NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1185040507206380.xml&coll=7

The two boys tore down the hall of Patton Middle School after lunch, swatting the bottoms of girls as they ran -- what some kids later said was a common form of greeting.

But bottom-slapping is against policy in McMinnville Public Schools. So a teacher's aide sent the gawky seventh-graders to the office, where the vice principal and a police officer stationed at the school soon interrogated them.

After hours of interviews with students the day of the February incident, the officer read the boys their Miranda rights and hauled them off in handcuffs to juvenile jail, where they spent the next five days.


Why could a detention not work? The prosecutor needs a medal...the Iron Cross.

I am not saying what the boys did was right, but there was no need to put them and their families through this.

...and once again we see why zero-tolerance doesn't work.

Such behavior is inappropriate, definitely. But it hardly rises to the level of criminal prosecution. This should've been dealt with in school: suspension/expulsion, not going onto the sex offender registry.

Inappropriate: pretty much
Bad judgment: totally
Worth throwing them in jail for 10 years and ruining their entire lives with sex offender registration: fuck no

...and once again we see why zero-tolerance doesn't work.

Such behavior is inappropriate, definitely. But it hardly rises to the level of criminal prosecution. This should've been dealt with in school: suspension/expulsion, not going onto the sex offender registry.

I agree. Even a detention would have worked...or the girls who did not like it slapping him in the face.

Totally retarded.

This is nothing that a few cross country runs, and a vigorous session of push-ups &c. as punishment could not have fixed.

Just have all the girls that want to give them a good slap in the face for it do so, and then let it go.

Can't read past the first page because I refuse on general principle to obtain news from a site that wants me to provide demographic information prior to giving me the whole article. Were the students parents or guardians present during this interrogation?

After hours of interviews with students the day of the February incident, the officer read the boys their Miranda rights and hauled them off in handcuffs to juvenile jail, where they spent the next five days.[/i]

Why could a detention not work? The prosecutor needs a medal...the Iron Cross. OMG...

The documents also show that the boys face 10 misdemeanor charges -- five sex abuse counts, five harassment counts -- reduced from initial charges of felony sex abuse. The boys are scheduled to go on trial Aug. 20.
I hope they can get a jury trial to show HOW idiotic the principal was.

In the first of two police reports, Roache noted that Cornelison had admitted he'd poked a girl's breast. Mashburn said he also had poked girls in their breasts in the past.

Both boys said in interviews with The Oregonian that they'd been taught to tell the truth and did so in the office that day.
... hokay...

All told, Roache interviewed 14 students besides Cornelison and Mashburn. Seven confessed to bottom-swatting, including one girl who described it as "a handshake we do." Two of the alleged victims said they had swatted boys' buttocks themselves.

"She will touch Cory after he touches her first," Roache wrote in the report. so why wern't those 14 others also arrested?

and what happened to the earlier case. I think these two boys are "being made an example of."

Last year, in a previously undisclosed prosecution, he charged two other Patton Middle School boys with felony sex abuse for repeatedly slapping the bottom of a female student. Both pleaded guilty to harassment, which is a misdemeanor. Berry declined to discuss his cases against Mashburn and Cornelison.
yep... sounds like someone is trying to make an example of those two... sad.


The boys' attorneys have filed prosecutorial misconduct motions with the court, which will be heard Aug. 10. The motions allege the boys were hit with additional charges for refusing to accept plea deals and were unfairly selected for prosecution. I wish them luck... I really do!

I wonder if the fact that only those two when others also said they slapped butts and were not punished can also add percecution to that... probably not...


but again... OMG... I wonder who is pushing for this trial. I figure the principal.

Can't read past the first page because I refuse on general principle to obtain news from a site that wants me to provide demographic information prior to giving me the whole article. Were the students parents or guardians present during this interrogation?

good point, I didn't see any mention of any parents being there. but then they wern't arrested then either. that might be a technicallity that could get the case thrown out.

The documents also show that the boys face 10 misdemeanor charges -- five sex abuse counts, five harassment counts -- reduced from initial charges of felony sex abuse. The boys are scheduled to go on trial Aug. 20.

Ok, this is were Telesha gets really pissed off. Calling what they did sex abuse demeans what happened to the real victims of sexual abuse. The girls were given slaps on the ass, sexual harassment, nothing more, not sexual abuse. I'd love for these people to find someone that was groped and fondled in an alley by some creep and tell them it compares with a slap on the ass.

Sunday, July 22, 2007
SUSAN GOLDSMITH The Oregonian Staff
The two boys tore down the hall of Patton Middle School after lunch, swatting the bottoms of girls as they ran -- what some kids later said was a common form of greeting.

But bottom-slapping is against policy in McMinnville Public Schools. So a teacher's aide sent the gawky seventh-graders to the office, where the vice principal and a police officer stationed at the school soon interrogated them.

After hours of interviews with students the day of the February incident, the officer read the boys their Miranda rights and hauled them off in handcuffs to juvenile jail, where they spent the next five days.

Now, Cory Mashburn and Ryan Cornelison, both 13, face the prospect of 10 years in juvenile detention and a lifetime on the sex offender registry in a case that poses a fundamental question: When is horseplay a crime?

Bradley Berry, the McMinnville district attorney, said his office "aggressively" pursues sex crimes that involve children. "These cases are devastating to children," he said. "They are life-altering cases."

Last year, in a previously undisclosed prosecution, he charged two other Patton Middle School boys with felony sex abuse for repeatedly slapping the bottom of a female student. Both pleaded guilty to harassment, which is a misdemeanor. Berry declined to discuss his cases against Mashburn and Cornelison.

The boys and their parents say Berry has gone far beyond what is necessary, criminalizing actions that they acknowledge were inappropriate. School district officials said Friday they had addressed the incident by suspending the students for five days.

The outlines of the case have been known. But confidential police reports and juvenile court records shed new light on the context of the boys' actions. The records show that other students, boys and girls, were slapping one another's bottoms. Two of the girls identified as victims have recanted, saying they felt pressured and gave false statements to interrogators.

The documents also show that the boys face 10 misdemeanor charges -- five sex abuse counts, five harassment counts -- reduced from initial charges of felony sex abuse. The boys are scheduled to go on trial Aug. 20.

A leading expert called the case a "travesty of justice" that is part of a growing trend in which children as young as 8 are being labeled sexual predators in juvenile court, where documents and proceedings are often secret.

"The disproportionality of the charges is absurd," said Phillip Esplin, a forensic psychologist who has researched child sex abuse for the National Institutes of Health.

"My question is, why this would constitute a sexual offense, as opposed to something inappropriate that should have been dealt with within the school -- not within the criminal justice system."

To Rhonda Pope, mother of Christian Richter, 13, a girl named in the court papers as one of the victims, the charges are justified. "Slapping somebody on the butt is sexual harassment, and it is a crime," she said. "Considering what was going on and that my daughter was offended, it is a crime. And it's not OK."

Insisting that the charges are an overreaction, Mashburn's attorney, Mark Lawrence, has worked to bring as much public attention as possible to the story. Lawrence, himself a former Yamhill County prosecutor, and his client briefly appeared on commentator Bill O'Reilly's cable TV show.

"I look at this from a prosecutor's perspective and a defense attorney's perspective, and believe this is truly insane," Lawrence told The Oregonian. "I do not condone this behavior -- it was inappropriate. But it is not criminal."

After they were brought to the principal's office on Feb. 22, the boys were questioned by Vice Principal Steve Tillery and McMinnville police Officer Marshall Roache.

In the first of two police reports, Roache noted that Cornelison had admitted he'd poked a girl's breast. Mashburn said he also had poked girls in their breasts in the past.

Both boys said in interviews with The Oregonian that they'd been taught to tell the truth and did so in the office that day.

Several girls told Roache and Tillery the boys had swatted their behinds on what they declared to be "slap butt day," according to the first police report. Some girls told police they did not like it and had asked the boys to stop. But a follow-up report filed four days later by Roache makes the situation seem much foggier.

All told, Roache interviewed 14 students besides Cornelison and Mashburn. Seven confessed to bottom-swatting, including one girl who described it as "a handshake we do." Two of the alleged victims said they had swatted boys' buttocks themselves.

"She will touch Cory after he touches her first," Roache wrote in the report.

This second round of interviews took place while the boys were in detention. A day later, the juvenile court held a hearing on whether the boys should be released. The courtroom was packed with Patton students and families of both boys -- many were crying. The boys were there, too, in shackles and jail outfits.

Two of the alleged victims spontaneously offered to testify on behalf of the boys. Under oath, they told the judge they were friends and did not feel threatened by them. The two girls also testified they felt compelled, during the initial interviews with Tillery and Roache, to say things that weren't true.

"Well, when the (vice) principal asked me stuff, I kind of felt pressured to answer stuff that I was uncomfortable, and that it hurt, but it really didn't," the girl said, explaining that she didn't think anything sexual went on.

The boys were released. But the judge ordered them out of school, required constant parental supervision and barred them from contacting friends. Any deviation, he said, would result in more time in juvenile jail.

The boys' families could hardly believe the situation. Neither boy had ever been in trouble. Now, they faced multiple felony counts. Their parents had to figure out how to calm two boys who they said were traumatized by their time in the Yamhill County Juvenile Detention Center.

"I was freaking out," Cornelison explained, wiping away tears. "The people were mean. My roommate, a 17-year-old, kept telling me I was never going to get out."

For Joe Cornelison, a single dad who is a press operator for the McMinnville News-Register, the prosecution made no sense. He scrambled to come up with $10,000 for legal fees and knows he's going to have to pay more in the coming months.

"I don't understand how they can do this," he said. "I just tell Ryan to trust me -- I am working on this."

Scott and Tracie Mashburn -- he works at a print shop, and she is a hairdresser -- also have struggled to pay for their son's defense, borrowing $10,000 so far, they said.

"This is scary," Tracie Mashburn said. "This is a child with potential who wants to grow up and go to college, and his life could be done now."

Added her husband: "We'd all be in jail if everyone got arrested for this kind of stuff."

Both families insist they will not take any plea deals and will fight the charges.

Tillery, Patton's vice principal, said he was not authorized to comment. School district officials said Friday that they take sexual abuse seriously. "We followed our policy and set a five-day suspension," the district superintendent said in a statement. "The district played no role in the legal proceedings that followed."

Roache, the McMinnville police officer, declined to discuss the case. His supervisor, Capt. Rob Edgell, would not discuss specifics but said, "We totally support everything that has gone on in this case."

Outside experts contacted by The Oregonian found the circumstances unsettling.

While it's true that a great deal of child sex abuse by adults goes undetected and unpunished, cases like the one in McMinnville reflect society's tendency to overreact, said Richard Ofshe, author of "Making Monsters: False Memories, Psychotherapy and Sexual Hysteria."

"The problem is that, like most good things, they can go to the extreme, and the extreme has been reached in several ways," said Ofshe, a professor of sociology at the University of California at Berkeley. "The whole question of what constitutes sexual abuse gets defined and redefined to the point where it's absurd."

It is difficult to quantify the number of children charged nationwide with sex crimes arising from misconduct in schools. According to the Department of Justice, juvenile crime has fallen steadily since 1998. Between that year and 2002, the only category of juvenile arrests that has grown is sex offenses other than forcible rape or prostitution. Those arrests have risen 9 percent.

Researchers at the American Association of University Women seven years ago published a landmark study of middle school harassment and bullying, finding that eight of 10 students surveyed had experienced some form of unwanted sexual behavior at school, primarily verbal. But half also admitted harassing somebody themselves -- testament to the basic ambiguities of middle school.

"It's important to pay attention to this in schools because this is where people develop their attitudes and beliefs about what's appropriate," said Catherine Hill, research director at the AAUW. "This is modeling what we expect in a public setting."

Rachel Negra, Cornelison's attorney, called the initial felony counts from Berry's office "ludicrous."

"These boys (were) charged with the same crime as a man who pulled a girl off the sidewalk and forced her to have sexual contact behind a bush," Negra said.

Christian Richter, one of the alleged victims, said, "I think it's a crime, but I don't think it's that serious."

"I do believe it should not have happened," she said. "Everybody knows about sex and our private parts. Our butts are our private parts, and I don't want mine touched."

Parents of two other alleged victims have told the school district they plan to sue because they face "significant expenses" for counseling to deal with the "sexual harassment and abuse."

Yamhill County, known more for its wineries and hazelnuts than crime problems, isn't the only jurisdiction in Oregon that prosecutes juveniles for similar conduct.

"We get, even in Portland, quite a few cases every year of boys who grabbed the breast or buttock of a girl in a hallway," said Julie McFarlane, supervising attorney at the Juvenile Rights Project in Portland, a public defender's office for youths. "It's like criminalizing fairly typical behavior, and I don't think the schools inform or warn them."

In the past five years, McFarlane said, her office has defended at least 10 youths charged with criminal sexual abuse for behavior she said was typically seen in school settings.

If the McMinnville boys are convicted of any of the counts of sex abuse, they will have to register as sex offenders, which could have a devastating effect, McFarlane said.

"It's basically the end of their lives," she said. "Everywhere they go and everything they do, they will have to disclose this. And these kids who do these minor offenses have to follow the same sex-offender registration requirements as someone who brutally raped someone."

The boys' attorneys have filed prosecutorial misconduct motions with the court, which will be heard Aug. 10. The motions allege the boys were hit with additional charges for refusing to accept plea deals and were unfairly selected for prosecution.

"It's either a crime warranting prosecution or it's not," said Lawrence, Mashburn's lawyer. "You can't pick out two little boys and string them up as an example."

