Woman says Roy Moore initiated sexual encounter when she was 14

originally posted by: primus2012

originally posted by: DBCowboy
This issue initially bothered me because of the politics involved and the timing of the allegations.

Then I thought back to the 60's and 70's and remembered a time when attitudes were far different then.

But one thing that stuck with me is this; a grown man was in a vehicle with a 14 year old.

The ONLY time any grown man should be in a vehicle with a 14 year old is when he's driving the babysitter home.

No where has he said that he wasn't in the vehicle with a 14 year old.

(unless I'm mistaken)

So nail his sorry ass to the wall.

He said he never met the then 14 yr old and her allegations are false. That pretty much includes an assumed statement that he wasnt in any vehicle with her.
He did say he dated the 17, 18, 19 yr olds, with their parents' permission. Those women admitted that he was the most eligible bachelor around, and that he played his guitar for them, and may have hugged and kissed, bought wine at dinner, but nothing more.
Two different types of stories, detailing two completely different types of men.

That's the lynchpin right there.

If he was in the car with her, then fry him.

If he wasn't?

Then he's innocent of the allegations.

*shrugs*

a reply to: DBCowboy

No, if he never met her, the car has no part in the argument.

He was a young man who graduated West Point, then served in Vietnam, came back to law school and by that time was 30-something. He then went a-courtin', looking for a wife. He wasnt a predator looking for a victim.

a reply to: Boadicea

Good! You agree! It is government getting in the way by making arbitrary rules and forcing the will of some on others!!!

I have stated for years now that there should be no reference to "marriage" in the law... all references should be changed to a less religious term. "Marriage" is a religious ceremony and should remain in the realm of the churches (or participants of a religion). Secular advantages of such should be open to any two consenting adults.

But, that's apparently very homophobic of me to say, so I won't repeat it here.

At best, this semantics.

No, it is not. I am going to assume you are not and have never been married, because you apparently don't know the difference between telling a girl "I love you" and telling a preacher in front of a congregation "I do."

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I have stated for years now that there should be no reference to "marriage" in the law... all references should be changed to a less religious term. "Marriage" is a religious ceremony and should remain in the realm of the churches (or participants of a religion). Secular advantages of such should be open to any two consenting adults.

That I can agree with in theory and in practice... but no doubt there would be some who would argue over whatever words were chosen by which side. Just because. However, because various religions do embrace marriage as a religious ceremony/rite, there should be some differentiation under the law. We saw that years ago when the population as a whole supported "civil unions" for same-sex couples, but that was quickly squashed with DOMA.

I am going to assume you are not and have never been married, because you apparently don't know the difference between telling a girl "I love you" and telling a preacher in front of a congregation "I do."

Actually... 30 something years and still going strong. Crazy, huh? We don't even know how we did it -- or continue doing it!

But specific to our situation, we agree that the moment we agreed to marry is the moment we committed our lives to each other and that vow to each other sealed the deal... the ceremony was for everyone else.

a reply to: DBCowboy

The Statute of Limitations ran out long long long ago. No matter what, Moore is in absolutely zero legal jeopardy.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Boadicea

However, because various religions do embrace marriage as a religious ceremony/rite, there should be some differentiation under the law.

Agreed, and since the State is Constitutionally prohibited from any interference in religion, it is actually unconstitutional IMO to even have marriage defined legally. On the other hand, I can see a social benefit to some limitations on who is and is not allowed to claim marriage (or its secular equivalent) for legal and tax purposes.

30 something years and still going strong. Crazy, huh?

Congratulations. We just passed the 30-year mark ourselves.

So surely you see the difference between privately expressing love for each other and publicly declaring yourselves joined in matrimony?

TheRedneck

Hannity's advertisers are starting to back out over his defense of Moore, and Hannity is basically the last one left in the media that's defending him.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: DBCowboy

The Statute of Limitations ran out long long long ago. No matter what, Moore is in absolutely zero legal jeopardy.

TheRedneck

The legality is not the question so much.

Did he do it?

That's the core issue.

Is a 40 year allegation enough to punish someone?

Another issue.

My contention is that he did spend time with young women, but is that enough to prosecute in the court of public opinion?

It certainly leads to speculation that if he did, then it gives the allegations credibility.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Agreed, and since the State is Constitutionally prohibited from any interference in religion, it is actually unconstitutional IMO to even have marriage defined legally. On the other hand, I can see a social benefit to some limitations on who is and is not allowed to claim marriage (or its secular equivalent) for legal and tax purposes.

Yes, and especially where children are concerned. Children aren't consenting adults and have the most to lose, therefore the greater our responsibility to provide the most protection. So generally speaking, the default position should be to allow maximum freedom to all to make such a personal and profound choice for themselves, with certain limited protections and restrictions where necessary and appropriate.

Congratulations. We just passed the 30-year mark ourselves.

