Confessed child rapist gets 30 days in jail

posted at 8:01 am on August 28, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

How does this even happen in America?

A Yellowstone County district judge Monday ordered a former Senior High teacher convicted of raping a 14-year-old female student who later committed suicide to spend 30 days in jail.

Judge G. Todd Baugh sentenced Stacey Dean Rambold to 15 years in prison, with all but 31 days suspended, for sexual intercourse without consent.

Rambold, 54, will be given credit for one day already served. He was handcuffed and led to jail at the close of the hearing.

Reading further into the story, it simply gets more infuriating. The county attorney had asked the judge for 20 years with 10 years suspended. The girl’s mother most certainly wanted something serious done. But this looks like the judge took things in his own hands and essentially gave Rambold what amounts to a slap on the wrist. Yes, he’ll be on the sex offender registry for life and probably have terms of probation to follow, but this is ludicrous.

But the story started a lot earlier than this. The rape of the child happened in 2008, but as early as 2004 the school had already issued a warning to Rambold to “avoid touching or being alone with female students” so they knew something was up. Then, after his initial arrest for the rape and pleading guilty to a felony count arising from the case

Rambold was placed on paid leave in April of that year and resigned from his teaching job three months later. He also surrendered his teaching certificate.

(Emphasis mine)

After confessing to it, he was placed on paid leave by the school district. And then he was allowed to “resign” his position, so he was never actually fired. After confessing to raping the child.

If that’s not enough, the girl’s subsequent suicide “caused problems for the prosecution” and the case was placed on hold for three years while he walked free. He only went to trial after flunking out of the sex offender treatment program he went into. And for the final cherry on this disgusting tale, the judge, rendering a verdict, described the 14 year old child Rambold raped as being, “as much in control of the situation” as her rapist and being, “older than her chronological age.”

What the heck is going on in Montana? Between the school district – no doubt helped by the teacher’s union – and this judge, any sense of law and order has been turned on its head. And perhaps one of the lawyers in the audience can help me out here, but given the Double Jeopardy rules, Rambold has had his day in court, been tried and received “punishment.” Doesn’t that mean that this can’t even be looked at again for a more appropriate sentence? It’s madness, I tell you.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

. Just be ready to defend, or admit the warts.

cozmo on August 28, 2013 at 4:51 PM

I would possibly give up my identity if I gave more defense, just suffice it to say that I know that some in the state were trying to get our judges to have to provide more info as far as party affiliation etc…

MontanaMmmm on August 28, 2013 at 4:56 PM

I said it wasn’t rape, and it wasn’t.

kaltes on August 28, 2013 at 4:52 PM

You don’t even have proof of that. No where in the article does it say that the teen wanted to have sex with this man.

But please let’s talk about putting words in other people’s mouths, considering you seem to be perfectly comfortable putting words in this dead girl’s mouth.

Esthier on August 28, 2013 at 4:58 PM

The kind of people these trolls go to bat for speaks volumes about the trolls.

CurtZHP on August 28, 2013 at 4:59 PM

MontanaMmmm on August 28, 2013 at 4:56 PM

Judicial elections are problems in many states.

I want the folks in Montana to remember this guy when he comes up for re-election. Much will become clear about Montana then.

cozmo on August 28, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Not exactly. It’s lumping Judaism, Christianity, and Islam together as “Abrahamic” religions, then smearing them all together.
Given the fact that Islam’s claim to be the “religion of Abraham” is a fiction at best, the term is well-nigh useless anyway.
There Goes the Neighborhood on August 28, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Yes, and another identifying character about them is – Fighting over the Ownership of God. (Sorta like you are doing in your post here.) God seems to have played a cruel joke on each of them, i.e. giving each of them a certified original of God’s word. That’s what they claim, but I find it difficult to believe that God does or would do such things.

Communists make laws that Same Sex Marriage is a civil right, even though such laws eliminate Mother Nature’s Laws, the purpose of puberty, and the conceiving, birthing and raising of children.

Abrahamists sorta do close to the same, especially when it comes to eliminating Mother Nature’s Laws and the purpose of puberty. For some reason (probably having to do with ‘Daddy’ wanting to keep his little girl longer and/or to eliminate competition for the older women?) Abrahamists like to also have BIG Gov’t force their views and beliefs on other people, like the Communists do.

Karmi on August 28, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Karmi on August 28, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Man, what a stinkin’ load of stupid.

But hey, you ain’t the stupidest rapist defender here.

cozmo on August 28, 2013 at 5:04 PM

cozmo on August 28, 2013 at 5:04 PM

Have those two always been such ass hats?