Kicked out of school and unable to socialize with friends, Cornelison spends his days alone at home playing a military video game and wondering about his future.

"I might not even be able to go back to school next year," he said. "I just try not to think about it."

Susan Goldsmith: 503-294-5131; susangoldsmith @news.oregonian.com

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1185040507206380.xml&coll=7

The two boys tore down the hall of Patton Middle School after lunch, swatting the bottoms of girls as they ran -- what some kids later said was a common form of greeting.

But bottom-slapping is against policy in McMinnville Public Schools. So a teacher's aide sent the gawky seventh-graders to the office, where the vice principal and a police officer stationed at the school soon interrogated them.

After hours of interviews with students the day of the February incident, the officer read the boys their Miranda rights and hauled them off in handcuffs to juvenile jail, where they spent the next five days.


Why could a detention not work? The prosecutor needs a medal...the Iron Cross.

I am not saying what the boys did was right, but there was no need to put them and their families through this.

Yeah I'm going with unruly kids that need a week or two in detention and Saturday's too but not jailtime, this isn't sexual harassment.

so let me sure I understand this correctly.

They broke the law, yes?

So what's the problem?

They broke the law, yes?

I don't believe they have been tried yet.

Thank god the vice principal never went to a sporting event where the players congratulate each other by bottom smacking.

Vice douche: "My god! Is this baseball or Megan's Law Ball?"

"My question is, why this would constitute a sexual offense, as opposed to something inappropriate that should have been dealt with within the school -- not within the criminal justice system."

Because we can't appear to be light on these future evil rapists. :rolleyes:

To Rhonda Pope, mother of Christian Richter, 13, a girl named in the court papers as one of the victims, the charges are justified. "Slapping somebody on the butt is sexual harassment, and it is a crime," she said. "Considering what was going on and that my daughter was offended, it is a crime. And it's not OK."

And the "No shit, Sherlock" award goes to...

Of course it's sexual harassment! What it isn't is sexual abuse.

Two of the alleged victims spontaneously offered to testify on behalf of the boys. Under oath, they told the judge they were friends and did not feel threatened by them. The two girls also testified they felt compelled, during the initial interviews with Tillery and Roache, to say things that weren't true.

"Well, when the (vice) principal asked me stuff, I kind of felt pressured to answer stuff that I was uncomfortable, and that it hurt, but it really didn't," the girl said, explaining that she didn't think anything sexual went on.

Why am I not surprised?

The boys' families could hardly believe the situation. Neither boy had ever been in trouble. Now, they faced multiple felony counts. Their parents had to figure out how to calm two boys who they said were traumatized by their time in the Yamhill County Juvenile Detention Center.

Probably by telling them to "suck it up." Never mind what they've just gone thru, they've just sexually assaulted 15 delicate young ladies!

Both families insist they will not take any plea deals and will fight the charges.

Good. More people should be looking critically at crap like this.

Rachel Negra, Cornelison's attorney, called the initial felony counts from Berry's office "ludicrous."

"These boys (were) charged with the same crime as a man who pulled a girl off the sidewalk and forced her to have sexual contact behind a bush," Negra said.

See my prior post.

Parents of two other alleged victims have told the school district they plan to sue because they face "significant expenses" for counseling to deal with the "sexual harassment and abuse."

In other words, an easy payday.

This is absolutely absurd. I don't see how anyone can't be incensed about this crap. They're about to completely destroy two young boys' lives in the name of "fighting sexual abuse."

so let me sure I understand this correctly.

They broke the law, yes?

So what's the problem? the problem is that two kids were singled out when, at least, 14 also admitted to doing the same thing.

the problem is that those kids will be sent away for years and have their names smeared for something minor. say, you get sentenced to 2 yrs in jail, $10,000 in fines and 100,000 hours of community service for tresspassing.

so let me sure I understand this correctly.

They broke the law, yes?

So what's the problem?

The law is the problem.

Sex Offender Registration is unjust. Taking two kids to court on felony charges over a prank is unjust. Taking only those two boys, and not the girls who engaged in similar activity is discriminatory and therefore unjust. Having slapping a girl's bottom without her consent being anything more than a misdemeanor is excessive and unjust. Zero Tolerance is pigheaded, reactionary and, you guessed it, unjust.

The laws here, and the idiots who write them and demand that they be enforced, are the problem. Someone needs to slap some sense into our legislators.

Wow that is sad. I mean they could have at leasted gave them extra homework or a writing essay. LOL But, what can we say, this world is pretty corrupt, no matter where you go.

The laws here, and the idiots who write them and demand that they be enforced, are the problem. Someone needs to slap some sense into our legislators.

Three guesses where they need to be slapped. :p

What the law says (unsure if this is the same for minors as it is for adults):

First Degree (up to 10 years upon conviction):
Sexual abuse in the first degree (Class B felony) (1) A person commits the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree when that person: (a) Subjects another person to sexual contact and: (A) The victim is less than 14 years of age; (B) The victim is subjected to forcible compulsion by the actor; or (C) The victim is incapable of consent by reason of being mentally defective, mentally incapacitated or physically helpless.

Third Degree (up to 1 year upon conviction):
Sexual abuse in the third degree (Class A misdemeanor) (1) A person commits the crime of sexual abuse in the third degree if the person subjects another person to sexual contact and: (a) The victim does not consent to the sexual contact; or (b) The victim is incapable of consent by reason of being under 18 years of age.

Harassment (up to 1 year upon conviction):
Harassment (Class A misdemeanor) (1) A person commits the crime of harassment if the person intentionally: (a) Harasses or annoys another person by: (A) Subjecting such other person to offensive physical contact; or (B) Publicly insulting such other person by abusive words or gestures in a manner intended and likely to provoke a violent response.

Seems, sadly enough, that they're completely within the law. I think I'll excuse myself from the conversation now, my blood's boiling...the selective enforcement, attempting to make an example, treating this the same as real cases of sexual abuse, I'm too emotional to continue.

Good night.

The laws here, and the idiots who write them and demand that they be enforced, are the problem.

and not, I dunno, students who go around grabbing girls' breasts?

and not, I dunno, students who go around grabbing girls' breasts?

We agree that that is wrong. However, does it require that a 7th grader register as a sex offender for his entire life, or should they just serve a few denetions? And have the authorities look the other way if the girls decide to slap him.

and not, I dunno, students who go around grabbing girls' breasts?

Bottoms, not breasts. And no, not at the end of the day.

Follow the harm my friend. One's bottom is grabbed, okay, that's annoying and rude. One is thrown in irons and locked in jail on felony charges, where if convicted one goes to prison for 10 years and is put on a registry which might as well dictate that you wear a yellow star or a scarlet 'S', that's something a bit worse than annoying and rude. That's hell on earth.

We agree that that is wrong. However, does it require that a 7th grader register as a sex offender for his entire life, or should they just serve a few denetions?

You know, last time I checked, I think there's a whole big load of midle ground there.

It is sexual assault. Now should he register for life? No, probably not. But should he get away with "just a few detentions"? Of course not. If I pulled that shit I'd be thrown in jail in a heart beat. Now true, they're children, but by 7th grade they're probably 12, 13 years old, and certainly old enough to deal with the consequences of their actions.

And when you grab a girl's breasts without her permission, consequences run a lot deeper than "a few detentions"

Bottoms, not breasts.

In the first of two police reports, Roache noted that Cornelison had admitted he'd poked a girl's breast. Mashburn said he also had poked girls in their breasts in the past.

No, breasts.

and not, I dunno, students who go around grabbing girls' breasts?

Aren't they like twelve though, or something? Really, this is silliness.

so let me sure I understand this correctly.

They broke the law, yes?

So what's the problem?
I'm not even going to justify that with an actual response. If that is your opinion, I could suggest things you could go do, but they would lead to me being banned.

I'm not even going to justify that with an actual response.

So you think sexual assault is ok then?

Aren't they like twelve though, or something? Really, this is silliness.

again, do I think it's appropriate they be charged with a crime requiring registration? No, and as of now, it does not appear they are.

On the other hand, do I think "a few detentions" is appropriate? No, not even close.

A Good Game doesn't warrant 5 days in Juvenile Hall.

So you think sexual assault is ok then?
So you think 12 year olds who slapped a couple girls on the butt should be convicted on the same scale and to the same extent as a grown man who sexually assaulted a woman up to the level of raping her?

again, do I think it's appropriate they be charged with a crime requiring registration? No, and as of now, it does not appear they are.

On the other hand, do I think "a few detentions" is appropriate? No, not even close.

I say this because they are juveniles. And also because of that, what they did is of a de minimus nature. Hence law enforcement should not be involved.

Really, where does it end. If a five year old pokes a woman's breast, are you going to insist on formal sanctions too? Of course not.

Let's not make the law more of an ass than it already is.

So you think 12 year olds who slapped a couple girls on the butt should be convicted on the same scale and to the same extent as a grown man who sexually assaulted a woman?

No, but then again, a grown man would be charged with first degree sexual assault, which is a felony.

Had you read you would have heard that they are currently facing charges of misdemenor assault.

Which is a considerably less scale as a misdemenor carries at maximum one year in prison where as first degree sexual assault typically carries about 10 years.

But, you know, don't let silly things like facts get in the way of your righteous indignation.

"Good" lawyers like Neo Art (believing his assertion that he is one), is what causes shit like this. Going on fucking crusades against people so they can look like they are tough on crime. I guess building up their careers so in the future they can be even scummier politicians and DAs.

Just to update me here. Someone's pressing charges?

Jesus, I'll never give a good game ever again.

I say this because they are juveniles. And also because of that, what they did is of a de minimus nature. Hence law enforcement should not be involved.

I disagree, they committed a crime.

Really, where does it end. If a five year old pokes a woman's breast, are you going to insist on formal sanctions too? Of course not.

Right, of course not. But then again, these are not 5 year olds, they're teenagers that deliberatly grabbed at a woman's breasts, with likely full awareness and intent in what they did.

"Good" lawyers like Neo Art (believing his assertion that he is one), is what causes shit like this.

Me? Nah, I do not, and never have, practiced criminal law.

I guess building up their careers so in the future they can be even scummier politicians and DAs.

Me? Government work? Hah, they don't pay NEARLY as much to make it worth it for me. I like the fact that I'll be making six figures before I'm 30.

That being said, I'd rather be a scummy politician than someone who supports sexual assault like you.

You think this sort of thing is Sexual Assault?

Sexual abuse in the third degree (Class A misdemeanor) (1) A person commits the crime of sexual abuse in the third degree if the person subjects another person to sexual contact and: (a) The victim does not consent to the sexual contact; or (b) The victim is incapable of consent by reason of being under 18 years of age.

Yes, I do. Poking at their breasts without their consent would certainly clarify.

Me? Nah, I do not, and never have, practiced criminal law.



Me? Government work? Hah, they don't pay NEARLY as much to make it worth it for me. I like the fact that I'll be making six figures before I'm 30.

That being said, I'd rather be a scummy politician than someone who supports sexual assault like you.

You think this sort of thing is Sexual Assault?

OH MY FUCKING GOSH

you call THAT breaking the LAW!?!!?

Don't make me hurt you. They touched a few peoples BOTTOMS, holy shit. For like a SECOND. Which happens to be NORMAL. And getting charged as a SEX OFFENDER. They could end up NOT GOING TO COLLEGE. Do you even UNDERSTAND!?!?? Calling that traumatizing is like calling Hitler KIND because he mostly killed JEWS.



They didn't GRAB anyone's breasts! READ!!! It says POKED. Jesus christ (you made me say that and I'm ATHEIST)

four words:

THIS IS FUCKING BULLSHIT. :upyours:

Wow.

you're severely fucked up, huh?

Here's a thought. If they didn't want their future fucked up, they shouldn't have gone anywhere near the breasts of nonconsenting females, huh? How worthless a human being you must be to excuse this kind of behavior.

Had you read you would have heard that they are currently facing charges of misdemenor assault.
I fail to see why I should give a fuck about the difference considering the ends.

Which is a considerably less scale as a misdemenor carries at maximum one year in prison where as first degree sexual assault typically carries about 10 years.

But, you know, don't let silly things like facts get in the way of your righteous indignation.
Let me reiterate.
You support convicting 12 year olds to the same extent and scale as a man who sexually assaulted a woman? To the point of 10 years in jail and registration as a sex offender.

I will continue to be righteously indignant because the people who should be indignant are sitting around supporting this miscarriage of justice.

I can see what Neo Art is talking about and I agree for the most part that since they did it with full knowledge of what they were doing it is technically "a crime". But the punishment was a bit harsh. They're kids, suspend them for a week and that will take care of it.

I disagree, they committed a crime.


Fine, then let's take the law to it's obvious conclusion then. I want to see their teachers sued.

That being said, I'd rather be a scummy politician than someone who supports sexual assault like you.
Isn't that a clever strawman?

Me: "Wtf, 12 year olds are facing 10 years in jail and registration as sex offenders for swatting girls' bottoms? Why the fuck do you support this?"
You: "Sexual assault supporter."
Me: "Sexual assault supporter? They are 12."
You: "Sexual assault supporter, sexual assault supporter!"

What a crock of shit.

Wow.

you're severely fucked up, huh?

Here's a thought. If they didn't want their future fucked up, they shouldn't have gone anywhere near the breasts of nonconsenting females, huh? How worthless a human being you must be to excuse this kind of behavior.