Congrats right back atcha! It's quite an adventure, ain't it???

So surely you see the difference between privately expressing love for each other and publicly declaring yourselves joined in matrimony?

I do. But this is where we have to be clear about what is necessary and proper under the law, and what is necessary and proper for society or the greater good, and what is necessary and proper within one's personal "clan" -- their family and friends and colleagues and their church, and what is necessary and proper for one's own conscience and soul. And, of course, trying to find that happy medium isn't always easy for the happy couple, much less society, eh?

a reply to: DBCowboy

My contention is that he did spend time with young women, but is that enough to prosecute in the court of public opinion?

Is that even enough to enter the court of public opinion? Is there anyone who is married who did not at some point spend time with 'young women'?

Allegations are not facts. I know personally of one episode where a co-worker of mine told an off-color joke to a friend of his, not realizing anyone else was around. The wrong woman came around the corner, heard part of the punch line, and immediately charged him with sexual harassment and had him terminated.

I know because once I saw what happened, I made up an excuse to make sure I was never alone with her again (I had been giving her a ride home while her car was in the shop). She then made a completely false allegation against me. Luckily, enough people knew me to refute her claims and I kept my job.

I recently learned from another friend that he had been accused of trying to grab a girl and throw her in his truck and abduct her. That was the official claim made to the police, and resulted in the police reviewing the security cameras. What actually happened, evident on the cameras? My friend (who visits that store regularly enough to be known by the cashiers) was in the store and said hello to this young woman, along with telling her she was "pretty." That's it. When the police questioned her after reviewing the camera footage, she admitted that no one had grabbed her, but that she thought he was going to.

This thing happens every single day, in every single community, in every single state in the Union. It cannot be successfully avoided by any means other than living in a swamp and never seeing another human. If a man ever talks to a woman, no matter how innocently, that man can be charged with sexual abuse.

Knowing that, we have a man who has been the target of Alabama political attacks for decades because of his stance. He has entered a race for Senator and not only beat his incumbent predecessor in the primary, but is leading his opponent in the general election polls. His supporters are typically evangelical Christians, and hold him in extremely high regard. Suddenly, less than 30 days before the election, a national newspaper well-known for political antics 'discovers' someone who claims this man sexually abused her 40 years ago (who has apparently 'discovered' a few grand in cash for her story). This woman has also previously accused three pastors of improper sexual contact, and all cases have been dropped for lack of evidence. Not only that, but she turns out to be a big supporter of this man's political opposition. Then several more ladies came forward to say the man had kissed them, and it is discovered that during this period of time he was actively dating. No one has alleged sexual misconduct other than based on the age of the one woman who claims she was 14 (but who it is rumored was actually 17).

As I see it, if she was indeed 17 at the time, even if her allegations are true, no law was broken... no one was hurt... nothing untoward happened. If she was indeed 14, then that action conflicts with every action the man has taken in the decades of being in the public eye and brings up the question of why the parents did not prosecute at the time, not to mention why this information hasn't come out in decades of political attacks toward him.

No, this is false allegations and the Washington Post should have their journalism credentials removed permanently and the reporter who paid this woman to lie should be convicted of interference with a fair election and sentenced to a Federal prison for the rest of their natural life. This sickness needs to be quarantined from our society.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

You made a good argument.

I will concede the point.

a reply to: Boadicea

Strangely enough, we appear to be closer on this issue than either of us probably thought we were before this discussion. And that's the point relevant to this thread.

Roy Moore is a straight-shooter. He says what he thinks and expects other to say clearly what they think. Now, I have just expressed that everyone should be equal under the law, even in the arena of marriage. Yet, if you ask me if I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, I will have to answer "yes." Yet, I have good friends, who I consider close friends, who are in a homosexual marriage. I have congratulated a co-worker who got married and then cautiously told me it was to another woman, apparently expecting me to never talk to her again (she was wrong).

MY PERSONAL BELIEFS ARE MINE! THEY DO NOT BIND OTHERS!

Roy Moore's personal beliefs are his; that is not the same as saying they should bind others. In the Ten Commandments case, he was never even accused of judging based on them. He felt they were an applicable legal historical document and felt his faith was being unfairly and illegally targeted because they were targeted instead of other similar monuments like the Magna Carta.

In the recent gay marriage issue,his position was that the people of Alabama were able to amend their constitution as they saw fit, as long as the amendment was not in direct, enumerated conflict with the wording of the US Constitution. I happen to agree with that, although I was not very excited about the choice Alabama made.

In both cases, the issues upon which Moore based his convictions were ignored in favor of a more charged political accusation. In the allegations currently aimed at him, his accusers are focusing on explosive comments and unsubstantiated allegations from questionable sources, not on the situation that actually happened. That is not what I want to see continue in Washington DC; I would much rather the debate be open and honest.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: TheRedneck

You made a good argument.