Bmore on August 28, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Sorry cozmo, Karmi and kaltes.

Bmore on August 28, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Have those two always been such ass hats?

Bmore on August 28, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Heck, I dunno’.

I have only recently become aware of either of these idiots.

cozmo on August 28, 2013 at 5:10 PM

cozmo on August 28, 2013 at 5:10 PM

I need to check my notes.

Bmore on August 28, 2013 at 5:14 PM

Hmmm, the kaltes one is there. Not the Karmi one. Time for an update it looks like. ; )

Bmore on August 28, 2013 at 5:16 PM

You don’t support the government having laws?
blink on August 28, 2013 at 5:09 PM

We have a Constitution … how many more laws do we need?

The problem with mankind laws over Mother Nature’s Laws is that the mob usually gets to make the law. Heck, there use to be a law against walking on the wrong side of a sidewalk…probably still exists.

Karmi on August 28, 2013 at 5:17 PM

Bmore on August 28, 2013 at 5:16 PM

Don’t waste much time on either one as neither one is rational.

Discussing stuff with Libfree is a breath of fresh air in comparison.

Jabberwock on August 28, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Discussing stuff with Libfree is a breath of fresh air in comparison.

Jabberwock on August 28, 2013 at 5:19 PM

That’s pretty bad when the lyin’ liberal idiot trolls make more sense than the lyin’ idiot pervert trolls.

cozmo on August 28, 2013 at 5:22 PM

Jabberwock on August 28, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Lolz! Salient advice to be sure. Its more of a book keeping thingy. ; )

Bmore on August 28, 2013 at 5:22 PM

Karmi on August 28, 2013 at 5:17 PM

You should probably be thankful for the constitution.

If we were relying on the law of nature, you would have been put out of nature’s misery by now.

cozmo on August 28, 2013 at 5:24 PM

Karmi, enlighten me as to this post on your blog please.

UPDATE: Baring any setback before closing, it looks like I will be staying in Florida – Dixie County, Florida – north of Old Town, and .7-miles from the Suwannee River’s Turner Point Landing boat ramp. Great location, i.e. its private and the area is ideal for poaching manatee – with Manatee Springs State Park nearby. Manatees are another one of the Government’s “protected species,” so poaching is best done under the cover of darkness. I will be able to leave at sunset, harpoon a manatee or two, and be back at the skinning-shed long before sunrise. My new 16’ harpoon should arrive this week:

Bmore on August 28, 2013 at 5:27 PM

You should probably be thankful for the constitution.
If we were relying on the law of nature, you would have been put out of nature’s misery by now.
cozmo on August 28, 2013 at 5:24 PM

You clearly can’t keep up…try asking or hiring someone to help you.

Karmi on August 28, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Bmore on August 28, 2013 at 5:27 PM

You spent more time there than I did.

So, other than being a pervert, he is for all kinds of breaking of laws he doesn’t care for.

cozmo on August 28, 2013 at 5:30 PM

You clearly can’t keep up…

Karmi on August 28, 2013 at 5:29 PM

You clearly are under the fantasy that you wouldn’t be taken out by your betters.

cozmo on August 28, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Bmore on August 28, 2013 at 5:27 PM

You need help reading it or understanding it?

Maybe you and cozmo can share the cost of hiring some help…

Karmi on August 28, 2013 at 5:32 PM

cozmo on August 28, 2013 at 5:30 PM

Definitely into breaking the law.

Bmore on August 28, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Karmi on August 28, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Oh I don’t know Karmi, I do okay all by my lonesome. So too cowardly a fellow to expand (flesh out) your own blog post?

Bmore on August 28, 2013 at 5:33 PM

Whats wrong Karmi? Bad connection?

Bmore on August 28, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Whats wrong Karmi? Bad connection?

Bmore on August 28, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Brain synapses ain’t firing.

That or he is surfing for kiddie stuff.

cozmo on August 28, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Definitely into breaking the law.

Bmore on August 28, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Lionizes Nugent. Nugent would skin him and grilling for the poaching he brags about.

And Nugent would do worse if Ted knew about him being okay with having sex with under age girls.

cozmo on August 28, 2013 at 5:43 PM

cozmo on August 28, 2013 at 5:41 PM

If I were him, I’d be busy yanking that crap down off his blog. DNR won’t dig it at all.

Bmore on August 28, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Of course a screen cap of it will work just as well. Say Karmi, you ever deal with the Ga. DNR?

