Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Currently I physically reside on the 3rd planet from the sun
2,220 posts, read 1,877,655 times
Reputation: 886
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattie
If this had been done to a 12 year old girl, I would feel differently. The thing is, it wasn't. