Student, 20, who repeatedly raped girl, 12, he met on Tinder avoids jail

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
"I didn't know she was underage" has been beaten to death. It never worked, until now. I honestly cant imagine spending time having conversations with and getting to know a 12 year old and not know I was in the company of a child rather than an adult. I don't buy that excuse at all.

This.

a reply to: UpThenDown

Only because the law victimised her, doesn't mean she is a victim.
Being a victim imples the interaction hurt her in a physical, psychological, of financial way, if that is not the case, it is you that is trying to victimize her based on a law.

People that have big age diffrence fall in love all the time. Teens fall in love all the time, some find their love for live in their teens. Whats 8 years when you are 40 it barely matters.

to define this period by a law and completly negate the diffrent maturity levels in the same age groups, you consider that empathic?

By law you are right but the circumstances might justify some empathy for all involved and not blindly victimize one, while demonising the other part.

I did that in my first post didn't I... Hmm I wonder why

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: UpThenDown

Whats 8 years when you are 40 it barely matters.

t

Do us all a favour and never become a parent.

What part of 12, 20 don't you get.
When does it not become acceptable to you?
10-18, 8-16?

a reply to: Terpene

As for age once over the age of consent it matters less, but when someone is under 13 thats outrageuos to be 8 years older than them, the only person who has blindly demonized anyone is yourself, calling her a lying bitch, I have not called the 20 year old anything I merely pointed out what i felt was an injustice

And I know you dont think she is a victim (you think she is a lying bitch), so unless you are hurt or lose money you cant be a victim, man thats some effed up logic mate

please lets agree to disagree, your last post I dont agree with the majority of it but whats the point, you have your opinion I have mine

a reply to: Terpene

The bigger the age gap and the younger the youngest is, the more significantly wrong it is. That age gap, 12 to 20, is wrong af.

The 20 year old would have to have a below average/very low IQ in order for me to begin to have any understanding. Basically, if the 20 year old is mentally challenged, it may better explain the ability to form a deep connection with a 12 year old but it still doesn't make this right. Either he is sincerely a dumb # or he was blinded by his wanton desire for sex. Either way it doesn't mean that the child is not adversely affected.

If I recall correctly, there are studies which indicate that pedophiles have lower than average IQ's/are not that intelligent actually.

a reply to: UpThenDown

I wonder if the rapist's race played a role in the judge letting him go? If this had happened in the USA, that would certainly be the way things would go if the judge was among the many political extremists that seem to be more and more common on US benches.

Torn on this one, once told a 19yr old boy I was 16 when I was actually 13 yrs old. When he called to ask me on a date, had to admit I was only 13, never heard from him again !

a reply to: UpThenDown

Yeah better move from empathy to logic, that goes more along the lines of your reasoning.

following laws no matter the circumstances, even when the possibility exist that no one actually got hurt...

Your logic is sound, maybe work on empathy.

a reply to: Tagz

I teach my kids how to handle their sexuality before it becomes an issue. by 8 they know, what is to know. When the urges come I will counsel them but let them do whatever they want, better now than when they are 35 and find their live was sexualy bleak and that they've had way too little teens....

This repressed approach to sexuality grooms kids more for rape and abuse, than letting them experiment when these urges first arrive. Some before it is legal some after.
i trust them to be confident enough to feel if something was not right and not be affraid to say no to anyone older or younger, or superior. But I also trust them to say yes if it feels right. Older, younger, superior. The gap doesn't really matter.
if you as a parent fail to educate your kids about sexuality, or even repress it because you deem it wrong at that age, you go against the biochemical nature of your kid and will cause lots of traumas.
Because the law says so?
great example follow the law no matter what my kids need?
Make sure to be the first to jab your kid if the law says so.

Just saying... You carry on, and tell me how it went with yours.

a reply to: Terpene

Kids will be kids, with other kids.
They have their young adult years onwards to experiment and figure out the rest.
Allowing condoning activity outside their close age groups is just plain wrong in any level-headed adult view, if not criminal.

At the age of 48 I have 3 sound of mind children in their 20's all in happy loving relationships.
I (not the law) placed limits on what was acceptable and what was wrong as they grew into young adults.

Your take on raising children makes me feel like I raised mine right.
If this had been my daughter the man would have been lucky to be left breathing, he sure as hell would have been eunuch by now.

Again the 12-year-old is not at fault regardless of what she has done and said. She has been failed and taken advantage of by every adult involved in her upbringing and in this case.

a reply to: UpThenDown

I'm thinking somebody might wanna check this judges internet history.

As to the stoat the ba, bit of a sicko is my bet immature or not.

But the question begs, what the hell are 12 year olds doing on Tinder ffs???!!!

a reply to: andy06shake

She totally had no idea what it was about. Like with 12 how could she have possibly been interested in tinder?

Hell yeah thats a good spin for that rage, E-ID. Make the internet safe again...

But i digress for an app like tinder it would actually complicate such issues which is good,
And sorry for calling her a lying bitch, that was a mean bait.

I certainly don't want my 12 year old super mature horny daughter getting raped by a creepy old dude

but would i be angry just because "the law" if she had her first time, assuming it was, with a 20 year old slightly retarded good-looking, and sexually experienced guy, she found by sorting trough a plethora of profiles on tinder and specifically chose him?