How DARE you! You self absorbed PIG. You don't understand life in general. You pretend you're some sort of criminal lawyer, and yet you don't understand the basic princpiple of miscarriage of justice. Also, you are an asshole who supports ZERO TOLERANCE on EVERYTHING. Ok, next time you get a boner near someone and get charged with sexual harrassment because you made someone sexually uncomfortable don't cry to ME. You don't think about it now, but thats what YOU are supporting. A land that is NOT FREE. ANTI AMERICAN, BOZO. You think you are supporting an anti sexual world, but I think this might border on the infringement of freedom of expression in another way. How about that!? Also, the fact that they are using what they said during an interrogation that happened before the Miranda is against the law. This should be thrown OUT. Those two girls didn't decide to testify for the boys for fun. And I BET that its the PARENTS of most of the other girls who are pressuring them. Too concerned about what is appropriate, and not concerned enough about how ridiculous these charges are.

You support convicting 12 year olds to the same extent and scale as a man who sexually assaulted a woman?

Of course not. If it were a fully grown man I would believe he should get 10 years for each count.

Likewise if it turns out the girls consented in the end, then I don't see much of an issue.

If as it comes out though they sexually assaulted girls who didn't consent, damned right they deserve to be in jail. They are sex offenders.

I will continue to be righteously indignant

Well, ok. People tend to prefer NOT looking like ignorant fools in public, but, you know, as you wish.

Isn't that a clever strawman?

Me: "Wtf, 12 year olds are facing 10 years in jail and registration as sex offenders for swatting girls' bottoms? Why the fuck do you support this?"
You: "Sexual assault supporter."
Me: "Sexual assault supporter? They are 12."
You: "Sexual assault supporter, sexual assault supporter!"

What a crock of shit.

^^
Made of Win.

If as it comes out though they sexually assaulted girls who didn't consent, damned right they deserve to be in jail. They are sex offenders.


For the sake of this argument, are you prepared to stipulate that they were twelve years old?

The most likely thing that occurred is that the girls really didn't care and gave their consent previously (like as in a long time ago), or it was just tacit. Then, when their parents found out, they were mad, and the girls did not want to upset their ultraconservative parents by saying that they let them do it, so they told them they didn't. The parents then supported the charges. Two of the girls decided they really didn't want to be part of ruining these guys future and wanted to tell the truth,no matter what their parents thought, and they testified for the boys.

Isn't that a clever strawman?

Me: "Wtf, 12 year olds are facing 10 years in jail and registration as sex offenders for swatting girls' bottoms? Why the fuck do you support this?"
You: "Sexual assault supporter."
Me: "Sexual assault supporter? They are 12."
You: "Sexual assault supporter, sexual assault supporter!"

What a crock of shit.

And you know what? If they did sexually assault them, you're damned fucking right they should go to jail. "Boys will be boys" should not be tolerated in polite society.

They assaulted them, they deserve jail. Any other argument is supporting sexual offenders.

Now we can argue how MUCH jail they deserve, and reasonable people can disagree, but the bullshit of "oh, a few detentions should do it" is disgusting and woefully inadequate.

They committed a crime, crime deserves punishment. Sexual assault deserves a WHOLE lot more punishment than "bad boys, don't do it again!"

Should they get 10 years and a lifetime registry? No, that does seem rather excessive.

But they sure as fuck deserve something a lot worse than a few detentions and to be sent to bed without supper.

Neo Art:

A GOOD GAME IS NOT A FUCKING SEXUAL ASSAULT.

For the sake of this argument, are you prepared to stipulate that they were twelve years old?

Acutally, rereading probably they're 11, since they said they can face 10 years in juvy and juvenile detention, I believe, can't hold you past 21.

That being stipulated to, do they deserve 10 years and on the registry? No.

in fact I have argued on more than one occassion that I believe a sexual registry to be unconstitutional.

But that being said, if it is true, then they have committed a sexual assault, and for that I think perhaps a year in juvenile detention is perfectly adequate and, when all shakes out, I'll put money on that being exactly what happens.

Neo Art:

A GOOD GAME IS NOT A FUCKING SEXUAL ASSAULT.

gee, the law would disagree, wouldn't it?

TO Neo Art:

Doesn't it seem a LITTLE odd to you that it was the teacher's aide that reported this, and not the girls. Doesn't that signify to you that the girls REALLY DIDN'T CARE? I believe that qualifies as semi-passive consent. Don't you agree? (I apologize for my language earlier)

Of course not. If it were a fully grown man I would believe he should get 10 years for each count.
"Tar and feathers? Ridiculous, they are only kids. Just the boiling tar."


If as it comes out though they sexually assaulted girls who didn't consent, damned right they deserve to be in jail. They are sex offenders.
They are 12. There are children who are sociopaths and sexual deviants, there is no proof these are either. Therefore your position and the position of the "law" in this case is patently absurd. I'm sure you know where you can both stick it.

gee, the law would disagree, wouldn't it?

I guess Alex Rodriguez should be arrested on the charges of Sexual Assault, eh?

gee, the law would disagree, wouldn't it?The law is designed by idiots who just want to get reelected. See the case in Georgia where the boy was put away for years. After it was brought up that the rule was ridiculous, the legislature made a law to counter it, then made it non-retroactive and the behest of another politician who wants to get reelected - the state prosecutor. God forbid innocent people be let out of jail. The person who authored the original bill spoke out that the boy's prosecution was absurd.

The officers are not infallible because they have badges. The school teachers and principals are not infallible because of their position and "no tolerance" is not a reason to be jackasses. And the attorney general wants to get reelected. He would send his own mother to jail for life for minor infraction.

This is a fucking witch hunt.

If the law says twelve year olds don't have the maturity level or the knowledge to consent to sexual intercourse, I don't see how they should understand the concept of sexual assault.

If the law says twelve year olds don't have the maturity level or the knowledge to consent to sexual intercourse, I don't see how they should understand the concept of sexual assault.

I think the pro-prosecution crowd just got owned.

TO Neo Art:

Doesn't it seem a LITTLE odd to you that it was the teacher's aide that reported this, and not the girls. Doesn't that signify to you that the girls REALLY DIDN'T CARE? I believe that qualifies as semi-passive consent. Don't you agree? (I apologize for my language earlier)

I have no opinion one way or the other on whether they consented or not. And in fact, as I said earlier, IF it comes out they did consent, then let that be that. If they consented, I don't care (ignoring the problems of could they legally consent).

I made no presumption THAT they did, I speak only of IF they did. If the girls consented, they consented.

If they didn't, they were sexually assaulted.

Acutally, rereading probably they're 11, since they said they can face 10 years in juvy and juvenile detention, I believe, can't hold you past 21.

That being stipulated to, do they deserve 10 years and on the registry? No.

in fact I have argued on more than one occassion that I believe a sexual registry to be unconstitutional.

But that being said, if it is true, then they have committed a sexual assault, and for that I think perhaps a year in juvenile detention is perfectly adequate and, when all shakes out, I'll put money on that being exactly what happens.

If they are twelve, or younger, in many jurisdictions they would lack the requisite mens rea to make them criminals. This is why there is such a thing as statutory rape. You can't have it both ways.

It really is boys will be boys silliness. Why can't you just accept that?

If the law says twelve year olds don't have the maturity level or the knowledge to consent to sexual intercourse, I don't see how they should understand the concept of sexual assault.

actually the law says they do not have the capacity to make INFORMED consent, which is to say, they lack the maturity and knowledge to way all options and make a reasonable choice.

Which is quite different from a 12 year old boy not knowing that breasts are a sexual area.

Should I prosecute my brother?

If the law says twelve year olds don't have the maturity level or the knowledge to consent to sexual intercourse, I don't see how they should understand the concept of sexual assault.
Due to a weird combination of misogyny and gender equality, males are always liable for any sexual misconduct that would be shared equally.

I've noticed how its okay that minors don't have the right to some things ?(like voting - or signing documents that are binding)... so why do they have the ability to be charged as a sexual offender? I'm sorry, but most people don't gain a sex drive and mean it in that way until they are around 14ish... so the whole sex offender thing is pretty dumb. They should be free from accusation of sexual offenses until a reasonable age. Young boys really don't have the conscious thought that goes into a sex offense - its like a five year old who accidentally sees pornography... and then sees it when hes fifteen. It doesn't have any impact until you have experienced certain things. Also, they tend not to teach sexual education until well into middle school in most areas (AKA 7/8th grade).

actually the law says they do not have the capacity to make INFORMED consent, which is to say, they lack the maturity and knowledge to way all options and make a reasonable choice.


No. That's not what the law says at all.

You aren't actually a lawyer, are you?

actually the law says they do not have the capacity to make INFORMED consent, which is to say, they lack the maturity and knowledge to way all options and make a reasonable choice.

Which is quite different from a 12 year old boy not knowing that breasts are a sexual area.
My very point itself. 12 year old girls lack the maturity to consent to the activity, but 12 year old boys are mature enough to be criminally prosecuted for initiating supposed sexual contact.

If they are twelve, or younger, in many jurisdictions they would lack the requisite mens rea to make them criminals. This is why there is such a thing as statutory rape. You can't have it both ways.

As I said, statutory rape is built on the premise of the inability to make informed consent weighing all options, whereas the choice to commit a criminal act need not be one that is weighed intelligently and with knowledge.

Now of course, if they are young enough, the inability to form requisite mens rea is a perfectly acceptable argument. If they can argue that the boys really didn't think grabbing the girl's breasts was a sexual act, they can feel free.

Good luck with that one.

My very point itself. 12 year old girls lack the maturity to consent to the activity, but 12 year old boys are mature enough to be criminally prosecuted for initiating supposed sexual contact.

Yay sexism!

Originally Posted by Neo Art View Post
actually the law says they do not have the capacity to make INFORMED consent, which is to say, they lack the maturity and knowledge to way all options and make a reasonable choice.

Which is quite different from a 12 year old boy not knowing that breasts are a sexual area.


You spelled "weigh" wrong. :p


So much for that law experience ;)

As I said, statutory rape is built on the premise of the inability to make informed consent weighing all options, whereas the choice to commit a criminal act need not be one that is weighed intelligently and with knowledge.


You are getting your 1L consents all mixed up. Statutory rape is based upon the inability to consent. It has nothing to do wif teh informed consent, or weighing teh options.

Think of it like the defense of infancy in contracts.

No. That's not what the law says at all.

You aren't actually a lawyer, are you?

Um, right. What I just said is the whole POINT of statutory rape.

ANYBODY can consent. A five year old can consent to sex. They can not LEGALLY consent to sex, and why not? Because that consent is not informed consent.

The reason a 5 year old's consent is not legal consent is because it is not informed and knowledgeable consent. A drunk out of his mind 27 year old's consent is not legal consent because he can not make informed and knowledgeable consent.

That's the whole bloody point. Consent as a matter of law is only binding if it is informed and knowledgeable consent. If it is not informed and knowledgeable (or in a capacity where the individual could exercise the choice to be informed and knowledgeable) it is not legally binding.

That's the whole fucking point of it. The law does say that, it does not say so explicitly, but then again, that's the entire meaning of legal consent.

You are getting your 1L consents all mixed up. Statutory rape is based upon the inability to consent.

No, wrong. Statutory rape is based upon the inability to give LEGAL consent. They are unable to give consent, as a matter of law. That is because consent, as a matter of law, is informed consent.

They are perfectly capable of giving consent as a matter of fact. Consent as a matter of fact is simply consent, nothing more. They are unable to give consent as a matter of law.

But that's because inherent in the definition of consent as a matter of law is the ability to form informed consent

I hate to break it to you Neo Art, but the law tends to be a bunch of bureaucratic bullshit sewn together by politicians trying to gain more power over the populace. You do realize that most politicians started off as lawyers, right? There you go. Also, the sexism is not only about the consent, but when was the last time a guy turned down a girl smacking him on the butt. A long time ago right? And the girl was REALLY REALLY ugly. And he expressly said NO. It should not be about express consent. It should be about express disconsent.

Um, right. What I just said is the whole POINT of statutory rape.

ANYBODY can consent. A five year old can consent to sex. They can not LEGALLY consent to sex, and why not? Because that consent is not informed consent.

The reason a 5 year old's consent is not legal consent is because it is not informed and knowledgeable consent. A drunk out of his mind 27 year old's consent is not legal consent because he can not make informed and knowledgeable consent.

That's the whole bloody point. Consent as a matter of law is only binding if it is informed and knowledgeable consent. If it is not informed and knowledgeable (or in a capacity where the individual could exercise the choice to be informed and knowledgeable) it is not legally binding.

That's the whole fucking point of it. The law does say that, it does not say so explicitly, but then again, that's the entire meaning of legal consent.

No. Totally wrong. Someone can be informed, knowledgeable, libens volens potens, &c. and still be unable to consent as a matter of law.

Someone can be informed, knowledgeable, libens volens potens, &c. and still be unable to consent as a matter of law.

Can you give me one example where one is over the age of consent, fully informed, knowlegeable, "ready willing and able" and not altered mentally in such a way such as intoxication, and have this NOT be legal consent?

so let me sure I understand this correctly.

They broke the law, yes?

So what's the problem?the problem is calling this sexual assault..
and lifetime on the sex offender registry

Also, most consents (as in the majority) are tacit. You don't go get jiggy with someone and ask them right before, "Is it okay if I stick my penis into your vagina...". Same in this aspect - consents can be implied in physical ways. THAT is what they should try to prove. For example, a girl sticking her butt out in this instance is more likely than not CONSENTING to the action; the opposite of this would be to turn around or move your butt in, or run away... etc. I don't believe these girls made any attempt to get away from these boys as they saw them running down smacking girls butts. Therefore, since they made no attempt of getting out of the way, it is, in a way, consent. It also does not say that the boys were pursuing girls, so the girls must have been reasonably close.