Bmore on August 28, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Bmore on August 28, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Why? one of his fellow travelers can openly call for a race war and only get paid time off.

cozmo on August 28, 2013 at 5:48 PM

Later cozmo, gots to make/take a call. ; )

Bmore on August 28, 2013 at 5:48 PM

cozmo on August 28, 2013 at 5:48 PM

; )

Bmore on August 28, 2013 at 5:49 PM

So, other than the Constitution, you’re an anarchist of sorts? You don’t want any other laws? I don’t have a problem with this, I’m just trying to understand you.
blink on August 28, 2013 at 6:02 PM

Along with mankind laws comes the problem of punishment, e.g. why is speeding in an auto less criminal than robbing someone? Speeding drivers kill more people than armed robbers do. Why is cheating on taxes not a capital crime or close to it (GRIN)?

The Gov’t can put the IRS and DoJ onto me (and have the NSA watch my every heartbeat) and go unpunished. The Gov’t can set up huge Ponzi schemes (e.g. Social Security) and go unpunished – yet they will put the full Gov’t Force behind pressing charges on an individual’s Ponzi scheme.

These Age of Consent laws go against what is natural (can vary from 12 to 21, for example). Why not make it the Age of Menopause instead? They make a rape (Statutory Rape) where there is no rape. This case had 3 acts of intercourse (if I recall)…that is not rape. It may be Statutory Rape (because of a mankind law), but it is not rape.

Anyway, we have too many laws, that suit certain people, and the Gov’t of course.

Karmi on August 28, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Just got confirmation from my sources that this judge is an R, I will not defend ugly.

MontanaMmmm on August 28, 2013 at 6:34 PM

What laws do you support other than the Constitution?

blink on August 28, 2013 at 6:36 PM

Not many…and, it would take too long to go over here. Whatever happened to the idea of having just 10 Laws?

Karmi on August 28, 2013 at 6:45 PM

What the heck is going on in Montana?

Question.

It’s madness, I tell you.

Answer.

rukiddingme on August 28, 2013 at 6:46 PM

You lie,again.

cozmo on August 28, 2013 at 4:56 PM

A person who engages in sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 16 commits the crime of sexual intercourse without consent.

^ not rape.

Teenagers can consent all they want, it is just that some states/countries make sex with a minor a crime regardless of consent. Other states/countries don’t make it illegal at all.

kaltes on August 28, 2013 at 6:49 PM

Not many…
Karmi on August 28, 2013 at 6:45 PM

How ’bout vigilantism? You for laws against that?

Otherwise, people who are more informed on animal husbandry would want you strung up.

^ not rape.

kaltes on August 28, 2013 at 6:49 PM

Bless your heart. Cause you certainly don’t have a brain.

One of you kidiots is a sock puppet for the other.

cozmo on August 28, 2013 at 6:53 PM

Karmi on August 28, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Again with your “natural law.” I went through puberty at NINE. Had a C cup and my menstral cycle… Under your idea of natural law(and Kaltes) that made me fair game for adults to have sex with.

melle1228 on August 28, 2013 at 6:54 PM

^ not rape.

Teenagers can consent all they want, it is just that some states/countries make sex with a minor a crime regardless of consent. Other states/countries don’t make it illegal at all.

kaltes on August 28, 2013 at 6:49 PM

Please go study the adolescent brain and the consequences of that brain and teenage decision making. You are only thinking of this situation from the adult perspective. You are not thinking of it from the child’s, but what do you expect from someone who thinks screwing impressional teenagers is a right of passage..

melle1228 on August 28, 2013 at 6:57 PM

I am still curious as to what other things puberty makes a child “man”/”woman” enough to do.

Would the people advocating for legalizing sex between post-pubescent kids (regardless of age) and anyone they please also advocate for those kids to be able to stop schooling, start driving, start drinking (hopefully not at the same time), start paying bills, get jobs (including jobs involving heavy machinery or dangerous tasks), take out loans, sign contracts, etc?

If not, one might wonder about the special pleading involved in claiming a 12 year old (or younger if puberty hits early) is ready for adult sex but no other adult tasks as soon as puberty is finished.

JadeNYU on August 28, 2013 at 7:15 PM

Again with your “natural law.” I went through puberty at NINE. Had a C cup and my menstral cycle… Under your idea of natural law(and Kaltes) that made me fair game for adults to have sex with.

melle1228 on August 28, 2013 at 6:54 PM

Yeah, I had a cousin like that. She was about 9 and I was about 11-12…she lured me into the woods, had me on my back on the ground, and I had no clue what was going on even though I was going along. My about 6 year old brother came walking up and pretty much ended her ‘rape’ of me…saying that her mom was looking for her. She had to get married very young…to a much older man, since that was probably the only way to slow down her sexual appetite.

