Jump to content

Sons of Guns: Red Jacket owner charged with child molestation


Scruit
 Share

Recommended Posts

And why is it in verse? And doesn't the bible say to forgive?

 

You have a good point about Kris' verse format.  I bet he's been stewing over differences with Will Hayden for quite a while and has been biting his tongue until now.  I seriously doubt he has given much consideration to the legal ramifications of his post, and anyway comes off to me as a bit religiously arrogant (the Jehovah reference doesn't help), so I'm not surprised to see him capitalizing on the moment.  I wonder what he means by his wife's property being his?  Was Will Hayden trying to claim ownership of Stephanie and Kris' spinoff company, or was it more?  I wish I know more about the real back-story now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why is it in verse? And doesn't the bible say to forgive?

 

The verse format is weird, but whatevs.

 

If the bible says to forgive and we took that literally then we would have no prisons or courts.

Edited by Scruit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hymens are often broken at birth. You would be amazed at the % of sexually active 12yo, especially in rural, poor and southern areas. I have personally treated 5 pregnant girls 13 and under. Vaginal exam can show trauma in a brutal or forced rape, rapes of this kind are not rough, they are generally submissive thus no real trauma. Even if trauma or vaginal tearing was present there is no way to tell who or what caused it unless dna is present 

 

I don't know anything about the hymen birth stat quoted, but I've tried multiple rape cases with child victims, I have questioned sexual assault nurse examiners in court; and Todd is pretty much dead-on with regard to the lack of physical evidence.

 

To go one step further, I would wager you're all limiting your analysis of the facts to your own preconceived definitions of rape.  I'm not going to dig up Louisiana law, but Ohio's rape statute covers any "sexual contact" with another person (not one's spouse) when that contact occurs by force, threat of force, while the victim is impaired by drugs/alcohol, or under various ages.

 

Sexual contact to satisfy said offense wouldn't have to be what you're all likely picturing:

 

(A) "Sexual conduct" means vaginal intercourse between a male and female; anal intercourse, fellatio, and cunnilingus between persons regardless of sex; and, without privilege to do so, the insertion, however slight, of any part of the body or any instrument, apparatus, or other object into the vaginal or anal opening of another. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete vaginal or anal intercourse.

 

 

As for forensic evidence, unless someone is taking the victim to have a rape kit done in a reasonable amount of time after a sexual assault, there likely isn't much to go on.  Even then, it can be attacked.  Real life is a lot different than CSI.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if you have one person's word against another, who wins?  Just let the jury decide?

 

A lot of people have gone to jail for a long, long time based upon witness testimony that turned out to be lies... and a lot of people are walking the streets today only because they didn't leave any physical evidence, just a single victim/witness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if you have one person's word against another, who wins? Just let the jury decide?

A lot of people have gone to jail for a long, long time based upon witness testimony that turned out to be lies... and a lot of people are walking the streets today only because they didn't leave any physical evidence, just a single victim/witness.

99% of the time its ones word against another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if you have one person's word against another, who wins? Just let the jury decide?

A lot of people have gone to jail for a long, long time based upon witness testimony that turned out to be lies... and a lot of people are walking the streets today only because they didn't leave any physical evidence, just a single victim/witness.

99% of the time its ones word against another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if you have one person's word against another, who wins?  Just let the jury decide?

 

A lot of people have gone to jail for a long, long time based upon witness testimony that turned out to be lies... and a lot of people are walking the streets today only because they didn't leave any physical evidence, just a single victim/witness.

 

Yes, let the jury (or a judge in a bench trial) decide.

 

But it's still not as simple as you're making it out to be.  When an 11 yr old victim can give a detailed recitation of a sexual encounter, including what the perp's preferences are, where the incident(s) take/took place, etc., their credibility climbs quickly.  In a case with an adult victim, yes, there is skepticism regarding who to believe, but with a child victim, there is a reasonable argument to be made when you say, "how and why would an 11 yr old girl fabricate this story?  What is her motivation?  How does she even know enough about sex to make up this kind of lie?" 

 

Physical evidence to corroborate the accusation is just icing on the cake at that point.  I have never had a case where a victim had the perp's DNA on them.  The closest I have come is DNA on the victim's clothing.  But that certainly backed up the victim's story and made it a lot more credible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

On the note of prison for baby rapers, the asshole in the situation I shared pled guilty and got 14 years. Fucking piece of shit.

I know it probably won't make you feel any better, but the chances of him surviving 14 years in prison as a baby raper are extremely slim. With any luck, someone will kill that piece of shit right off the bat.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it probably won't make you feel any better, but the chances of him surviving 14 years in prison as a baby raper are extremely slim. With any luck, someone will kill that piece of shit right off the bat.

 

Serious question.  Is this something just portrayed in the media?  Or, are all child rapists ending up dead in prison?

 

Either way, they deserve a personal hell much worse than death.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I read a book called Hot House where the writer was granted full access to hang out with the prisoners so he could write about them.

He tells one story where a bitch was being chased down the halls by his daddy with intent to stomp him to death because he found out bitch was a child sex offender. Bitch was placed into protective custody then moved to another prison. Turns out this was a regular thing for the bitch - locals find out he's a kiddie fiddler and try to kill him, he moves to a new jail.

There is a certain irony there, though, that a man who is sexually abusing a fellow prisoner is angry to find out the man he is molesting is a sex offender himself...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's because convicted felons are often hypocrites. :dunno:

Ya and with just a baggy full of weed in certain states you could be a convicted felon. Not that most pot smokers really are hateful killers. That would be hypocritical of a peaceful pot smoker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...