Acutally, rereading probably they're 11, since they said they can face 10 years in juvy and juvenile detention, I believe, can't hold you past 21.

That being stipulated to, do they deserve 10 years and on the registry? No.

in fact I have argued on more than one occassion that I believe a sexual registry to be unconstitutional.

But that being said, if it is true, then they have committed a sexual assault, and for that I think perhaps a year in juvenile detention is perfectly adequate and, when all shakes out, I'll put money on that being exactly what happens.

actually Neo...

Now, Cory Mashburn and Ryan Cornelison, both 13, face the prospect of 10 years in juvenile detention and a lifetime on the sex offender registry in a case that poses a fundamental question: When is horseplay a crime?

so if it's against the law, and consent/lack of complaining is not a reason to let it slide, how come only those two when at least 14 others admitted to the Vice Principal and the Officer Stationed there that they too slapped each other's rears.?

and if one does pass 21 and still has left over time, isn't that person then transferred to an adult facility to serve the remaining time?

Also, most consents (as in the majority) are tacit. You don't go get jiggy with someone and ask them right before, "Is it okay if I stick my penis into your vagina...". Same in this aspect - consents can be implied in physical ways. THAT is what they should try to prove. For example, a girl sticking her butt out in this instance is more likely than not CONSENTING to the action; the opposite of this would be to turn around or move your butt in, or run away... etc. I don't believe these girls made any attempt to get away from these boys as they saw them running down smacking girls butts. Therefore, since they made no attempt of getting out of the way, it is, in a way, consent. It also does not say that the boys were pursuing girls, so the girls must have been reasonably close.

all of which is true, and they have the right to put on their defense, and require the state to prove that they did in fact commit a crime beyond all reasonable doubt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacadaemon View Post
Someone can be informed, knowledgeable, libens volens potens, &c. and still be unable to consent as a matter of law.

Can you give me one example where one is over the age of consent, fully informed, knowlegeable, "ready willing and able" and not altered mentally in such a way such as intoxication, and have this NOT be legal consent?


he did not say anything about age in this quote. So he's saying one could be blah blah blah, but be unable to consent because of age AKA statutory rape.

Can you give me one example where one is over the age of consent, fully informed, knowlegeable, "ready willing and able" and not altered mentally in such a way such as intoxication, and have this NOT be legal consent?

age of consent is for SEX. this is not sex but sexual assault.

so the real question is, is it assault if the 'victim' doesn't complain.

if you say yes, then realize, how many counts of assault goes on in school. clapping the person on the back, football, basketball, volleyball, dodgeball, heck, the whole Physcial Education program allows one student to assault another.

and let's not forget Wrestling... man all those crotch grabs...

:p

actually Neo...



so if it's against the law, and consent/lack of complaining is not a reason to let it slide, how come only those two when at least 14 others admitted to the Vice Principal and the Officer Stationed there that they too slapped each other's rears.?

Actually, I have said AT LEAST 3 times in this thread that IF THEY CONSENTED then I don't care. I don't support these charges IF they consented.

I also don't support 10 years and a registry even if they didn't consent.

What I have always been saying in this thread is, if there was consent I don't think they should be punished, and even if there was not consent, the punishment should not be that severe.

What I objected to however is the idea that, if they did not consent, then all these boys should get is a few detentions and a slap on the wrist. If they did not consent, that is pretty serious, and is deserving of far more.

10 years and registry? No, that's excessive.

A few detentions and a ruler across the wrists? No, woefully inadequate.


and if one does pass 21 and still has left over time, isn't that person then transferred to an adult facility to serve the remaining time?

Yes, but it said 10 years in juvy, or so I thought, so I thought that was the max they were facing.

What those children had done was inappropriate. They should have at least gotten a Saturday school, or expulsion, not thrown in jail. If the girls wanted to press charges they should have been the ones to choose what happened to the boys.

he did not say anything about age in this quote. So he's saying one could be blah blah blah, but be unable to consent because of age AKA statutory rape.

Um, that's kind of the POINT of age of consent laws. If someone is under the age of consent, by law, that individual is not considered informed and knowledgeable. Age of consent laws exist because a person under that age is presumed incapable.

You can't say that someone, as a matter of law, can be under the age of consent and yet still capable. That is counter to the very definition of age of consent laws.

age of consent is for SEX. this is not sex but sexual assault.

so the real question is, is it assault if the 'victim' doesn't complain.

if you say yes, then realize, how many counts of assault goes on in school. clapping the person on the back, football, basketball, volleyball, dodgeball, heck, the whole Physcial Education program allows one student to assault another.

and let's not forget Wrestling... man all those crotch grabs...

:p

It becomes...problematic. One can argue that SEXUAL assault is different than normal assault, and someone under the age of consent can not legally consent to sexual contact, for the same reason they can't consent to sex.

So any sexual contact against someone under the age of consent is technically assault, as they can't legally consent.

I kinda go "ehh" to that, and my whole premise of illegality is based on the assumption of no consent.

Can you give me one example where one is over the age of consent, fully informed, knowlegeable, "ready willing and able" and not altered mentally in such a way such as intoxication, and have this NOT be legal consent?

I never mentioned the age of consent.

But I can if'n you want. Wife is pregnant before marriage. Used to be straight get out in the english common law. Whether the husband knew about it or not.

I never mentioned the age of consent.

Ah but the whole premise of age of consent is that under that age there is the inability to consent due to lack of competance.

So you can't really say that someone is capable of giving consent while being under the age of consent because, as a matter of law, if they're under the age of consent, they are not competant to give consent :p

Which is perhaps the terminology I should have used, rather someone under the AOC is not competant to give consent. It really depends on how your particular jurisidiction defines "consent". Some iwll call it inability to give informed consent, others will refer to it as not being competant to give consent.

It depends on wording. In MA it's generally considered to be "informed consent", but some jurisdictions vary.

But I can if'n you want. Wife is pregnant before marriage. Used to be straight get out in the english common law. Whether the husband knew about it or not.

Who what huh? Consent to what here?

Ah but the whole premise of age of consent is that under that age there is the inability to consent due to lack of competance.

So you can't really say that someone is capable of giving consent while being under the age of consent because, as a matter of law, if they're under the age of consent, they are not competant to give consent :p

Regardless of whether or not they could actually give informed consent. Which is what I was saying. Hence a strong defense for the twelve year olds.


Who what huh? Consent to what here?

Consent to marriage. Even though he knows the chick is pregnant before teh ceremony he can repudiate it at will.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1185040507206380.xml&coll=7

The two boys tore down the hall of Patton Middle School after lunch, swatting the bottoms of girls as they ran -- what some kids later said was a common form of greeting.

But bottom-slapping is against policy in McMinnville Public Schools. So a teacher's aide sent the gawky seventh-graders to the office, where the vice principal and a police officer stationed at the school soon interrogated them.

After hours of interviews with students the day of the February incident, the officer read the boys their Miranda rights and hauled them off in handcuffs to juvenile jail, where they spent the next five days.


Why could a detention not work? The prosecutor needs a medal...the Iron Cross.

I am not saying what the boys did was right, but there was no need to put them and their families through this.

I almost got arrested for something of a similar sort this year. Except, I never touched the girl (and I would never because I'm not like that). And I really cared about her. I still do. Otherwise I would have simply moved on. More or less, I was almost arrested for stalking... which I had never really noticed I was doing. I wasn't following her around or anything. It was just minor things that creeped her out. Damn my social skills. Gahh, she was always so nice to me I couldn't tell I was making her uncomfortable and such. And now she's afraid of me.

And yes, I had talked to her before; quite a lot. More or less we were friends, and now she doesn't want to talk to me again. Well, I probably wasn't going to see her again anyways after high school got out. Cause she graduated, and now I still have two years left. Yeah. Oh well... I wish I could explain everything to her, but that would definately be illegal because in order to do that, I'd have to talk to her. Sometimes I wish life wasn't so fucked up.

*sympathizes with the above*

We all have crappy social skills... that's why we're here! To argue about political stuff :D

*sympathizes with the above*

We all have crappy social skills... that's why we're here! To argue about political stuff :D

I sir... resent that. I don't have crappy social skills! :mad:


that would mean I have some sort of social skills to begin with... :(

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1185040507206380.xml&coll=7

The two boys tore down the hall of Patton Middle School after lunch, swatting the bottoms of girls as they ran -- what some kids later said was a common form of greeting.

But bottom-slapping is against policy in McMinnville Public Schools. So a teacher's aide sent the gawky seventh-graders to the office, where the vice principal and a police officer stationed at the school soon interrogated them.

After hours of interviews with students the day of the February incident, the officer read the boys their Miranda rights and hauled them off in handcuffs to juvenile jail, where they spent the next five days.


Why could a detention not work? The prosecutor needs a medal...the Iron Cross.

I am not saying what the boys did was right, but there was no need to put them and their families through this.

Just an utter joke.

And you can imagine the hypocrisy if it was girls doing that to boys.. it would all be treated as a laugh. Sadly that's the backward society we live in.

What I find most interesting about this argument is the two camps. Well, make that the Camp and the Neo Art.

First off, I mean this politely Neo Art, but I believe you are over-reacting. Maybe you have some good reason for this, past trauma or something, but whatever the case, the problem with prosecuting youth so heavy-handedly is that it's doubtful it will even have any effect. If anything, it might serve to make them bitter and resentful. Punishment, even on the level of a single year, is not something to be handed out so lightly. It's becoming more and more clear that rehabilitation is FAR more effective than imprisonment in regards to recurrence of crime (and yes, if you're one of those people who will be all CITE YOUR SOURCES, then I would be happy to).

However, with that said, I don't see why the only alternative to juvenile detention/prison time being talked about is a slap on the wrist.

Clearly, that wouldn't be enough, for the same reason that it would not be informing the youth as to why this is such a problem. What would be ideal is to educate them in addition to a lighter punishment (e.g. detention/community service/etc). Why not have a program for a year or half-a-year about sexuality or sexual harassment so it can be clearly laid out WHY these boys are being punished, rather than just hitting them as hard as you can.

If they are 12, and it's likely that they are around that age, I honestly think it's an ignorant person who believes that they are fully cognizant of what they may be doing. I know a lot of intelligent 12-year-olds, but the I do not think that their moral-ethical compass is finished developing at that point.

So rather than making the problem worse and perhaps TURNING these kids into actual sex offenders, provide an option that could help to stop this from happening again in the future for everyone at the school.

Making an example of someone never, never works. Obviously. If it did, why are there so many crimes still being committed?

(I don't think you are an ignorant person, Neo Art, just too heavy-handed.)

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1185040507206380.xml&coll=7

The two boys tore down the hall of Patton Middle School after lunch, swatting the bottoms of girls as they ran -- what some kids later said was a common form of greeting.

But bottom-slapping is against policy in McMinnville Public Schools. So a teacher's aide sent the gawky seventh-graders to the office, where the vice principal and a police officer stationed at the school soon interrogated them.

After hours of interviews with students the day of the February incident, the officer read the boys their Miranda rights and hauled them off in handcuffs to juvenile jail, where they spent the next five days.


Why could a detention not work? The prosecutor needs a medal...the Iron Cross.

I am not saying what the boys did was right, but there was no need to put them and their families through this.

Yeah, they should have gotten a few detentions, maybe suspended, but no need for that.

One thing I noticed is how some people said that they grabbed the girls breasts. they slapped the girls ass. What's the difference? Milk is made in the breasts. Poo poo is made in the ass. The breasts are located in the chest area. The ass is located at the bottom of the back, bordering the legs. Asses and breasts are different. Asses are designed specifically for sitting. Breasts are designed specifically for making milk, a nutrisous liquid produced solely by mammals for the purpose of feeding offspring who have digestion systems too underdeveloped to digest food properly.

This is why I loathe zero tolerance. It's like outlawing weapons and punishing people for holding kitchen knives in their kitchens because knives can be weapons when used for violent purposes. It's like trying to end staring by banning the act of seeing. I'm sure the prosecutor would love to charge the boys with capital murder of the girls innocence. It makes the prosecutor look like a hero in a post-Columbine world full of idiots who don't want to have to think.

The boys did not grab breasts. They slapped asses. There is a difference. There is a HUGE difference and they are seperated by a HUGE, bright, glow-in-the-dark line with electric fences topped with barbed wire.

In protest, they should have every student tear down the hallways slapping every other student's ass. What are they gonna do? Turn the school into a giant remand prison?:D

In protest, they should have every student tear down the hallways slapping every other student's ass. What are they gonna do? Turn the school into a giant remand prison?:D

Good idea.

Here are a few things I want to point out:


Now, Cory Mashburn and Ryan Cornelison, both 13, face the prospect of 10 years in juvenile detention and a lifetime on the sex offender registry in a case that poses a fundamental question: When is horseplay a crime?


We want the law to protect children but who is going to protect children from their protectors when their actions are clearly unreasonable.


Bradley Berry, the McMinnville district attorney, said his office "aggressively" pursues sex crimes that involve children. "These cases are devastating to children," he said. "They are life-altering cases."


When it comes to sex crimes, prosecutors are of three types: grandstanding crusaders performing for the camera, anti-abuse zealots who are convinced that everyone is guilty and career climbing political types who want to show the voters just how tough they are on perverts. In any case NONE of those three types of nuts belong anywhere near children.


The boys and their parents say Berry has gone far beyond what is necessary, criminalizing actions that they acknowledge were inappropriate. School district officials said Friday they had addressed the incident by suspending the students for five days.