Heck, my brother probably saved me from being charged with Statutory Rape!

Karmi on August 28, 2013 at 7:17 PM

JadeNYU on August 28, 2013 at 7:15 PM

They only care about the sex.

cozmo on August 28, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Karmi on August 28, 2013 at 7:17 PM

So Karmi, lets get back to the taking of illegal game. Eagles, Hawks and such okay to take in your rulebook?

Bmore on August 28, 2013 at 7:22 PM

Karmi on August 28, 2013 at 7:17 PM

If that is a true story and I struggle with the IF- a sexualized nine year old is highly indicative of molestation. Why am I not surprised given your penchant for justifying adult/child sex that a nine year old in your family may have been molested at a young age?

I had no desire for sex at nine despite my “sexual maturity” at that age, but I also had parents that kept me protected and a child..

melle1228 on August 28, 2013 at 7:25 PM

No? How about this then, 14 year old boys. Okay to have sex with them?

Bmore on August 28, 2013 at 7:29 PM

cozmo on August 28, 2013 at 6:53 PM

Has to be, right?

Bmore on August 28, 2013 at 7:33 PM

Has to be, right?

Bmore on August 28, 2013 at 7:33 PM

Either that or there are two like minded perverts here.

cozmo on August 28, 2013 at 7:40 PM

melle1228 on August 28, 2013 at 7:25 PM

Sounds like you’re holding out and/or holding back, imo.

Karmi on August 28, 2013 at 7:59 PM

I don’t care if she wanted sex with teacher or not. If she were my child, then teacher would have never lived to see a trial. Too bad her mama didn’t think the same way.

TXJenny on August 28, 2013 at 8:02 PM

Sounds like you’re holding out and/or holding back, imo.

Karmi on August 28, 2013 at 7:59 PM

How so?

melle1228 on August 28, 2013 at 8:03 PM

Even so, you assume hypocrisy because you assume that homosexuality is equivalent to the norm. It would be truly madness to see a case of rape and assume that being heterosexual like 99% of all men was sufficient evidence to assume a heterosexual male was more likely to be a rapist.

In fact, the population of heterosexual males is so much bigger than the population of homosexual males that “male” is virtually synonymous with “heterosexual male.”

By contrast, “homosexual male” is a very small group. It is logically a much shorter leap to assume that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia. Even if the conclusion is not in fact valid.

If that sounds vague, let’s try an example. Let’s say we happened to look at 500 cases of pedophilia, of which 100 were homosexual. That would mean that there were 4 times as many heterosexual pedophile instances as homosexual. That would make it seem unusual to find a link between homosexuality and pedophilia.

But if there are 20 times as many heterosexual males as homosexuals, then when you adjust for the population, a homosexual male would be 5 times as likely as a heterosexual male to engage in pedophilia.

These are made-up numbers, so I’m not trying to prove a conclusion. I’m just pointing out that the tiny population group of homosexuals as compared to heterosexuals almost guarantees that the bulk of pedophile cases you hear about should be heterosexual. You could easily have 4 times as many heterosexual incidents even if homosexuals were 5 times as likely to be pedophiles.

What the actual proportions are, of course, are very hard to nail down. We can’t even identify whether homosexuals are about 1% of the population, or 3%, or 5%.

There Goes the Neighborhood on August 28, 2013 at 3:49 PM

You have to realize, it’s not easy to get an accurate count of what percentage of the population is homosexual. Some gays are “out and proud”, while some live their whole lives “in the closet”, and most gays are somewhere between them. That’s just it…you admit your numbers are “made up”, and although I know what you’re trying to say, it’s probably not close to accurate.

Again, getting a factual percentage of gays in the general population is difficult. But I can tell you with a high level of certainty that it’s far more than 1%. I would venture an educated guess would be 8%-10%…but again, that’s hard to prove. And there’s nothing I’ve seen to even suggest gays are more likely to be pedos and/or actually sexually abuse a minor than heteros…that’s something I’d love to see a source for.

JetBoy on August 28, 2013 at 8:54 PM

A 14 year old who chooses to have sex with someone grandpa age is probably acting out the damage she already has. You think she was some pure innocent babe in the woods until some evil teacher preyed on her? Please. If it wasn’t him, she would have just picked some other grandpa to act out with. There are no shortage of them willing to have sex with a 14 year old.

kaltes on August 28, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Blame the victim for “asking for it”? Dear gawd.