What could she expect from the guys of her age?

originally posted by: BrokenCircles

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

"I didn't know she was underage" has been beaten to death. It never worked, until now. I honestly cant imagine spending time having conversations with and getting to know a 12 year old and not know I was in the company of a child rather than an adult. I don't buy that excuse at all.

That's it though, all you can do is IMAGINE it. That's all any of us in this thread can do. We know nothing about this girl except her age. That's all.

However, the Judge who did "buy that excuse" is much more informed than any of us are. The Judge didn't have to imagine who this girl is.

I don't know that I agree with that. The judge had no prior knowledge of this girl. If he did, we would have recused himself from the case. Anything he knows about the girl he heard in that courtroom. I am sure he heard some very destructive characterizations from the defense and the suspect. Anything the girl said on her own behalf was obviously not convincing enough. Its as if she had an unsophisticated way of communicating. Sort of child-like...

The age of consent was 16; thats a great excuse if she was 16. But she was 12.

Yes she lied and said she was 16 ... but that does not obligate the rapest to believe her.

What was he going to do ask for her id? Who does that?

But what adult has sex with a 16 year old girl with out getting to know her first? She might be 16, she might be 22, she might be 12. Who takes that risk?

I was 19 once and I dated a 16 year old girl. She was a few months younger than the age of consent where I live ... I didn't have sex with her. I didn't do anything naughty until I got to know her, met her friends, met her parents; I didn't want to go to jail. Not a hard concept for a non rapist.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

I don't know that I agree with that. The judge had no prior knowledge of this girl. If he did, we would have recused himself from the case. Anything he knows about the girl he heard in that courtroom....

The Judge is a woman. Like I said, none of us know enough about this case to make an informed definitive statement regarding it's outcome.

I didn't say the Judge had any prior knowledge about the girl, but she undoubtedly knows much more about this girl than we do, and she (the Judge) is the one who made the decision. We can't rightfully say that her decision was definitely wrong, since we only know a small fraction of the details that she knew when reaching that conclusion.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

....I am sure he heard some very destructive characterizations from the defense and the suspect. Anything the girl said on her own behalf was obviously not convincing enough. Its as if she had an unsophisticated way of communicating. Sort of child-like...

You've made a few strong assumptions there, without having any supporting evidence. It is quite possible that they simply told the truth about what happened. If you ignore the sensationalized headline, the details in the article itself state that the Judge had no reason to believe that the girl was a victim, thus there's no real reason to assume the girl was trying to convince the court that she was a victim.

As far as I can tell, based on limited information, the girl was not claiming that he had raped her. It doesn't appear that she was accusing him of anything at all. If she had been making accusations, then this most likely would have resulted in a very different outcome.

nvm

a reply to: BrokenCircles


Is a 12 year old legally qualified to determine if she's been 'raped'?

Or is that assumed, when the rapist is an adult?

Then why even try to spin it that way?

originally posted by: Tagz

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: UpThenDown

Whats 8 years when you are 40 it barely matters.

t

Do us all a favour and never become a parent.

What part of 12, 20 don't you get.
When does it not become acceptable to you?
10-18, 8-16?

She was mature for her age, he was immature for his age. It happens. It shouldn't, but it does.

originally posted by: BrokenCircles

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

I don't know that I agree with that. The judge had no prior knowledge of this girl. If he did, we would have recused himself from the case. Anything he knows about the girl he heard in that courtroom....

The Judge is a woman. Like I said, none of us know enough about this case to make an informed definitive statement regarding it's outcome.

I didn't say the Judge had any prior knowledge about the girl, but she undoubtedly knows much more about this girl than we do, and she (the Judge) is the one who made the decision. We can't rightfully say that her decision was definitely wrong, since we only know a small fraction of the details that she knew when reaching that conclusion.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

....I am sure he heard some very destructive characterizations from the defense and the suspect. Anything the girl said on her own behalf was obviously not convincing enough. Its as if she had an unsophisticated way of communicating. Sort of child-like...

You've made a few strong assumptions there, without having any supporting evidence. It is quite possible that they simply told the truth about what happened. If you ignore the sensationalized headline, the details in the article itself state that the Judge had no reason to believe that the girl was a victim, thus there's no real reason to assume the girl was trying to convince the court that she was a victim.

As far as I can tell, based on limited information, the girl was not claiming that he had raped her. It doesn't appear that she was accusing him of anything at all. If she had been making accusations, then this most likely would have resulted in a very different outcome.

The headlines as sensational, he was accused of statutory rape which means that he had sex with someone who couldn't consent rather than someone who didn't consent. There is a moral distinction that means you should take things on a case by case basis, and that the judge needs to take into account whether the accused is likely to re offend or to escalate.

This guy was an idiot, so he got away with being branded a sex offender for the rest of his life. Making him a pariah and effectively excluding him from half of polite society. He might never even be allowed to collect his own kids from the school gate, that's if any woman will ever want to have kids with him. And he can forget about being a teacher or doing anything involving children or social care.

a reply to: AaarghZombies


But she WAS 12, right?

Is anyone claiming she wasn't?

Then it makes no difference what the guy says.