OK- if suspending the students for 5 days is enough to satisfy the district, who else but a grandstanding asshole would ask for 10 years in prison and registering 13 year olds as sex offenders?


But confidential police reports and juvenile court records shed new light on the context of the boys' actions. The records show that other students, boys and girls, were slapping one another's bottoms. Two of the girls identified as victims have recanted, saying they felt pressured and gave false statements to interrogators.


Pay close attention to this last line. In child sex abuse investigations the kid being questioned just wants to get away. They are embarrassed by the questions and possibly their own conduct. Even a novice interrogator can get them to say almost anything.

There is a myth that children do not lie about sex. Little children, up to pre-adolescents generally do not- sexual activity just isn't part of their world or experience. Teenagers lie consistently about their sexual activity- often to make themselves feel bigger, more mature or to avoid embarrassment or punishment.


All told, Roache interviewed 14 students besides Cornelison and Mashburn. Seven confessed to bottom-swatting, including one girl who described it as "a handshake we do." Two of the alleged victims said they had swatted boys' buttocks themselves.


Each generation defines its own culture in a number of ways: slang, greetings, attitudes and so forth. What we have here are adults looking at kids and judging their actions from their own generational culture.


Two of the alleged victims spontaneously offered to testify on behalf of the boys. Under oath, they told the judge they were friends and did not feel threatened by them. The two girls also testified they felt compelled, during the initial interviews with Tillery and Roache, to say things that weren't true.

"Well, when the (vice) principal asked me stuff, I kind of felt pressured to answer stuff that I was uncomfortable, and that it hurt, but it really didn't," the girl said, explaining that she didn't think anything sexual went on.


Any judge who does not throw this case out of court and sanction the prosecutors has simply lost his mind.

No jury would vote to convict and I see unemployment and lawsuits in the
future of a prosecutor, policeman and a scool principal.

Obviously, these boys should be put to death for being sexist, misogynistic, manocentric, evil, blood-sucking future serial rapists. For slapping a girl's ass. *nod*

Unruly schoolboys, sex offenders... I think that this is probably an unnecessarily fine distinction.

Unruly schoolboys, sex offenders... I think that this is probably an unnecessarily fine distinction.

you're right; they're terrorists.

If I was in charge, I'd give the boys a year of juvi. Now, I know this principle is probably the kind of guy that thinks leaving the lights on is kinky, and as such, I don't support his puritanical reasons for pursuing the matter.

However, the kind of hyper-masculinity displayed by these boys is simply unacceptable. Now, I'm sure for some of these girls this was just fine, but I'm also sure that it makes a few quite uncomfortable. The only reason some of the girls consent is because of pressure from their peers. All tolerating this kind of behavior does is teach the girls that its perfectly normal to be pressured into sexual activities for the approval of others.

The boys did not grab breasts. They slapped asses. There is a difference. There is a HUGE difference and they are seperated by a HUGE, bright, glow-in-the-dark line with electric fences topped with barbed wire.

At least one did grab a breast. Get your facts straight.

Something that I haven't seen in this discussion yet (and I've skimmed, so forgive me if I missed it) is that the DA has backed off the felony charges and offered probation as part of a plea, which would avoid the possibility of the sex offender registry, which is the real bastard part of this case. But the parents and defense attorneys are refusing the deal, basically because they think their precious little shits didn't do anything wrong. They're taking a hell of a gamble with their kids' futures here--the probation lets the thing end and everyone walks away. If the kids lose--and that's always a risk--then they're marked as sex offenders and have to register. It's not worth the gamble as far as I'm concerned.

Also, most consents (as in the majority) are tacit. You don't go get jiggy with someone and ask them right before, "Is it okay if I stick my penis into your vagina...". Same in this aspect - consents can be implied in physical ways. THAT is what they should try to prove. For example, a girl sticking her butt out in this instance is more likely than not CONSENTING to the action; the opposite of this would be to turn around or move your butt in, or run away... etc. I don't believe these girls made any attempt to get away from these boys as they saw them running down smacking girls butts. Therefore, since they made no attempt of getting out of the way, it is, in a way, consent. It also does not say that the boys were pursuing girls, so the girls must have been reasonably close.

So if I walk up to you and make a threatening gesture with my fist, and you don't flinch, and I punch you, then you consented, and I'm not guilty of assault or battery? Just want to point out how fucking stupid your definition of consent is.

Hmm... I think I'm probably one of the most conservative people on this website, but I, in fact, don't even believe these boys did anything bad enough to be suspended from school.

Sexual harrassment is something that happens so often in schools that if they arrested everyone who did it there'd barely be anyone left. I was in a 'issues' class once in the sixth grade and the counseler asked how many of us had ever been sexually harrassed in school. Everyone raised their hands. She asked how many of us had ever sexually harrassed someone. Nearly everyone raised their hands, including 90% of the boys and 70% of the girls, and that class was filled with some of the nicest students I had ever met.

I'd say the boys should get one hour in detention the same amount of days as the number of girls they harrassed.

Does Bradley Berry have a public address so I can send him a long letter outlining the fact that getting your bottom swatted in 7th grade in nowhere near as "life-altering" as being arrested, charged with two sets of 5 crimes, thrown in jail for 5 days with older teens who are probable actual offenders and threatened with 10 years in jail and lifetime registry on the sex offender list. For being a 7th grader who swatted a girl's bottom. Oh, let's not mention being grilled for hours by the vice principal and a police officer.


Though reading Neo Art's posts, I doubt he would give a fuck. Why bother not being an illogical asshole when you can "follow the law."

Does Bradley Berry have a public address so I can send him a long letter outlining the fact that getting your bottom swatted in 7th grade in nowhere near as "life-altering" as being arrested, charged with two sets of 5 crimes, thrown in jail for 5 days with older teens who are probable actual offenders and threatened with 10 years in jail and lifetime registry on the sex offender list. For being a 7th grader who swatted a girl's bottom. Oh, let's not mention being grilled for hours by the vice principal and a police officer.


Though reading Neo Art's posts, I doubt he would give a fuck. Why bother not being an illogical asshole when you can "follow the law."

Do you really think he cares if it's life-altering? He'd probably send the boys to the iron maiden if it would make him look more heroic in the eyes of the public.

This is odd. Surely the teachers are the ones who normally do the bottom-smacking?

Though reading Neo Art's posts, I doubt he would give a fuck. Why bother not being an illogical asshole when you can "follow the law."

But, the law...but...but...he seems so enlightened! O, if only I were to have such personal convictions about things that make no sense...

This is odd. Surely the teachers are the ones who normally do the bottom-smacking?

"Come over here, students, we're going to take pictures now for... um, safety reasons. Billy, stop fiddling with your assless leather chaps or I'll give you a detention."

The law is the problem.

Sex Offender Registration is unjust. Taking two kids to court on felony charges over a prank is unjust. Taking only those two boys, and not the girls who engaged in similar activity is discriminatory and therefore unjust. Having slapping a girl's bottom without her consent being anything more than a misdemeanor is excessive and unjust. Zero Tolerance is pigheaded, reactionary and, you guessed it, unjust.

The laws here, and the idiots who write them and demand that they be enforced, are the problem. Someone needs to slap some sense into our legislators.


But not on the ass or you'll be labeled a sex offender . . . :p

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1185040507206380.xml&coll=7

The two boys tore down the hall of Patton Middle School after lunch, swatting the bottoms of girls as they ran -- what some kids later said was a common form of greeting.

But bottom-slapping is against policy in McMinnville Public Schools. So a teacher's aide sent the gawky seventh-graders to the office, where the vice principal and a police officer stationed at the school soon interrogated them.

After hours of interviews with students the day of the February incident, the officer read the boys their Miranda rights and hauled them off in handcuffs to juvenile jail, where they spent the next five days.


Why could a detention not work? The prosecutor needs a medal...the Iron Cross.

I am not saying what the boys did was right, but there was no need to put them and their families through this.
Absolutely there was a need to put them through that. Such behavior is assault and is totally unacceptable, and it's better that the boys learn that early.

So if I walk up to you and make a threatening gesture with my fist, and you don't flinch, and I punch you, then you consented, and I'm not guilty of assault or battery? Just want to point out how fucking stupid your definition of consent is.
Beat me to it. :D

Look, the way our laws work is this: you don't get to assume that everybody wants you to touch them. Legally speaking, the assumption is that other people DO NOT WANT to be touched by you, unless they actively consent to it.

So yeah, feel free to go around insisting that she consented because she didn't scream "no" quite loud enough to penetrate your thick skull. And enjoy explaining your marvelous theory to the judge.

Absolutely there was a need to put them through that. Such behavior is assault and is totally unacceptable, and it's better that the boys learn that early.

Learn that early? For when? The 10 years in prison or the rest of their lives where they'll be due to be ostracized from society?

Learn that early? For when? The 10 years in prison or the rest of their lives where they'll be due to be ostracized from society?
I was referring to this:

"After hours of interviews with students the day of the February incident, the officer read the boys their Miranda rights and hauled them off in handcuffs to juvenile jail, where they spent the next five days."

Absolutely a good idea to scare the living shit out of those boys. Personally, I think the offer of probation would probably be sufficient punishment in the long term, though if any of them re-offend I think they should stay in juvie until they are 18.

(Of course, I also think that their parents should all be placed on probation. Not for what their kids did, but for the pathetic whining and refusal to accept that their little darlings deserve to be punished for what they did. It's good for parents to stand up for their kids; it's bad for parents to try to weasel their children out of accepting consequences for their actions. Bad parenting is serious, in my opinion, and should carry penalties.)

I don't know about the laws other places, but where I live it would be pointless to label somebody a "sex offender" if they are a minor, because that would get wiped clean when they came of age and their file would be sealed as a matter of course.

I was referring to this:

"After hours of interviews with students the day of the February incident, the officer read the boys their Miranda rights and hauled them off in handcuffs to juvenile jail, where they spent the next five days."

Ahhh... Okay. Still unnecessary IMO but that makes WAY more sense.

Ahhh... Okay. Still unnecessary IMO but that makes WAY more sense.
Imagine what would happen to grown men who did that sort of thing, say at a public gym or rec center.

I think it's important for those boys to understand exactly how seriously that kind of behavior will fuck up their lives. They need a wake up call NOW, and their parents' attitudes strongly suggest that they're not going to get that wake up call at home.

Absolutely there was a need to put them through that. Such behavior is assault and is totally unacceptable, and it's better that the boys learn that early.

7th graders being grilled for hours and then put in jail for 5 days with older teens who were probably actual offenders and then threatened with 10 years and jail and registry on the sex offender list. I'm glad we have such even handed people as yourself to teach young people a lesson these days.

7th graders being grilled for hours and then put in jail for 5 days with older teens who were probably actual offenders and then threatened with 10 years and jail and registry on the sex offender list. I'm glad we have such even handed people as yourself to teach young people a lesson these days.
Out of curiosity, has anybody here been in the juvenile justice system?

I ask because, well, I have. I'm not proud of it. I don't usually like to admit it at all. But in this case, on this subject, I think it has direct relevance, because I have been on the receiving end of juvie justice.

Imagine what would happen to grown men who did that sort of thing, say at a public gym or rec center.

Imagine if apples were oranges and dogs were pants. I'ts not the same fucking thing. I assume you never did anything when you were in 7th grade you wouldn't do now because you grew out of it or got in trouble over it and received a punishment relative to the offense committed.

Imagine if apples were oranges and dogs were pants. I'ts not the same fucking thing. I assume you never did anything when you were in 7th grade you wouldn't do now because you grew out of it or got in trouble over it and received a punishment relative to the offense committed.
As you probably could gather from my previous post...yes, I did do my share of stupid things. Yes, I did do things while I was a minor that I would never do now, and yes, I received punishment for my actions.

As you probably could gather from my previous post...yes, I did do my share of stupid things. Yes, I did do things while I was a minor that I would never do now, and yes, I received punishment for my actions.
Also, let's visit the point that some of the victims admitted to having done similar things themselves and that a couple of them changed their stories when they wern't being grilled by a police officer and their vice principal.

Also, let's visit the point that some of the victims admitted to having done similar things themselves

"S/he started it!" is not a reliable defense in the adult world. It's stupid to teach kids to use it. Young people are always smarter than adults assume. Personal experience talking, here.


and that a couple of them changed their stories when they wern't being grilled by a police officer and their vice principal.
Yeah, I changed my stories a lot of times back in the day.

Look, my responses were about what I think should happen to kids who do what these kids are accused of. If these kids didn't actually do it, then OBVIOUSLY my statements don't apply to them. (i.e. I think murderers should face certain penalties; if you aren't a murderer, then my ideas of penalties don't apply to you, right?)

"S/he started it!" is not a reliable defense in the adult world. It's stupid to teach kids to use it. Young people are always smarter than adults assume. Personal experience talking, here.
The point is, they wern't arrested, put in jail, and threatened with 10 years and sex offender registration.


Yeah, I changed my stories a lot of times back in the day.

Look, my responses were about what I think should happen to kids who do what these kids are accused of. If these kids didn't actually do it, then OBVIOUSLY my statements don't apply to them. (i.e. I think murderers should face certain penalties; if you aren't a murderer, then my ideas of penalties don't apply to you, right?)
As much as a fan as I am of more severe (and logical) punishments for crimes, the gung ho-ness of hanging two 7th graders out to dry with no proof that they are psychologically sexual predators astounds me.

The point is, they wern't arrested, put in jail, and threatened with 10 years and sex offender registration.