I still love you. Sometimes you have to remember that in real life; most people are relatively good and will judge by the individual and not the group. It is easy to pigeon hole an anonymous person you don’t know; not so easy to do when you know that person.

melle1228 on August 28, 2013 at 3:15 PM

And I….will always….love yoooouuuu :)

JetBoy on August 28, 2013 at 9:02 PM

I’m just trying to understand you.

blink on August 28, 2013 at 6:02 PM

It’s called malignant narcissism. We used to have a troll around here named Dante who had it spades.

CurtZHP on August 28, 2013 at 9:40 PM

Karmi on August 28, 2013 at 7:17 PM

kaltes has a cousin?

whatcat on August 28, 2013 at 10:13 PM

Karmi, you back? Cause I’m here.

Bmore on August 28, 2013 at 10:38 PM

Poor, poor Karmi. Can dish it, can’t take it. Say did the manatees harass you too coward?

Bmore on August 28, 2013 at 10:53 PM

“My thought was, given the relatively minor violations in the sex offender treatment program, it didn’t seem appropriate to put him in jail, put him in prison” for a longer time, Baugh said. “It didn’t seem to me that the violations were such that the state should be able to back out of their agreement.”

EXACTLY.

What this guy did was basically like a probation violation, and this judge treated it as such, meaning he slaps the guy with a punishment and then re-instates the deal.

The problem here is that the prosecutors and media bait-and-switched this guy. Instead of the outrage coming from the deal the prosecutors gave him, it came because this guy should supposedly do 20 years for minor bureaucratic rule breaking that some tiny tyrant in a program wanted to kick him out for. oh please.

20 years for a 1st probation violation. ANY years for that, is a ridiculous injustice. You don’t con a person with bait and switch fraud and call it justice. You have to treat everyone the same. That’s called equal protection. If you have a problem with this guy’s sentence, blame the original deal, not the judge.

fyi though, people almost never go to prison for sex with minors. it is a prohibitionary law, and perfectly legal in most countries. asking for 20 years on a law like that is absurd. you could murder someone and get less time than that. you people who think those kinds of punishments fit these crimes need to get your heads checked.

kaltes on August 29, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Again with your “natural law.” I went through puberty at NINE. Had a C cup and my menstral cycle… Under your idea of natural law(and Kaltes) that made me fair game for adults to have sex with.

melle1228 on August 28, 2013 at 6:54 PM

I love how the parade of idiots on these forums won’t stop constantly putting words in my mouth and lying about my personal beliefs.

Let me preface this by calling you a liar. I don’t believe you went “through” puberty at 9. Maybe you BEGAN puberty at 9, but finished it at 12-13. I don’t think you had a C cup at 9, and if you had one anywhere near that age, you must have been fat, not sexually developed. But even though you are a liar, there are unusual medical cases where girls have hit puberty at much lower ages than normal, so I will address those rare medical oddities:

A 9 year old is never “fair game”.

If a person’s body does not develop normally, and they develop physically at an unusually early age, then they would still be so mentally undeveloped that no adult could seriously consider it without being extremely creepy.

However, we aren’t talking about 9 year olds, we are talking about 14-17 year old post-pubescent teenagers, who are not only sexually developed and horny enough to want sex and chase after it, but who also have enough brains to know what they want. As Dave Chappelle said “Maybe 15 is old enough to know if you want to get peed on?”

The hypocrisy comes into play when you ask these anti-teenage-sex zealots what they’d do if that 15 year old had sex with another 15 year old. Then they’ll say its perfectly ok for teens to have sex with each other, but God forbid if a girl is into older men and chooses a guy 18+ as a sex partner.

I live in this place called the real world, and in the real world, the women have the power to choose who gets into their pants. That is why men have to make the 1st move, ask them out, pay on dates, and everything else. Sex happens when and where the women choose to let it happen. This is as true for a 17 year old as it is for a 50 year old.

That doesn’t mean it is always ok. If an older person takes advantage of a position of trust and responsibility, such as being a coach, teacher, babysitter, cop or something like that, or if the older person is giving the teen alcohol, drugs, or money, OR if the older person is using any means to coerce the teen in any way, then absolutely, they should go to jail. This is how the law actually works in most of europe.

Last I checked, Europe wasn’t known for being a cesspool of pedophiles and “rapists”. Neither were the majority of US states, which have a legal age of 16, not 18.

Im not advocating a particular age of consent. I think the punishments should depend on real facts, showing predatory behavior or the lack thereof. Instead the zealots now think every adult who ends up in this situation is a predator, when that just isn’t true. Some teenagers girls flat out want older men, and throw themselves at them. Men are bad at saying no to women they’re attracted to. That is why hot women do well in sales. Men in that situation shouldn’t be severely punished just because they didn’t share YOUR morality about teenagers having sex, or because they were weak and gave in.

