

I'm not wasting time arguing with your intentional obtuseness.

 

Probably if there were any statistics, to confirm your speculation, it would make it seem less arbitrary & racist, if YOU looked up, & cited them.

If this brief side-topic, between Joesnagg & myself, does not apply to your original point, such that you chose to stress that fact, one can't help but wonder why you ventured to theorize about it, at all.

 

LOL, says the guy supporting child rapists !!!!!!!

Better talk to an attorney...if you've got PLANS!!!!!!!!

The Kitchen got a little too hot ???? IT SHOULD !!!!


Here's the rest of my post you DODGED:

. Especially repugnant is saying it's OK because black kids look older.

It is rape because young children can be co-erced , they haven't the maturity to judge their own actions ot the actions of others...

....they are CHILDREN, ya know those PRECIOUS LIVES that you so desperately want to protect BEFORE BIRTH...

BUT NOT AFTER.

 

He was a minor. Minors can't give consent correct?

 

It depends exactly how the word consent is being used.

The point is this was not rape. It is more like what is known as statutory rape, due to age difference.
No doubt you will agree there is a huge huge distinction and difference between the two?