And, in my opinion, they should have been, if they did this whole ass-slapping routine. The fact that the system fucked up before is not a convincing argument for why it should continue fucking up from here on out.


As much as a fan as I am of more severe (and logical) punishments for crimes, the gung ho-ness of hanging two 7th graders out to dry with no proof that they are psychologically sexual predators astounds me.
...

I'm not arguing that they be registered as sex offenders. Perhaps you are confusing my posts with somebody else's?

And, in my opinion, they should have been, if they did this whole ass-slapping routine. The fact that the system fucked up before is not a convincing argument for why it should continue fucking up from here on out.
Which goes back to hanging 7th graders out to dry without proof of them psychologically leaning towards being sexual predators.


...

I'm not arguing that they be registered as sex offenders. Perhaps you are confusing my posts with somebody else's?
I'm confusing them with the facts of the case.

Maaaaan, this is just ridiculous. Those boys deserve a nice slap in the face by one of the girls, and that'd be it. But perhaps we Europeans are more tolerant to such things. And, yes, it is highly likely they will grow out of it. If not, you can still put them in jail when they keep doing it at 20 or so.

Which goes back to hanging 7th graders out to dry without proof of them psychologically leaning towards being sexual predators.

I'm confusing them with the facts of the case.
Okay, it seems like you aren't actually arguing with me, you're arguing against the OP or the article in question. That's fine, it's just a bit confusing if you continue to quote my posts and then argue against something else.

Fine, then let's take the law to it's obvious conclusion then. I want to see their teachers sued.

For?

Let's be real people -- by age seven most people understand that assault (hitting/touching someone else) is not proper. I don't think I ever thought it appropriate to walk up and grab a guys' bottom or his genitals as a "hi, howyadoin'"

Do I think they should go to prison? No. Do I think they should be registered as sex offenders? No. Do I think their asses should have been hauled to the station? Absolutely.

As someone who was assaulted numerous times in middle school and had to hear the fucking stupid words, "They're just kids" while nothing was done to stop the constant harassment, yeah, maybe getting your ass hauled down to jail and having your parents have to bail you out and pay a fine is a big old wakeup call that it's not excusable as "kid's stuff".

For?

Let's be real people -- by age seven most people understand that assault (hitting/touching someone else) is not proper. I don't think I ever thought it appropriate to walk up and grab a guys' bottom or his genitals as a "hi, howyadoin'"

Do I think they should go to prison? No. Do I think they should be registered as sex offenders? No. Do I think their asses should have been hauled to the station? Absolutely.

As someone who was assaulted numerous times in middle school and had to hear the fucking stupid words, "They're just kids" while nothing was done to stop the constant harassment, yeah, maybe getting your ass hauled down to jail and having your parents have to bail you out and pay a fine is a big old wakeup call that it's not excusable as "kid's stuff".
Exactly.

Well, from a guy's position, it seems, of course, different than from a girl's position. When I was in school, we had a girl who'd do just that stuff with me. (Although it was meant more as a joke/sign of friendship than sexual). And I did not in the least way ever felt threatened by this. I guess for a girl it feels different, huh?

If the girls wanted to press charges they should have been the ones to choose what happened to the boys.

"I want their scrotums made into a coin purse."

Nope, doesn't work that way.

For?

Let's be real people -- by age seven most people understand that assault (hitting/touching someone else) is not proper. I don't think I ever thought it appropriate to walk up and grab a guys' bottom or his genitals as a "hi, howyadoin'"

This is another of those can 'o worms threads, but ah well.

Well, personally, I'm not so sure they do. They would probably understand that causing physical pain to someone else is not proper, but I don't know that seven (or many twelve, for that matter) year olds would believe that touching other people is wrong.

Sexual harrassment is something that happens so often in schools that if they arrested everyone who did it there'd barely be anyone left.

And so we should do nothing, and let it continue?

Bloody moronic. As obnoxious as the boys were, I fail to see why disciplinary procedures within the school could not have been followed; surely such occasions are what they were designed for?

This is odd. Surely the teachers are the ones who normally do the bottom-smacking?

Not in many places in the US, and even then, districts often need written permission from parents to do it.

I am wholeheartedly against that. I do NOT think an educator, or any adult not related to a child, should be able to physically discipline said child; I'm not even that keen sometimes on some parents physically disciplining their kids.

I don't know about the laws other places, but where I live it would be pointless to label somebody a "sex offender" if they are a minor, because that would get wiped clean when they came of age and their file would be sealed as a matter of course.

Indeed. It's the reason that often, drug dealers let minors handle the money/carry the drugs in some transactions.... it won't matter after 18.

Also, let's visit the point that some of the victims admitted to having done similar things themselves and that a couple of them changed their stories when they wern't being grilled by a police officer and their vice principal.

And after they'd spoken to other students or parents who may have pressured them to change their stories?

Wow, so lets prosecute juvenilles for whatever, but completely neglect due process at the same time.

These two boys were questioned in connection with a 'crime' with both a police officer and the principal present without having their Miranda rights read to them.

All evidence in the case must be examined to see if it is admissible in court because of the woeful actions of the police and the school.

Both the police officer should face disciplinary charges for neglecting due process, and the principal should be fired for neglecting his in loco parentis duties to the two boys, by letting the police officer question them without reading them their Miranda rights and making sure they understood those rights.

The families should fight this case in the courts and not accept any plea bargains. The alleged victims and their families obviously do not want to see the boys prosecuted.

The families of the boys should then sue the principal/school/police for trial costs and damages caused by this high profile case.

The actions of the police and the school were completely inappropriate.

Wow, so lets prosecute juvenilles for whatever, but completely neglect due process at the same time.

These two boys were questioned in connection with a 'crime' with both a police officer and the principal present without having their Miranda rights read to them.

All evidence in the case must be examined to see if it is admissible in court because of the woeful actions of the police and the school.

Both the police officer should face disciplinary charges for neglecting due process, and the principal should be fired for neglecting his in loco parentis duties to the two boys, by letting the police officer question them without reading them their Miranda rights and making sure they understood those rights.

The families should fight this case in the courts and not accept any plea bargains. The alleged victims and their families obviously do not want to see the boys prosecuted.

The families of the boys should then sue the principal/school/police for trial costs and damages caused by this high profile case.

The actions of the police and the school were completely inappropriate.
I have to admit, one of the things that really bugged me back in my mis-spent youth was that cops never Mirandised me. They always got pissy when it turned out I knew my rights, and I knew that I was entitled to protection under Miranda just like an adult would be.

And after they'd spoken to other students or parents who may have pressured them to change their stories?
Badge != infallible.

Being interrogated by a police officer while in 7th grade is going to make you want to tell them what they want to hear.

Badge != infallible.

Being interrogated by a police officer while in 7th grade is going to make you want to tell them what they want to hear.

I don't recall saying badge=infallible. Nice strawman there.
And having your friends "mad at you" isn't going to affect the average 7th grader also?

And having your friends "mad at you" isn't going to affect the average 7th grader also?
Are you saying that being interrogated by a police officer in 7th grade isn't intimidating?

Are you saying that being interrogated by a police officer in 7th grade isn't intimidating?
No, he didn't say that at all.

No, he didn't say that at all.

Don't be too surprised Bottle, if TPH actually responded to what posters actually said rather than the outragious nonsense he wants to pretend they said, he may actually have to address real arguments.

And lord knows he's demonstrated time and time again how utterly incapable he is of that.

Don't be too surprised Bottle, if TPH actually responded to what posters actually said rather than the outragious nonsense he wants to pretend they said, he may actually have to address real arguments.

And lord knows he's demonstrated time and time again how utterly incapable he is of that.
I have to admit...I am surprised.

Kat says, "And having your friends "mad at you" isn't going to affect the average 7th grader also?" (Bold mine)

TPH responds: ZOMG YOU TOTALLY JUST SAID 7TH GRADERS AREN'T EVER SCARED BY COPS!!!!!

Granted, TPH has been "responding" to my posts by talking about arguments I'm not making for a page or so, but this is a new level of obvious strawmanery.

awwww, how silly, I bet those girls liked that slapping.

I have to admit...I am surprised.

Kat says, "And having your friends "mad at you" isn't going to affect the average 7th grader also?" (Bold mine)

TPH responds: ZOMG YOU TOTALLY JUST SAID 7TH GRADERS AREN'T EVER SCARED BY COPS!!!!!

Granted, TPH has been "responding" to my posts by talking about arguments I'm not making for a page or so, but this is a new level of obvious strawmanery.

Oh, go read the full thread. I've been saying for pages "if the girls didn't consent, then this was assault and the boys deserve more than a simple slap on the wrist, although probably not 10 years and a registry"

he responds: "OMG the girls probably consented andn even so you want to ruin these boys lives by making them go to jail for 10 years and sit on a registry.

No...I even qualified my statement by saying if they did NOT consent, and said that the maximum penalty is excessive.

It seems a little disgusting that people want this to go away with a little detention under the attitude of "oh, boys will be boys", somehow pretending a 13 year old boy poking a girl's breast isn't fully aware of what he's doing.

No, he didn't say that at all.
And I never said that there wouldn't have been peer pressure either now did I? I don't see you people leaping to my defense and defaming Katganistan (Neo Art) for it.

he responds: "OMG the girls probably consented andn even so you want to ruin these boys lives by making them go to jail for 10 years and sit on a registry.
I bet you can't even find the word consent in any of my posts in this thread aside from this one.

It seems a little disgusting that people want this to go away with a little detention under the attitude of "oh, boys will be boys", somehow pretending a 13 year old boy poking a girl's breast isn't fully aware of what he's doing.
Agreed.

And I never said that there wouldn't have been peer pressure either now did I? I don't see you people leaping to my defense and defaming Katganistan (Neo Art) for it.
Seriously, we've been over this: "He started it!" is not a reliable defense in the adult world.

If Kat starts using straw man tactics or other such behavior, I will speak up and suggest he knock it off. So far you are the only one doing so, but if somebody else starts in with it then they don't get to be off the hook just because you did it first. Your tactics suck. They will continue to suck regardless of who is trying to use them.

Seriously, we've been over this: "He started it!" is not a reliable defense in the adult world.
I don't recall saying "he started it" either. Unless of course you are suggesting that police officer interrogation of 7th graders is some sort of absurd "he started it" argument and therefore dismissing what effect it would have had on the 'testimony' given by those interviewed.

I bet you can't even find the word consent in any of my posts in this thread aside from this one.

You know...this doesn't actually help you. I had assumed that somewhere underneath your bluster and nonsense was the proposition that these kids shouldn't really face punishment because the girls probably consented.

But since you apparently are so keen to point out that you NEVER actually argued that they probably consented actually makes you more dispicable. Had you argued that they should escape any real punishment because they consented, I could agree with you.

You, since you took the effort to point out you didn't argue they consented, apparently don't care whether they did or not.

Yeah, like I said...this doesn't help you.

Male mental development - growin' up - comes few years later than female one so I do think they're not guilty for whatever they're prosecuted.

As I see it a week of detention is probably the maximum imaginable just punishment here: We're talking about 12-13 year old boys here - I'm pretty sure they don't consider their actions anything more than pranks.

Personally - as long as it wasn't systematic oppression, bullying - I really, truly fail to see why they should be punished in extremes: A severe talking to with few hours of after school "community service" (say, cleaning school grounds) would be enough in my eyes...unless, of course, this is a repeated offense. I also completely fail to see anything sexual here, from a perspective of a male who once was 12 himself.

You know...this doesn't actually help you. I had assumed that somewhere underneath your bluster and nonsense was the proposition that these kids shouldn't really face punishment because the girls probably consented.And supposedly my arguments in this thread are bad :rolleyes:

But since you apparently are so keen to point out that you NEVER actually argued that they probably consented actually makes you more dispicable. Had you argued that they should escape any real punishment because they consented, I could agree with you.
I have yet to argue my opinion of what have should be done with them. I argue that this line of punishment is far beyond what should be used against some "unruly schoolboys" who arn't proven to be sexual deviants.

You, since you took the effort to point out you didn't argue they consented, apparently don't care whether they did or not.
Now you are just making shit up. You assumed I argued they consented because others and you yourself have been making that argument. Whether or not they consented is irrelevant to harshness of the punishment inflicted if they didn't consent.

Kat's a girl.

Anyway, I did a lot of things as a teenager I'm not proud of, and one of them is in high school doing pretty much the same thing as these guys, only with boobs. I ended up maybe with a suspension, nothing too bad (only thing is that all of my suspensions coincided with major tests. OH NOES!!!) I had to bust my hump in the second semester to save my rear.

Had I been labeled a sex offender then, and sent to adult jail, I'd still be there. I was 15 years old, and I'm 25 now.

IMO, a suspension for these guys should be sufficient for this offence, if even that. Some people just don't understand how damaging sexual assault can be. A lecture by the school counselor might even be enough, and if that doesn't work, then we start talking about suspensions and expulsion.

...and once again we see why zero-tolerance doesn't work.

Such behavior is inappropriate, definitely. But it hardly rises to the level of criminal prosecution. This should've been dealt with in school: suspension/expulsion, not going onto the sex offender registry.

I think that zero-tolerance policies came into being because schools are now tired of trying to be mom and dad to kids whose parents don't give a flying fuck.

Of course, over the past few decades, US public schools are more and more involved in teaching subjects that have nothing to do with academics, on the idea that parents are either teaching their kids the "wrong" way to live, or that parents don't give a flying fuck.

Considering that parents seem to have elected school boards to fulfill this, it's pretty clear to me that most parents don't give a flying fuck, and want schools to raise their children (see the whole in loco parentis thingy).