Some defendants are true predators, some aren’t. The current system treats everyone as a predator regardless of the facts, and that is not justice.

kaltes on August 29, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Sighting Dave Chappelle? Weak. What part of the headline did you not get?

Confessed child rapist

The only person to blame in this instance is in fact the adult. Your position throughout this thread at best is murky. You keep right on rationalizing though. It suits you.

Bmore on August 29, 2013 at 3:00 PM

P.S. Abandoning a thread when it gets shit hot for you is cowardly.

Bmore on August 29, 2013 at 3:01 PM

1. consensual sex with a teen is not rape (repeating myself yet again)

2. this guy is only “confessed” because he was offered a deferred prosecution, meaning if he did some treatment program, the charge would be DISMISSED, as in NOT GUILTY. In exchange he tentatively said he was guilty on one charge so that the prosecution would have a way to punish him for not doing treatment. Had he completed the treatment, he would have been deemed not guilty on all charges.

Given the sweetheart nature of that deal, any attorney would advise a client to take it, even if they were truly innocent. The prosecution never would have offered that if they thought they had a good case.

3. I never “abandoned” the topic, whatever that means, and the idea that you fools could ever make anything “hot” for me is laughable.

kaltes on August 29, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Sure thing coward.

Bmore on August 29, 2013 at 4:07 PM

But I can tell you with a high level of certainty that it’s far more than 1%. I would venture an educated guess would be 8%-10%…

JetBoy on August 28, 2013 at 8:54 PM

Esxactly how is your guess “educated”? It’s 3%. It’s always been 3%, no matter how you personally “feel” about it. Look it up.

alwaysfiredup on August 29, 2013 at 5:18 PM

1. consensual sex with a teen is not rape

kaltes on August 29, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Yes. It is.

alwaysfiredup on August 29, 2013 at 5:19 PM

1. consensual sex with a teen is not rape

kaltes on August 29, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Yes. It is.

alwaysfiredup on August 29, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Especially when the pedophile-predator is in a position to abuse his authority, as was the rapist in this case.

whatcat on August 29, 2013 at 5:30 PM

Especially when the pedophile-predator is in a position to abuse his authority, as was the rapist in this case.

whatcat on August 29, 2013 at 5:30 PM

What age does a girl need to be for the guy to be a “pedophile-predator” rapist in your eyes?

19?
18?
17?
16?
15?
14?

Give me a number. Above that number the guy is a law-abiding citizen in good standing, below that number, “pedophile-predator” rapist. Pick.

kaltes on August 29, 2013 at 7:31 PM

kaltes on August 29, 2013 at 7:31 PM

Sorry, but since you see no difference between children and “hot women”, your thinking is royally and totally messed. You should realize by now why people don’t take you seriously and view you as “unwell”.

Men are bad at saying no to women they’re attracted to. That is why hot women do well in sales.
kaltes on August 29, 2013 at 2:18 PM

whatcat on August 29, 2013 at 8:44 PM

hahahahahahahah you couldnt answer a simple, basic question.

coward!

p.s. I didnt say teens = hot women, idiot. learn some basic logic, fool. draw a venn diagram if you pea brain can’t sort it out.

kaltes on August 30, 2013 at 2:09 AM

hahahahahahahah you couldnt answer a simple, basic question.

I guess you’ll just have to ask someone else about your thoughts on which age children are fair game to be raped. I’m really not much interested in your thoughts on it. I suspect there are forums online where you could confab with like minds and discuss the topic – if the FBI hasn’t shut them down yet.

I didnt say teens = hot women

Too easy – your equivalence based justification for child rape:

Some teenagers girls flat out want older men, and throw themselves at them. Men are bad at saying no to women they’re attracted to. That is why hot women do well in sales.
whatcat on August 29, 2013 at 8:44 PM

I hope you are getting some help. If not, seek out a doctor, clergyman or other trusted adult to discuss your issue with – you won’t regret it. Seriously.

whatcat on August 30, 2013 at 10:31 AM

What age does a girl need to be for the guy to be a “pedophile-predator” rapist in your eyes?

19?

kaltes on August 29, 2013 at 7:31 PM

I guess you’ll just have to ask someone else about your thoughts on which age children are fair game to be raped.

whatcat on August 30, 2013 at 10:31 AM

So you think a guy is a “pedophile-predator” rapist if he has consensual sex with a 19 year old. Got it. I wonder what age of partner means a guy no longer qualifies as a child-raper in your eyes. Maybe 21 and over?

