11 yr rapes 76 yr old what is the world coming to

[wnurse]

violence spawns violence to physically punish a child tells the child to keep not explore it's boundary, while it may work in the short term it is bad for the child.

i have never been physically punished nor told not to watch tv or anything really, treat a child like an adult and the child will become one, treat a child like a baby and it will cry for attention and missbehave the child here has been subject no doubt to a bad childhood and no amount of violence towards the child can fix that

Funny hector, Many of us growing up in the 60's and 70's were spanked and it didn't make many of us violent, did it?. It's junk to say punishing a child raises a violent person. I'm a foriegner, in my country we employ the whip on the child buttocks liberally. Strangely, most other countries allow coporal punishment and they have less crime than the US and their children grow up less violent. Hmmm. Strange how that works huh?

 

[King Cobra]

The day I trust the word of police and a witness with a conflict of interest in the total destruction of a persons life is the day I pledge my allegiance to fascism. Melodramatic, but ... the ACCUSATION is what's making the headlines, not the story later about the "not guilty" verdict.

So what??? You might as well not read the news... I don't see any fascism in there. It's just a news report about the accusation, i.e., this accusation has been made according to the police! No fascism. There, that is the news report. Besides, the police and the woman both say the same things: the boys had been terrorizing her and stealing from her. Though I do see a single difference... "tried to rape her" and actually "raped" (in the news article). I don't care about that little difference, because it's still sexual assult for either's story. So when the "found guilty" report comes out soon, I won't be the least bit surprised.

 

[slughead]

To those that think the kid is being prejudged, you are just as guilty in assuming innocence.

LOL! Guilty of assuming innocence?! Well arrest me captain fascist, because that's what we SHOULD be doing. And by the way, never once have I said that he's innocent, I'm just saying we don't KNOW, and imagine if he were innocent (which there's probably only a 50% chance he is)! He'd still be screwed. I say it's equally likely that he's not guilty as guilty from what we know.

He would not be arrested is there weren't sufficient evidence that could lead to conviction. Most DA's I know cringe at the "enemy combatant" holdings.

WRONG, they arrest if they have enough evidence to arrest (they can hold him for 24 hours without charge, and charges don't have anything to do with the DA either), THEN, when the investigation is over, they submit it to the DA. As I said before, even the "enough evidence to convict" doesn't mean anything. Trust me, Police investigate not to find the truth, but to find enough evidence to prove their leanings in the case. It's not like CSI, they just don't have that kind of resources/time.

The feelings that some have stated are based IMO on successful prosecution. We are not talking of a case where the police did not find the kid with pants around his ankle. I would still hope that we have innocence before guilt in the US.

Hahaha, based on whose successful prosecution? If you look at the statistics for not guilty verdicts alone, you'll note that it would be morally wrong to assume guilt based on the DA's decision to take it to trial, AND THE DA HAS YET TO SAY THE CASE IS WINNABLE!

All I'm saying is that we should never assume guilt until a guilty verdict or a guilty plea is entered.

And even then, always be skeptical: remember those people on death row who got off? Anyone?

 

[slughead]

It's just a news report about the accusation, i.e., this accusation has been made according to the police!

To believe everything the executive branch says gives a hell of a lot of power to the state, don't you think?

In theory, it makes no difference. In practice, almost everyone who posted in this thread immediately believed the story.

All of you have proven my point quite nicely: The news report was inconclusive, and only a court may decide the truth, however you're all assuming guilt.

We're talking about a bunch of guys with no accountability pointing a finger and then the whole damn country believes them instantly. If they're proven wrong later, it wont make a difference in people's heads, the damage has been done. Moreover, the police will never apologize to their acquitted suspects no matter what the circumstances.

In addition, say the kid is let out tomorrow because it turns out he was never actually there. He'd still be screwed. Everyone would assume he's guilty, when in reality, the only guilt is that of the American public for believing the media and the police (who will never apologize or admit fault) without waiting for the truth.

You might as well not read the news

I don't usually read these stories, for this exact reason.