Don't complain about zero-tolerance. The school is only trying to be uniform in punishment, cover their ass, and let you know that they're tired of raising your kids for you. If you don't like zero-tolerance policies, purge your local school board and put in people who will abolish those policies.

And supposedly my arguments in this thread are bad :rolleyes:


I have yet to argue my opinion of what have should be done with them. I argue that this line of punishment is far beyond what should be used against some "unruly schoolboys" who arn't proven to be sexual deviants.

Wow, congratulations, you've then just managed to fill multiple pages arguing with...nobody.

I don't think a single person in this thread has said that 10 years and a registry is a good idea, or proportionate to the crime. NOBODY has said that.

In fact, most of the people here, having accepted that fact, has moved on to discuss what, if any punishment IS acceptable if they are in fact guilty.

You on the other hand seem to want to try to argue with nobody. Which, of course, is your right, but if you really want to fight with imaginary people can you do us all a favor and go stand in a corner yelling at your wall and not clutter up the forum? We prefer to argue with real people, not make believe ones.

Thanks.

Don't complain about zero-tolerance. The school is only trying to be uniform in punishment, cover their ass, and let you know that they're tired of raising your kids for you. If you don't like zero-tolerance policies, purge your local school board and put in people who will abolish those policies.
I will continue to argue against illogical and absurd rules like "zero tolerance" because they longer people sit around and accept that kind of bullshit, the more it grows common place and acceptable. Zero tolerance is an excuse for schools to not bother addressing real behavioral issues and to quickly and easily punish students. Combine that with ever tighter rules and it gets ridiculous. Our school had 6 different people commissioned for the sole purpose of dealing with rule breakers, yet we had a "zero tolerance" policy. Most of the time was dealt with punishing kids going to the bathroom or in the halls without a pass.

Male mental development - growin' up - comes few years later than female one so I do think they're not guilty for whatever they're prosecuted.

Bunk. This is just another myth used to let boys off the hook for unacceptable behavior.

Boys much younger than these lads were expected to behave much better in school a CENTURY ago. Indeed, GIRLS were supposed to be the ones incapable of controling their silly female emotions, which was part of the justification for preventing girls from attending school. If boys really are not able to show basic keep-your-hands-to-yourself control, then I'd say that's reason enough to say that boys should be barred from attending school until they have such skills.

In my opinion, boys are absolutely capable of controling themselves, just as much as girls are. Some very ignorant and very pathetic adults like to make excuses for boys' bad behavior, and like to give boys special treatment when they act out, but I think that's lousy for both boys and girls.


As I see it a week of detention is probably the maximum imaginable just punishment here: We're talking about 12-13 year old boys here - I'm pretty sure they don't consider their actions anything more than pranks.

A lot of rapists don't consider their actions criminal, either. Happily, our system of justice doesn't let criminals decide which punishments they'd like to experience.

If these boys think touching girls' buttock and breasts is "just a prank," then that's all the more reason to get across the point that it's not.


Personally - as long as it wasn't systematic oppression, bullying - I really, truly fail to see why they should be punished in extremes: A severe talking to with few hours of after school "community service" (say, cleaning school grounds) would be enough in my eyes...unless, of course, this is a repeated offense. I also completely fail to see anything sexual here, from a perspective of a male who once was 12 himself.
If you really think there is "nothing sexual" about specifically targeting the ass and breasts of girls, then you are a great argument for why such things need to be taken MORE seriously. Far from reducing penalties for these behaviors, we need to increase them, and make these topics more visible and more seriously considered with young people.

If you really think there is "nothing sexual" about specifically targeting the ass and breasts of girls, then you are a great argument for why such things need to be taken MORE seriously. Far from reducing penalties for these behaviors, we need to increase them, and make these topics more visible and more seriously considered with young people.

If you think that making punishment more severe (rather than trying to prevent this behavior by teaching people that it's just plain wrong) will make a difference, then you are pretty stupid.

If you think that making punishment more severe (rather than trying to prevent this behavior by teaching people that it's just plain wrong) will make a difference, then you are pretty stupid.
And if you think that my post didn't specifically include mention of how we need to increase discussion and education IN ADDITION to making punishments reflect the seriousness of the behavior, then you're pretty slow. That's what that whole "make the topics more visible and more seriously considered" bit was about.

:D

Seriously, read before you reply.

Post 158 contains none of that.

typically it is believed that people will read the entire thread to ensure that what they are arguing against hasn't already been covered and to gain the full perspective of the other people's positions.

The fact that Bottle does not feel it necessary to repeat her position ad nausium in every post she made because you apparently are either too lazy or incapable of going back and actually reading something is your problem, not hers.

In addition, the post that "contains none of that" contains what she just said, verbatum, in the last paragraph.

And if you think that my post didn't specifically include mention of how we need to increase discussion and education IN ADDITION to making punishments reflect the seriousness of the behavior, then you're pretty slow.

:D

Seriously, read before you reply.

Post 158 contains none of that.

Perhaps it wasn't spelled out clearly enough. My point was that punishments need to reflect the seriousness of these behaviors, not some stupid idea of "boys will be boys," and that we also need to increase the discussion of these topics so that young people are more aware and more able to show appropriate behavior.

If these boys were getting messages like many I've seen in this thread, it's no wonder they viewed sexual harassment as no big deal. Plenty of people in this thread appear to think it's no big deal to grab a girl's bottom or breasts, and it's somehow supposed to be normal for a 12 year old boy to be totally incapable of keeping his hands to himself. This is all total rubbish, of course, but if a young boy is told these things then he'll naturally assume it's okay for him to engage in harassing, idiot behavior. Adults bear a measure of responsibility for what is taught to young people.

But...but...but...boys will be boys!

Where does this end Bottle? You're actually expecting that teenagers be taught that their actions can have serious consequences?

And you want to teach them that by making their actions have serious consequences?

Such a fool you are. Don't you know that when a teenarger sexually assaults some one, you're supposed to chalk it up to being a teenager, and send them to bed without their supper?

That way, when they go to do it again, they'll think twice about what's for dessert.

Post 158 contains none of that.
Perhaps it wasn't spelled out clearly enough. My point was that punishments need to reflect the seriousness of these behaviors, not some stupid idea of "boys will be boys," and that we also need to increase the discussion of these topics so that young people are more aware and more able to show appropriate behavior.

If these boys were getting messages like many I've seen in this thread, it's no wonder they viewed sexual harassment as no big deal. Plenty of people in this thread appear to think it's no big deal to grab a girl's bottom or breasts, and it's somehow supposed to be normal for a 12 year old boy to be totally incapable of keeping his hands to himself. This is all total rubbish, of course, but if a young boy is told these things then he'll naturally assume it's okay for him to engage in harassing, idiot behavior. Adults bear a measure of responsibility for what is taught to young people.

In addition, the post that "contains none of that" contains what she just said, verbatum, in the last paragraph.
It's really annoying that one side of this debate seems to simply be unable/unwilling to actually READ what they then respond to. Makes for a much less interesting discussion.

I think there are interesting issues that could be discussed in this topic, but instead we're getting hijacked onto stupid tangents and random straw-man arguments.

It's really annoying that one side of this debate seems to simply be unable/unwilling to actually READ what they then respond to. Makes for a much less interesting discussion.

I think there are interesting issues that could be discussed in this topic, but instead we're getting hijacked onto stupid tangents and random straw-man arguments.

I think there are several good discussions:

1) did they consent? What evidence is there that they consented? If they're minors, CAN they consent?

2) what about miranda? Were they in custody? Police need not mirandize you whenever they ask you a question, only when you are in custody, were they free to leave? Did they believe themselves free to leave?

3) what is the appropriate punishment?

Instead we have shrill whines from TPH and the like screaming how it's unfair that they might go to jail for 10 years and be on a registry, which, honestly, I think EVERYONE has agreed with, and instead of actually discussing real honest topics, prefer instead to argue with make believed people shouting make believe positions, and tacitly refuse to acknowledge that groping a teenage girl without her consent maybe, JUST MAYBE warrants a bit more than to be sent home from school early and not get to go on the field trip to the planetarium next thursday.

I believe that post 158 was about making the punishments far more severe.

Only if you're severely ADD and can't be bothered to read to the bottom of the post.

Which is highly amusing because the section she talked about educating the students as to why it is a bad idea in addition to punishment is the very same section of her post you quoted when you tried to argue that she was advocating only increased punishments.

So your "beliefs" are pretty shitty, considering not only did you not read her post, you didn't even read the very section you were quoting.

Perhaps it wasn't spelled out clearly enough. My point was that punishments need to reflect the seriousness of these behaviors, not some stupid idea of "boys will be boys," and that we also need to increase the discussion of these topics so that young people are more aware and more able to show appropriate behavior.

If these boys were getting messages like many I've seen in this thread, it's no wonder they viewed sexual harassment as no big deal. Plenty of people in this thread appear to think it's no big deal to grab a girl's bottom or breasts, and it's somehow supposed to be normal for a 12 year old boy to be totally incapable of keeping his hands to himself. This is all total rubbish, of course, but if a young boy is told these things then he'll naturally assume it's okay for him to engage in harassing, idiot behavior. Adults bear a measure of responsibility for what is taught to young people.

I believe that post 158 was about making the punishments far more severe.

There's no sense in beating a dog for crapping in the house if you've never made an attempt to housetrain it.

Even if you raise the penalty to death - beat the dog to death, that won't make things any better.

I fail to see where it's the responsibility of a school to teach these things. As you say, they learn them in society - most likely at home.

I was taught not to touch women (without being invited to do so) from an early age - not for any modern reason such as feminism, but because it's not polite to touch anyone (male or female) anywhere without their consent.

You know - the little lessons a 3 year old learns about personal space and touching.

So I haven't had the problem myself. And school didn't teach it to me. And I doubt that it could, regardless of how severe the punishment can be.

If the parents don't teach them, then you find yourself in the position of beating on the ignorant. Because so many parents these days are abdicating most of their parental responsibility to schools, I guess it's the school's job to teach them. I hate that, because that's not what schools are really intended to do.

Next stop - schools teaching kids to wipe their asses.

Perhaps it wasn't spelled out clearly enough. My point was that punishments need to reflect the seriousness of these behaviors, not some stupid idea of "boys will be boys," and that we also need to increase the discussion of these topics so that young people are more aware and more able to show appropriate behavior.

If these boys were getting messages like many I've seen in this thread, it's no wonder they viewed sexual harassment as no big deal. Plenty of people in this thread appear to think it's no big deal to grab a girl's bottom or breasts, and it's somehow supposed to be normal for a 12 year old boy to be totally incapable of keeping his hands to himself. This is all total rubbish, of course, but if a young boy is told these things then he'll naturally assume it's okay for him to engage in harassing, idiot behavior. Adults bear a measure of responsibility for what is taught to young people.

I'd hug you right now, well, I would if I wasn't a couple hundred miles away and sick with a cold, that is...:p

Now that I've had a chance to cool off: these boys are charged with harassment (though originally charging them with abuse is overreaching and a bit fishy in my mind). Though I disagree that they somehow deserve 10 years and the registry, a message does need to be sent to them and others. This isn't appropriate behavior and the whole "boys will be boys" crap needs to stop. Personally, I think the 5 days they've already spent has already done much of that, now they just need something to drive the point home.

No she didn't. 158 was about making punishment more severe. Sorry.

To quote from the section YOU quoted:

Far from reducing penalties for these behaviors, we need to increase them, and make these topics more visible and more seriously considered with young people.

Bolded part for your lose.

Only if you're severely ADD and can't be bothered to read to the bottom of the post.

Which is highly amusing because the section she talked about educating the students as to why it is a bad idea in addition to punishment is the very same section of her post you quoted when you tried to argue that she was advocating only increased punishments.

So your "beliefs" are pretty shitty, considering not only did you not read her post, you didn't even read the very section you were quoting.

No she didn't. 158 was about making punishment more severe. Sorry.

I think there are several good discussions:

1) did they consent? What evidence is there that they consented? If they're minors, CAN they consent?

2) what about miranda? Were they in custody? Police need not mirandize you whenever they ask you a question, only when you are in custody, were they free to leave? Did they believe themselves free to leave?

3) what is the appropriate punishment?

Instead we have shrill whines from TPH and the like screaming how it's unfair that they might go to jail for 10 years and be on a registry, which, honestly, I think EVERYONE has agreed with, and instead of actually discussing real honest topics, prefer instead to argue with make believed people shouting make believe positions, and tacitly refuse to acknowledge that groping a teenage girl without her consent maybe, JUST MAYBE warrants a bit more than to be sent home from school early and not get to go on the field trip to the planetarium next thursda.
100% agree.

I think #1, in particular, is significant. The whole point of "sexual harassment" is that it is unwelcome behaviors. The whole point is that the target does not willingly consent to the activities (though sometimes the target will "consent" due to coercion). If we rule that minors cannot legally consent to sex, that would mean that all sexual contact with a minor is inherently non-consentual by definition, so pretty much ANY sexual touching of a minor is "sexual harassment" at the very least.

But...if minors can't consent to sex, then what about two minors engaging in sexual touching?

If a minor girl can't consent to have a boy touch her sexually, then why should minor boys be viewed as more sexually conscious or sexually in control?

Hmm.

The thing is, we don't hold minors responsible for legal assault if they get into a brawl on the playground. But we DO punish them, because we recognize that we have to start teaching them what is and is not acceptable behavior BEFORE they are legal adults. That's kind of the whole point.