Too easy – your equivalence based justification for child rape:

whatcat on August 30, 2013 at 10:31 AM

This is why I don’t like arguing with idiots. You are too stupid to form logical arguments, so inevitably any argument ends up with my having to TEACH you about how stupid you are.

1. Some teenage girls are attracted to older men (18+), and therefore seek them out for sex/relationships.

2. When a psychologically normal and healthy older man is confronted with a female he is attracted to, he has a hard time saying no to offers of sex.

3. As evidence in support of my assertion that men have a hard time saying no to women they are attracted to, I offer the well-known phenomenon that attractive/hot women do better in sales.

^
Anyone who reads that logical flow of argument and thinks “kaltes can’t tell the different between hot women and chiiildren!!!” is incredibly stupid.

Ergo, you, whatcat, are incredibly stupid.

p.s. saying “children” is a weasel-word since every human being of every age is someone’s child. Saying “children” could mean a 2 year old, or a 35 year old. You are too afraid to say “minor” because that would at least tie you to a particular age.

kaltes on August 30, 2013 at 12:48 PM

I do agree with you there. One of the biggest risks lately seems to be female teachers going after young boys. As the mom of a 14 year old boy, that scares the crap out of me. I also think there is a double standard when a female molests a boy, because there is a mistaken belief that boys can’t be victims of abuse by older women. It is sexist and dangerous.

melle1228 on August 28, 2013 at 2:31 PM

I agree. I have noticed the that it is female teachers who are going after the students and that this is happening quite frequently.

I also agree that we have to eliminate the idea that men can’t be victims of rape by older women. They can and are.

Finally, I don’t care if you are gay or straight or male or female teacher…don’t be going after your students and having sex with them. I thought that was basic knowledge but teachers of all kinds are having problems with this concept.

Conservative Samizdat on August 30, 2013 at 7:55 PM

The guy violated the judge’s orders by his actions – which nullified the deal. At that point, his suspended sentence is supposed to kick in.

blink on August 30, 2013 at 1:32 PM

You might think so, but that’s not what happens in real life. People never get the book thrown at them on their first violation, unless it is something really bad like a new crime. What actually happens is that the judge looks at the seriousness of the violation, and decides on a punishment, with a 1st violation being treated the least severely, and subsequent violations being more severe. Eventually if a guy keeps violating, the judge will get fed up and impose the full suspended sentence.

The reason the system works this way is that people who get probation aren’t SUPPOSED to be filling the prisons. We have the prisons for hard core criminals. I know SOME people in this forum think that having sex with minors is some horrible crime that deserves the death penalty, but when you start comparing it to other crimes, it is actually very minor. You can’t compare this stuff to the threat to the public that VIOLENT criminals pose.

kaltes on August 31, 2013 at 1:28 AM

I do agree with you there. One of the biggest risks lately seems to be female teachers going after young boys. As the mom of a 14 year old boy, that scares the crap out of me.

melle1228 on August 28, 2013 at 2:31 PM

As a former 14 year old boy, I seriously doubt your son would be at all unhappy should he fall “victim” to a hot teacher.

I also agree that we have to eliminate the idea that men can’t be victims of rape by older women. They can and are.

Conservative Samizdat on August 30, 2013 at 7:55 PM

How do these older women manage to get the guy’s dick hard while simultaneously overpowering him? If a woman manages to pull that kind of magic feat off with me, I’d say shes pretty much earned it.

Women get wet as a defensive response, not that a rapist needs her to anyway, but by definition to get raped by a woman, a man has to be able to get an erection, something which only happens when he is aroused, and women can’t generally overpower men by force.

Now if the woman comes armed with a strap-on thats a different story!

kaltes on August 31, 2013 at 1:33 AM

How do these older women manage to get the guy’s dick hard while simultaneously overpowering him? If a woman manages to pull that kind of magic feat off with me, I’d say shes pretty much earned it.

Women get wet as a defensive response, not that a rapist needs her to anyway, but by definition to get raped by a woman, a man has to be able to get an erection, something which only happens when he is aroused, and women can’t generally overpower men by force.

Now if the woman comes armed with a strap-on thats a different story!

kaltes on August 31, 2013 at 1:33 AM

The stupidity is strong in this one.

Maybe you should look up the literature on males who have been raped by females. It happens more often than people thing and the harm is just as devastating as it is when a female is raped.

Rape is when the person does not consent to the sexual act but the person does it to them anyways. So, if a guy says no to sex but she forcibly engages some sex act upon him its rape (or sexual battery).

You should know that an erection is an autonomic process. In other words, its an involuntary biological response. So, a woman could get a man to have a hard on and then rape him vaginally.

There are any number of ways that men can get erections.

