Re: Re:Re: [Dems2008] new dem/front for molester protection

bUT WHY.  The girl obviously led him on by making her the same age.  they are not adults but maybe the courts and the law is not necessarily the proper venue in this particular situation.  what about the parents.  As I said before, my niece I learned gave her age on a my space as 16.  The fortunate thing was her parents caught that and put the kabash on that.  but to the two people in that article, it is not really about child molestation; it is about two teens, one possibly looking for a girl friend and the other trying to find her adulthood 8 years too early.  They are both kids.  why should child molestation laws be used here since the actions were with child mentalities.

 

ed 

----- Original Message ----
From: Rob Harrington <Eamon1916@yahoo.com>
To: Dems2008@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 11:31:18 AM
Subject: Re: Re:Re: [Dems2008] new dem/front for molester protection

I agree that the laws should be equal regardless of who is the odler of the two participants...

unfortunately in most states that's not the case.  The guy is the only one who can be charged with a crime like that.

 

Slainte,

Rob Harrington

----- Original Message ----
From: Edward Hochman <whovian7_2000@Yahoo.com>
To: Dems2008@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 11:19:15 AM
Subject: Re: Re:Re: [Dems2008] new dem/front for molester protection

Let us put this one in perspective>  The 13 year old said that she was 16.  Let us now make her a sexual predator for leading the boy on.  She instigated the problem and now she should be as stuck for life with the problem as he is.  If she would have said that she was 13, that might have been an out for her but she seduced the boy. 

 

ed

----- Original Message ----
From: Rob Harrington <Eamon1916@yahoo.com>
To: Dems2008@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 10:44:50 AM
Subject: Re: Re:Re: [Dems2008] new dem/front for molester protection

I think the question is (and I'm questioning myself as to why I'm joining this fray)...

Is it fair to put a 16yr old boy who had consensual sex with his 15 yr old girlfriend in the same category as a 35yr old man who rapes at 12 yr old?  Is a 16 yr old boy who has consensual sex with his 15 yr old girlfriend a "sexual predator"?

Is it fair considering if the ages were reversed and the girl was 16 and the boy 15, nothing would happen?

 

Slainte,

Rob Harrington

----- Original Message ----
From: suzi meyers <libertylsmom@yahoo.com>
To: Dems2008@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 10:31:46 AM
Subject: Re:Re:Re: [Dems2008] new dem/front for molester protection

You do still have civil rights as dictated by the constitution, but they are controlled and lessened.  You are stripped of certain rights when you do this.  Once due process has found you guilty of certain felonys you lose it.  You can no longer bear arms which is constitutional right, yet you don't mind that one, just don't put your name on a list. That is not a constitutional right.  A person with a felony 1, for example, no longer, after that due process has found you guilty, no longer has the civil rights of the rest of us.  No more freedom and pursuit of happiness, that's for sure.  They are even stripped of the right to LIVE in some cases,   So to hell with civil rights in that case.

 

You are a gay man, no children I am assuming. 

 

Good job to criticize the use of caps.  That gives away a weakness you know?  It says you are not certain of yourself.  When all else fails, you condemn spelling, grammar, and the use of caps!!  You are certainly smart, I'll give you that.  However, you seem to lack the ability to draw a line.  Don't try to tell me what law enforcement takes an oath to protect, I know.   Are you or your partner a peace officer?   A military man?  I didn't think so.  I have wasted enough time on you.  It doesn't matter what I say, You will only see misspelled words and the like.  Your mind is already made up.  So is mine.  You need to find someone else to take up for.  Molesters and rapists are no longer deserving.  I know you would change your mind about it if you had such a horrible experience or someone you truly cared about suffered this.   As it is, I question your ability to have a clear opinion on this subject because your speaking from the point of a non victim.   Thank you also for inferring that I am crazy.  Your a true asshole.  Your mother must be so very proud!

raschueller <raschueller@yahoo.com> wrote:

--- In Dems2008@yahoogroup s.com, suzi meyers <libertylsmom@ ...> wrote:
>
> IF YOU ARE CONVICTED OF COMMITTING A FELONY YOU HAVE LOST YOUR CIVIL
RIGHTS.

No you haven't. You still have civil rights. Even Scalia recognizes
that. No matter how much you type in caps. Scalia used the issue of
branding as an example. Its clearly unconstitutional. So no you are
incorrect.

>>> Do you think all humans deserve rights including those who strip
any future away from others? Perhaps in gods eyes, but not mine.
You give up any rights you have as a human in exchange for those of a
monster when you MOLEST OR RAPE! Any of you who stand by rights of
any such monster are equally guilty.

Thats why we do not have a crazed nut serving up justice. Justice is
blind for a reason. No defending people is NOT the same as convicting
a crime. Thats the reason we have a justice system. Thats why all
those guys and gals who put on a uniform have an oath. To defend the
constitution. Part of that constitution you may love, part of it you
may hate, but the fact is you don't get to pick and choose.

>> Again, if you are convicted of committing a felony, you've given up
your civil rights. FACT. PERIOD. EXCLAFUCKINGMATION POINT! Look
it up Raschuller, it's on the books, The GD law books.

Ummm yes it is. You still have rights. Period.

For instance:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

or

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except
in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when
in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any
person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of
life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.

or

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and
district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district
shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the
witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his
defense.

So no... so sorry... but your wrong. Those rights still apply. You
know they have a nice copy of that inconvenient document if you want
to see it.

> There has to come a point when you draw a line. When you say,
there is no more I can do for you, but I can sure as HELL protect
others from you. What about the rights of the victims? What about
the right to know this person has the potential to ruin a childs
future? There is a POINT OF NO RETURN. That point is when you
victimize another person, especially a child.

Again justice is blind, and the Constitution is the document of the
land. Or wait... why not to hell with the constitution. Why don't we
just set up a nice speedy kangaroo court,,, set up the gallows, and
start swinging 'em from the trees. We can even start torturing them
for confessions. I mean they ARE guilty. It would save time and all
that inconvience of trials and appeals. Better yet lets just go for
castration. Sure a number of innocents might get caught up in it, but
is that really important. Think about all those who we will save.
OHHHHH even better! Lets use DNA profiles. there are traits that lend
themselves to this type of behavior. We find the genetic marker and
sterilize them. No way they can pass on the bad gene and it might
control him ahem I mean them. Perfect. Maybe we could build some camps
for all the deviants while they are at it. I mean sure there are a
number of adults who are engaged in consesual sex (albeit in a public
place... whispers ... gays ... cruising) of course there on our list
too. They go right into the sex offender pile. Ship them off to camps
too? Why not. Well of course since I am defending them and no better
than they are... sterilize me too? Off to the camps with me? I mean I
am no better than they are.

I bet you are the same guys who SWEAR I would never take part in a
lynching, and swear YOU would have been the one person to stand up and
so no to tyranny.

Oh well just let me know when your ready to haul me off..

>
> How about looking at it as protection from potentially homicidal
mothers like myself if you are caught touching their kids????
>

How about considering the eight years I served this country... and two
combat assignments as my payment to allow you to rant.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

__._,_.___

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___