 

[King Cobra]

To believe everything the state says gives a hell of a lot of power to the state, don't you think?

Nope. What it says is: if I go around objecting to much of what is said in the news, then I'll never learn anything from it. But let's say that it did give power to the state. I don't care.

We're talking about a bunch of guys with no accountability

The police and Sgt. Ken Henning have no accountability??

pointing a finger and then the whole damn country believes them instantly. If they're proven wrong later, it wont make a difference in people's heads, the damage has been done.

Well let's say that the boy was found not guilty, regardless of all the odds against him, and that we (the readers of the report, first assuming his guilt) find out that he was not guilty. But then you say:

the only guilt is that of the American public for believing the media and the police

The thing is: It would only be a once in a while case in which the minority of odds won, i.e., the minority of news reports state one thing about a legal case, but are then refuted by later reports. (O.J. Simpson anyone?). Had the majority of news reports been false or refutable, then we would spot obvious contradictions in most news articles we read about an issue with regard to the central idea of the issue and not just little points each would make. Thus, it makes more logical sense to assume (or imply) that what the media says is true rather than false.

But now let's say that he is guilty. His life is still ruined, because he faces humiliation in jail, and then humiliation back out on the streets. Had he never terrorized the lady in the first place, he wouldn't have done that damage to himself.

 

[slughead]

Nope. What it says is: if I go around objecting to much of what is said in the news, then I'll never learn anything from it. But let's say that it did give power to the state. I don't care.

I don't object to the media saying these things. All they're doing is reporting on what the police said. I object to people not seeing this for what it is: Nothing even remotely interesting until someone's proven guilty.

Again, we don't even know if there is any hard evidence to show a crime was actually committed here!

The police and Sgt. Ken Henning have no accountability??

That's exactly what I'm saying--in this context, the police are never held to account if their press releases turn out to be total lies.

When's the last time you heard (outside from in the movies) a police department apologize for falsely accusing a suspect? They don't even care. A lot of the time they STILL think the person is guilty even after they're found not guilty in court.

You know in some states, there's a maximum IQ for cops?

That's their job though, I don't hold it against them. They're supposed to be thugs who run around bagging people and it's the JUDICIAL branch who sorts out the mess they made.

The thing I'm pointing out is: we should recognize that fact, and not assume these people are right all, or even most the time.

Well let's say that the boy was found not guilty, regardless of all the odds against him, and that we (the readers of the report, first assuming his guilt) find out that he was not guilty.

Would we? When's the last time you heard of one of these cases ending in acquittal? I ASSURE you they have a good portion of the time, it just doesn't make headlines.

Think about it: Why are they reporting on this to begin with? Was the lady someone famous? Will it effect anyone aside from people in that community?

The answer is, to sell newspapers. They don't want to tell you that crime is at an all time low, or that things are, in some ways, better than ever. That doesn't sell.

Don't blame the media though, just blame the people who don't have the common sense to see the obvious.

The thing is: It would only be a once in a while case in which the minority of odds won, i.e., the minority of news reports state one thing about a legal case, but are then refuted by later reports. (O.J. Simpson anyone?). Had the majority of news reports been false or refutable, then we would spot obvious contradictions in most news articles we read about an issue with regard to the central idea of the issue and not just little points each would make. Thus, it makes more logical sense to assume (or imply) that what the media says is true rather than false.

There's been ONE juvenile petition, and that's where ALL the news reports are coming. If they contradicted eachother, that'd be just ridiculous.

THE REPORT IS MERELY QUOTING POLICE, NOT INVESTIGATING THE CLAIM.

The media is not lying, no matter what. The police are the ones who would have fouled up, if indeed the boy is innocent.

But now let's say that he is guilty. His life is still ruined, because he faces humiliation in jail, and then humiliation back out on the streets. Had he never terrorized the lady in the first place, he wouldn't have done that damage to himself.

If he's guilty, fry his ass. Until I find out conclusively that he is, I'm not going to run around saying "oh what a world, what a world."