I will concede the point.

The other thing is whether or not it is fair to judge something that for that day may not have been wrong - dating an above the age of consent teenage girl even if you're an older man - by today's lens?

If he was a man newly returned from service and in his early 30s dating girls not quite 20, was that very unusual in that day and age where today it certainly is?

a reply to: Boadicea

My freedom of association, including my choice of who to marry or not, naturally belongs to me. No one else can make that choice for me. I cannot force anyone to choose to marry me, or otherwise associate with me; but only I can make that choice for myself.

Conversely, if someone else has the power and authority to tell me who I cannot marry, then they also have the power and authority to tell me who I must marry.

Right and you just explained very well why you have no right to be married.

This also has not a damn thing to do with government either.

This existed before there was government as we know it.

Imagine how much fun your life would be if every man out there who simply wanted to felt entitled to "marry" you as the whim struck him because it's his "right" and how dare you deny it? Freedom of association as you so proudly proclaim it works both ways. He has the same right to choose to associate with you as you have to choose not to associate with him.

And, of course, all of this is why government should never have gotten into marriage in the first place. This should be up to people to decide as it is a social contract.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Strangely enough, we appear to be closer on this issue than either of us probably thought we were before this discussion. And that's the point relevant to this thread.

I have to agree -- again!

And I thank you for making such a worthy discussion possible. That's really awesome -- and too rare these days.

In both cases, the issues upon which Moore based his convictions were ignored in favor of a more charged political accusation. In the allegations currently aimed at him, his accusers are focusing on explosive comments and unsubstantiated allegations from questionable sources, not on the situation that actually happened.

I see that, and for too many that attitude/approach is the norm. I am disturbed at how many people seem to think guilt or innocence should be determine by one's opinion or belief -- not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There seems to be no regard or respect for the value of fair and transparent protocols and procedures for a fair and reasonable investigation to determine facts -- whether by authorities or the press. Sometimes even that won't tell us the whole truth. But too often feelings and beliefs are given precedence over due process and equal application of the law. Instead it's principles be damned! We'll make it up as we go along. Ugh.

That is not what I want to see continue in Washington DC; I would much rather the debate be open and honest.

a reply to: ketsuko

My cousin married a 30 yr old guy when she was 18 (they never dated before she was 18 AFAIK). My best friend married a 27 yr old girl when he was 18 (they were dating when he was 17). It's actually not all that unusual. It's definitely not the norm but it's not some unheard of event.

Also, both are happily married many, many years later. Now, 14 years old is a different ball game. I know it wasn't all that uncommon for a 20 yr old to date a 14-15 yr old 100+ years ago, but 32 would have been weird at any point.

My take on the whole thing: Predators don't stop. if he's a predator, people will come forward with evidence and it will have been in the last 10 years. If they don't then it's he said she said. If they do, he should be disqualified/step aside.

If he did do it, but has apparently not done it since, I don't condemn a man forty years after a mistake. If he didn't do it and this bears out to be provably false, the girl should be prosecuted for defamation.

a reply to: Boadicea

I see that, and for too many that attitude/approach is the norm. I am disturbed at how many people seem to think guilt or innocence should be determine by one's opinion or belief -- not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There seems to be no regard or respect for the value of fair and transparent protocols and procedures for a fair and reasonable investigation to determine facts -- whether by authorities or the press. Sometimes even that won't tell us the whole truth. But too often feelings and beliefs are given precedence over due process and equal application of the law. Instead it's principles be damned! We'll make it up as we go along. Ugh.

There is a cure for that, but it is a cure that no politician will ever propose, much less follow through on. It is to disregard the pundits.

I do that. I watch Sean Hannity, just because little else is on TV at that time and I might catch some breaking news. But I do not parrot him. I read the newspapers occasionally, but I question every story: is there a bias? Does the newspaper stand to lose or gain based on this story? Is there a political agenda? I tend to read more about news here than I do anywhere else... everyone has a bias, but the site itself is unbiased. That's easier to sift through.

But as long as we listen to these dramatized slices of rhetoric that are typically thrown around like candy on Halloween, we will continue to get nowhere as a country... and eventually cease to exist as such.

Thank you as well for the opposing view.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ketsuko

This is just sad now. But okay. You would take a person's inherent right to choose their own life partner, the person they will have personal relations with, the person they will bear children and raise those children with, and give it to government. Got it. Rationalize it and make excuses for it all you want, but it is what it is. It is either a right in accordance with our free will and freedom of conscience, or it's a privilege granted at the whim of government.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
My take on the whole thing: Predators don't stop. if he's a predator, people will come forward with evidence and it will have been in the last 10 years.

That's an excellent point. And with all the controversy Judge Moore has created over the last many years, one would think genuine victims would have come out before this. They had plenty of opportunity.