And think about it. You know about “morning wood”, right? Well, if she jumped on him then and he said “no” that is rape.

If she slipped him Viagra, if he was scared (some men have an erection as a reaction to fear) … there are any number of ways of getting an erection.

Also, she could blackmail him into it. That is, not restraining but put him into a position where he could not refuse.

There have been successful prosecutions of men for rape when they have forced women working for them to have sex if they wanted to continue working for them – there’s nothing preventing the same from happening with the genders reversed.

The reality is that all of these things are done far more commonly than one might suppose simply because men aren’t going to talk about it.

And let us not forget the “inability to consent” form of rape. The most common variant is “Statutory rape”, i.e. she is much older, he is underage. He may be completely willing, but it is still rape.

Conservative Samizdat on August 31, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Not exactly. It’s lumping Judaism, Christianity, and Islam together as “Abrahamic” religions, then smearing them all together.
Given the fact that Islam’s claim to be the “religion of Abraham” is a fiction at best, the term is well-nigh useless anyway.
There Goes the Neighborhood on August 28, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Yes, and another identifying character about them is – Fighting over the Ownership of God. (Sorta like you are doing in your post here.) God seems to have played a cruel joke on each of them, i.e. giving each of them a certified original of God’s word. That’s what they claim, but I find it difficult to believe that God does or would do such things.

Communists make laws that Same Sex Marriage is a civil right, even though such laws eliminate Mother Nature’s Laws, the purpose of puberty, and the conceiving, birthing and raising of children.

Abrahamists sorta do close to the same, especially when it comes to eliminating Mother Nature’s Laws and the purpose of puberty. For some reason (probably having to do with ‘Daddy’ wanting to keep his little girl longer and/or to eliminate competition for the older women?) Abrahamists like to also have BIG Gov’t force their views and beliefs on other people, like the Communists do.

Karmi on August 28, 2013 at 5:02 PM

I wish I had stayed on this thread just to respond to this combination of ignorance, bad reasoning, and condescension.

Let’s start with what is wrong with grouping Islam, Christianity, and Judaism as “Abrahamic religions.”

The problem with doing so is that there is no real link between Islam and the religion of Abraham. This is in contrast to Judaism and Christianity.

Start with Judaism, since it came first. Judaism was built on the law given by Moses, who was of the tribe of Levi, one of Jacob’s sons. Jacob was the grandson of Abraham. The link from Abraham to Moses is clear and undeniable. Judaism, beyond question, is an Abrahamic religion.

Christianity can also be considered an Abrahamic religion, for the simple reason that Christianity is very much built on a foundation of Judaism. Jesus never even left the land of Israel during his entire ministry. All the apostles were Jewish. All the churches were Jewish. It wasn’t until Peter went to Cornelius that Jewish Christians began to consider that Gentiles could also become Christians. The growth of Gentile churches came about mostly through the ministry of Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles. And Paul’s habit every time he started a church in a Gentile city was to go first to any Jews that lived in that city to preach to them. Only then would he preach to the Gentiles.

Furthermore, Paul encouraged the churches he started to pattern themselves after the Jewish churches in Judea. It’s no coincidence that the biggest part of the Christian scriptures is the Old Testament, which are also the scriptures of the Jews.

The point of this long treatise is that there is are some very tight connections between Judaism and Christianity. Once you understand this, you can quickly see just how much Islam is a thing apart from both.

Even though Muslims nominally claim to recognize Isaiah, Moses, Jesus, Jeremiah, and others as prophets, they reject all the books written by any of these. They may say Isaiah was a prophet, a messenger, of God, but they reject his entire prophecy.

There is in fact no scripture recognized in Islam except the Koran. And while Abraham may have been a distant ancestor of Mohammed, there was no historical connection of worship handed down from Abraham to the Arabs. Essentially, Mohammed came up with his own “revelations” which often contradicted both the Jewish and Christian scriptures — and even the Muslim scriptures.

Yes, the Koran frequently contradicts itself. This is no problem for the Muslim, just as Mohammed did not consider it a problem. They simply accept that a later scripture that contradicts an earlier scripture has “abrogated” that scripture, and that’s all there is to it.

Far from being the “religion of Abraham,” as Mohammed claimed, the Koran and the hadith are full of borrowings from Persian and Hindu tales, old Jewish fables that were never considered to be scripture by the Jews, and a few tales from some of the old Gnostic sects of Christianity.

So, contrary to your condescension, you actually know nothing of the historic and doctrinal reasons why it makes no sense to assume that, as an “Abrahamic” religion, Islam would have a great deal in common with Judaism and Christianity.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 1, 2013 at 12:38 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3