 

[King Cobra]

When's the last time you heard (outside from in the movies) a police department apologize for falsely accusing a suspect? They don't even care. A lot of the time they STILL think the person is guilty even after they're found not guilty in court.

That's their job though, I don't hold it against them. They're supposed to be thugs who run around bagging people and it's the JUDICIAL branch who sorts out the mess they made.

Strongly disagree. That's not what the police do. They do mess up sometimes, but I seriously doubt that they go around bagging people. (I've heard otherwise from them in person.) If they did, then we would have millions of people a month be given speeding tickets for going 5mph (8kph) over the speed limit. Besides, somebody would (most likely) have had to call the police before the police knew about the situation.

 

[stealthy]

that's just wrong

 

[slughead]

Strongly disagree. That's not what the police do. They do mess up sometimes, but I seriously doubt that they go around bagging people.

By that I meant they get who they think might have done it, and give that to the DA.

There was a murder case a little while back where the DA tried 3 people at once for the same murder. Imagine how hilarious it'd be if they were all found guilty

It'd be even more hilarious if they all lost the appeal.

If they did, then we would have millions of people a month be given speeding tickets for going 5mph (8kph) over the speed limit. Besides, somebody would (most likely) have had to call the police before the police knew about the situation.

First of all I'm sure there are millions of tickets a month for 5 MPH violations. There is, of course, selective enforcement (which, if there has to be selective enforcement on a law to make it fair, I don't think it should exist).

Selective enforcement is wrong, however selective punishment is OK in my book (self defense for murder and whatnot).

The cops should get whoever they can for a given crime, along with all the evidence they can, and let the courts figure it out from there. If they're not doing that, then they're not doing their job.

 

[mintlivedotcom]

For Slughead and others who are quoting "innocent until proven guilty":

Is it reasonable to assume that the boys in question were not playing ball or working on their homework?

Also, for the boys who were "watching" during the attack - I believe they are just as evil.

Blame the parents, blame the kids, and blame society for progressing up to this type of behavior. It brings back reminders of the Columbine shootings of '99.

I am confident that my own children have never done anything and will never do anything as heinous as this recent attack. Spying on my daughter's instant messaging and website activity, reading her hidden journal, and requiring her to EARN MY TRUST is what makes me so confident.

 

[wdlove]

The police obtain DNA, fibers, and finger prints. After it's analyzed and compared to suspects, then an arrest is made. It is still up to the jury to convict and sentence. The above certainly makes it easier for the jury. If the evidence is overwhelming then pleading guilty might be the best option. Then they can negotiate.

 

[slughead]

The police obtain DNA, fibers, and finger prints. After it's analyzed and compared to suspects, then an arrest is made. It is still up to the jury to convict and sentence. The above certainly makes it easier for the jury. If the evidence is overwhelming then pleading guilty might be the best option. Then they can negotiate.

The police have no DNA evidence.

The "assault" was reported 1 day after the incident.

 

[homerjward]

I am confident that my own children have never done anything and will never do anything as heinous as this recent attack. Spying on my daughter's instant messaging and website activity, reading her hidden journal, and requiring her to EARN MY TRUST is what makes me so confident.

obviously she hasn't earned it yet...trust means having faith in her that she's NOT going to inappropriate websites, talking to people she shouldn't be talking to and doing bad things.

 

[mintlivedotcom]

Obviously, she hasn't earned it yet. She's almost 17 and isn't driving yet, either.

So, my point is: I'd rather be a good parent and guide them through this world as much as possible and slowly condition them to be able to handle life on their own (I want to have my freedom again, too!).

 

[Linux_The_Kid]

this is sick

 

[jedi180]

In this messed up world we live in, it's nice to see that we're mostly in agreement over this issue...

 

[mintlivedotcom]

In this messed up world we live in, it's nice to see that we're mostly in agreement over this issue...

Yes, I disagree with lots of people on this forum, but I feel confident that we all agree that this is an evil act. I'm gonna go call my granny right now and tell her I love her!