I don't think a 12 year old boy is as conscious of sexuality and sex as an adult man is. But I think a 12 year old (boy or girl!) is more than old enough to know about keeping one's hands to oneself. A 12 year old is more than old enough to know that touching certain areas of the body is different than touching other areas. (Hell, I understood that before kindergarten, because my parents taught me about how it's not okay for a grown up to touch me in my private parts, but it is okay for my teacher to hold my hand while we cross the street. Right there, I could understand that touching some places is okay, and touching others is not.)

In short, while a 12 year old might not be aware of all the full ramifications of sexual harassment, they're more than old enough to grasp the basics and be taught what is and is not acceptable behavior.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1185040507206380.xml&coll=7

The two boys tore down the hall of Patton Middle School after lunch, swatting the bottoms of girls as they ran -- what some kids later said was a common form of greeting.

But bottom-slapping is against policy in McMinnville Public Schools. So a teacher's aide sent the gawky seventh-graders to the office, where the vice principal and a police officer stationed at the school soon interrogated them.

After hours of interviews with students the day of the February incident, the officer read the boys their Miranda rights and hauled them off in handcuffs to juvenile jail, where they spent the next five days.


Why could a detention not work? The prosecutor needs a medal...the Iron Cross.

I am not saying what the boys did was right, but there was no need to put them and their families through this.

If it's illegal, the cops can't just ignore it. Simple as.

She said maybe she didn't make it clear enough.

So your defense is that you're borderline illiterate? OK, some would not actually want to admit that in public, but alright...

However, as I have said numerous times, just because you don't understand the answer, doesn't make it wrong. It just makes you incompetant.

To quote from the section YOU quoted:

Bolded part for your lose.

Sorry, Bottle's reply pwned you.

She said maybe she didn't make it clear enough.

You lose.

No she didn't. 158 was about making punishment more severe. Sorry.

No, it wasn't.

Perhaps you misunderstood. I helpfully clarified it for you in a subsequent post, but Neo Art was able to understand my original meaning so I know it wasn't all that hard to grasp.

Should they have to be put in the same boat as an adult that raped someone no. But, they need more then detention. By getting charged with a smaller crime (even if they only sent a few days in the detention center) they are less likly to act the same why again. And maybe parents will strat teaching there children (expecially boys) that this kind of act (slapping others asses) isn't approprite actions.

Bunk. This is just another myth used to let boys off the hook for unacceptable behavior.Apparently the girls slapped the asses of the lads too.

And what I said is a physical fact: Males tend to get puberty later, with all that hormonal cocktail slushing about it's guaranteed there's no way they are *fully* responsible of their stupid games and mistakes.

Boys much younger than these lads were expected to behave much better in school a CENTURY ago.
A century ago corporal punishment in schools was accepted. If you did something like this back then you could expect your ass to be glaring red afterwards....you would be BUTTSLAPPED for disobeying the rules (now that would land you, apparently, 10 years in jail for SEXUAL assault in USA :p)

If you really think there is "nothing sexual" about specifically targeting the ass and breasts of girls, then you are a great argument for why such things need to be taken MORE seriously.
Not at that age, no....While the driving force may be sexual curiosity and peer pressure the act itself should not be counted as sexual because it isn't.

You're applying adult morals and adult perspective (in relative to female sexuality and sense of personal untouchability & space) to a situation that didn't happen between adults.

If there was a serial offense and there wasn't any mutual agreement then the boys should indeed be punished more severely (say several weeks of detention + school community service) but if this was either traditional play (as some posters have speculated) or isolated incident where bystanders were unintentionally hurt I completely and utterly fail to see what good severe punishment over reprimanding and minor punishment - akin to my previous post - would accomplish: There is *absolutely* no reason to destroy lives over what ultimately is a minor incident.

No, it wasn't.

Perhaps you misunderstood. I helpfully clarified it for you in a subsequent post, but Neo Art was able to understand my original meaning so I know it wasn't all that hard to grasp.

You still didn't address my post about this becoming a "beat the ignorant" exercise. Or why it should be the school's responsibility to teach things that should have been taught to children when they're toddlers.

More like "won't address it at all", since it appears that you think that it's the school's responsibility.

Sorry, Bottle's reply pwned you.

She said maybe she didn't make it clear enough.

You lose.
Actually, I was trying to be polite in my response. Frankly, considering your history around here, there is no doubt in my mind that you fully understood my meaning and you are intentionally being a dink about it. But I was trying to be polite and give you an out so that you wouldn't have to be as embarassed. Since you've decide to be rude instead of gracefully acknowledging your error, I guess there's no point in me going out of my way to be polite any more.

You were wrong. I've corrected you. Please stop lying about what I have said.

I'm confused as to why you think I should respond to you at all. You're not going to read what I write anyhow. You'll just make up something, say I said it, and respond to that.

Why not just cut out the middle man? Just post whatever it is you've already made up, along with your ready-made response, and continue debating yourself.

ahhh, the Pantless Hero style of parliamentary debate. Where you get to use such gems as "nuh-uh" and "I know you are but what am I?"

You still didn't address my post about this becoming a "beat the ignorant" exercise.

To repeat a maxim they teach in the first day or two of lawschool...

ignorance of the law is not a defense.

You still didn't address my post about this becoming a "beat the ignorant" exercise. Or why it should be the school's responsibility to teach things that should have been taught to children when they're toddlers.

More like "won't address it at all", since it appears that you think that it's the school's responsibility.
I'm confused as to why you think I should respond to you at all. You're not going to read what I write anyhow. You'll just make up something, say I said it, and respond to that.

Why not just cut out the middle man? Just post whatever it is you've already made up, along with your ready-made response, and continue debating yourself.

Bunk. This is just another myth used to let boys off the hook for unacceptable behavior.

Boys much younger than these lads were expected to behave much better in school a CENTURY ago. Indeed, GIRLS were supposed to be the ones incapable of controling their silly female emotions, which was part of the justification for preventing girls from attending school...

Boys were also often subjected to corporeal punishment a century ago. I don't see this as an argument in your favor, but as a notice that boys were better at not getting caught due to the punishments involved.

In my opinion, boys are absolutely capable of controling themselves, just as much as girls are...

Agreed, boys CAN, the question is whether they should be FORCED to. (With enough therapy and brainwashing you can make anyone into a different person.)

If you really think there is "nothing sexual" about specifically targeting the ass and breasts of girls, then you are a great argument for why such things need to be taken MORE seriously. Far from reducing penalties for these behaviors, we need to increase them, and make these topics more visible and more seriously considered with young people.

I agree that youth sexuality should be paid more attention by the adults in their lives, but not in the way you apparently support. Calling someone an adult at 18 or 21 is a fairly arbitrary method of induction into society. Children begin to mature biologically at around the early teens, earlier or later in varying individuals. If an effort is made to bring a child to maturity (emotional and mental) rather than basing maturity on a chronological expectation, I think we would see more well adjusted people around.

Maintaining (I've drawn from your post that you apparently hold this opinion) that sex is something to protect our kids from is just plain silly. Would you withhold the info that your son needs to keep a girl from getting pregnant? How about keeping your daughter ignorant of methods of pregnancy prevention? Not to mention methods for minimizing exposure to STD's (Always use a condom!).

If sexual awareness is allowed or even encouraged at younger ages, I think courtesy and respect will follow (out of lust or desire (courting rituals), if nothing else), ignorance breeds contempt after all.

To repeat a maxim they teach in the first day or two of lawschool...

ignorance of the law is not a defense.

Beating the ignorant is not a solution.

But when I see boys slapping girls asses and that, it pisses me off.
F:mad:cking perverts.


Damn I quite enjoy slapping my girlfriends ass.

I read the first two pages and am skipping to here.

Now, I do agree that the actions taken by the principal/police were completely retarded. That was definately going too far.
But when I see boys slapping girls asses and that, it pisses me off.
F:mad:cking perverts.
So I also think that SOME form of punishment was due.
Definitely.

Damn I quite enjoy slapping my girlfriends ass.
Yet you recognize a distinction between your girlfriend (who, one assumes, consents to said ass-slapping) and women who are not your girlfriend (and who, one generally can assume, are not looking to have their asses slapped by a stranger).

Yet you recognize a distinction between your girlfriend (who, one assumes, consents to said ass-slapping) and women who are not your girlfriend (and who, one generally can assume, are not looking to have their asses slapped by a stranger).

Yup but I was just posting from boredom and more because the poster hadn't specified a lack of consent in the ass slapping he/she had seen

Doesn't it say in that law that all those convicted face a jury of their peers? Wouldn't this allow for the jury to be comprised of children between the ages of 12 and 17?

I'm being honest here, but I think there's a loop-hole in this.

i honestly think that the offense could't even be considered a misdemeonor so i think it was a dramatic outcome because a simple detention or one of the girls to of simply slapped one of the boys ..

ahhh, the Pantless Hero style of parliamentary debate. Where you get to use such gems as "nuh-uh" and "I know you are but what am I?"
As opposed to cleverly inserted red herrings and ad hominems?

This is how the Brits handle the issue:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2007/08/01/c4-newsgirl-groped-on-tv-89520-19551868/

And for Channel 4's Sue Turton that moment came when a smirking stranger pinched her bottom on live TV.

The man was walking past when he suddenly reached out and brazenly goosed her before coolly strolling on his way.
..
..
Police are taking the matter seriously - even though Sue does not want to press charges.

They want to hand the pincher an £80 fine for breaching public order after the incident at flood-hit Osney Island in Oxford last week.


A butt pinch caught on tape live on BBC with none of this 10 years for sexual assault stuff Americans seem so keen on. :eek:

This is how the Brits handle the issue:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2007/08/01/c4-newsgirl-groped-on-tv-89520-19551868/

And for Channel 4's Sue Turton that moment came when a smirking stranger pinched her bottom on live TV.

The man was walking past when he suddenly reached out and brazenly goosed her before coolly strolling on his way.
..
..
Police are taking the matter seriously - even though Sue does not want to press charges.

They want to hand the pincher an £80 fine for breaching public order after the incident at flood-hit Osney Island in Oxford last week.


A butt pinch caught on tape live on BBC with none of this 10 years for sexual assault stuff Americans seem so keen on. :eek:

Yeah, but half of America sees sex as 'Eeeeee! It's dirty!' and the other half is just 'fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap'

oh no... not bottom slapping! Those girls will be scarred for life! Surely this should have been considered a felony and the boys given 10 years in prison each... at least.

i bet fifty years ago nothing would have happened to the kids, maybe a spanking, haha. whats gonna happen fifty years from now? maybe the death penalty or something painful

Let's do a little compare & contrast here, shall we?

EXAMPLE 1:

Action: slapping of the buttocks
Force used: soft to medium
Age of perpetrator: 11 or 12
Age of victim(s): approx 12 to 13
Relation of perpetrator to victim: peer
Attitude of perp during the action: cajoling
Punishment of accused: 10 years juvie and enrollment on the nation sex offender registry

EXAMPLE 2:

Action: spanking of the buttocks
Force used: medium to hard
Age of perpetrator: anywhere from approx 17 or 18 to approx 50 (people have children in their 40's sometimes)
Age of victim: generally 10 or younger
Relation of perpetrator to victim: authority figure
Attitude of perp during the action: disappointment and sometimes anger
Punishment of accused: usually none, unless it's out and out actual abuse (by those who take it much too far)


So, if I've got my facts right, what this is saying is that it's okay for someone who's possibly in their 50's to do the SAME action to a child - YOUNGER than the victims in this case - with MORE force, with a possible attitude of anger...but if a child the same age as the victims does it with an attitude of comradery, it demands a punishment of 10 years in jail and their name on the sex offender registry?

Like, c'mon. I'm not saying what the kids did was right. By no means. But if the prosecutors are going to bring cases like this to court, then according to them, any parent who's ever spanked their child - EVER - should be thrown in jail with all the rapists for life.

For Pete's sake. Does the whole judicial system suffer from brainrot?

I think that 99 times out of 100 that the question is asked:

"Unruly Schoolboys or Sex Offenders?"

the answer is the former.

£80 fine

A reasonable punishment.

As we all agree, this is an outrageous punishment. 10 years, and put on the sex offender registry? 10 years is an awful long time. An awful fucking long time. While, at the same time, put on the same list as people who rape small children. (This is not the issue.)

Even putting these children in for 1 year is excessive- scaring the 'living shit' out of these kids is a good idea. Maybe community service; it would benefit both sides. When I first got involved with the police (I didn't even commit the crime) it scared the living shit out of me too, and I haven't been involved with the police since. The injured party didn't even press charges, and the said police officer forgot that this even happened when we did the follow up call he requested. An Apology was sufficient. Being grilled by a police officer and the principal is far more severe. More than an apology for this crime, a long bout of community service maybe, but seriously, what the hell? You want to send these kids to prison?

The most probable reason that these kids (11, 12 years old; both similar in maturity, I know that) did this is that they heard that slapping girls butts is 'cool' or 'fun'. Now, whether or not these girls consented is beside the point; they shouldn't have been doing it in the first place. It is offensive to girls, and I don't think they would have consented to it at that age, but misogyny is on both sides. Speaking as a man, I know that women are as capable, in fact more capable in some areas, but what has been said before is true: girls mature before boys, physically and emotionally. These boys had no fucking idea what they were doing. Ignorance of the law is indeed no defense, but there is such a thing as extenuating circumstances.

By the way, ad hominem attacks, strawmen, flaming, red herrings, or anything similar do nothing to help your arguements, just serve as a target for more ad hominem attacks, etc.