 

[wdlove]

Here is another example of poor parenting.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133720,00.html

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Someone here in Baltimore got so fed up with the kids throwing snowballs at passing cars (and the kids here will throw rocks and make those snowballs into iceballs first, they're snotty little maladjusted bastards). So they pulled out a gun and took a potshot at one of the kids. Got him, too, though not fatally.

After getting crap thrown at the bus I rode every day in practically every neighborhood it passed through during the snowy part of winter, I couldn't find it in me to be at all surprised, or even outraged.

Sometimes I'm very idealistic and can believe in the idea that every single human life is a sacred miracle, entitled to its chance at everything that makes existence worthwhile. Other times, it just seems like some people are not worth the skin they're wrapped in, and are a waste of perfectly good oxygen.

Oh to have some sort of magical answer for this sort of crime. IMO it goes to the child and parent.

I grew up under a different household. My dad was in Law Enforcement, so what I did (right or wrong) reflected upon him. So I was brought under the fear of God and may Dad. I am not sure whom I feared most at that time.

I do remember my Dad taking us to the jail cell that he was working at the time. He locked us inside the cell with both my sister and myself. It was an eye opener for me. I remember also him taking us to the shooting range with his service revolver. All I remember is that my ass ended up far from where I shot, and that was the point my Dad was trying to make.

Not to mention that my Dad said that I made the "kill" with my shot, and asked me how I felt on that. At the time he told me that the suspect would have lived. It was a good clean shot. Sort of a mixed message. So far I have not picked up a gun sense.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Here is another example of poor parenting.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133720,00.html

I am not sure there is a simple answer for what children do. According to my parents, and I have a vague recollection of, that I disassembled their German stereo system (complete with the tubes and and every single knob and part of the turntable. It was not the first time that i tried to discover the wonder of the "world around" me., according to them.

I would like to think that I am a normal person, only through the efforts of my parents that saw the possibilities I had.

 

[etoiles]

I am confident that my own children have never done anything and will never do anything as heinous as this recent attack. Spying on my daughter's instant messaging and website activity, reading her hidden journal, and requiring her to EARN MY TRUST is what makes me so confident.

Trust (and respect) is a two-way thing... do you think your daughter will trust YOU if she found out about this ?

I don't think monitoring kids 24/7 is the solution here, it is more about teaching (not preaching) basic values. Build a healthy environment for them to grow up in, even if that means getting rid of cable TV.

But hey, I am no parent. I might break out the whip when I have kids of my own (or just hypnotize them with a bunch of Disney DVD's)

 

[jedi180]

I am not sure there is a simple answer for what children do. According to my parents, and I have a vague recollection of, that I disassembled their German stereo system (complete with the tubes and and every single knob and part of the turntable. It was not the first time that i tried to discover the wonder of the "world around" me., according to them.

I would like to think that I am a normal person, only through the efforts of my parents that saw the possibilities I had.

Disassembling a stereo is a lot different than raping an old lady. Of course.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Disassembling a stereo is a lot different than raping an old lady. Of course.

Agreed, I was commenting on the other link to poor parenting.

 

[wdlove]

I am not sure there is a simple answer for what children do. According to my parents, and I have a vague recollection of, that I disassembled their German stereo system (complete with the tubes and and every single knob and part of the turntable. It was not the first time that i tried to discover the wonder of the "world around" me., according to them.

I would like to think that I am a normal person, only through the efforts of my parents that saw the possibilities I had.

Were you able to put the stereo back into working order? At the time you were showing an inquisitive mind.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Were you able to put the stereo back into working order? At the time you were showing an inquisitive mind.

Nope, my parents woke up before I could reassemble the stereo. i guess the point I was trying to make is that children do stupid things. I could have etried to dismantle the TV, which could have lead to critical result, for me at least/

Again my comments were based on the child choking on the rubber glove. Parents need to expect the best and worse of their children. Once my parents realized what I was cap-able of, they took actions to safe guard me and themselves from disaster. Today, that mother will sue the rubber glove manufacture for her failings.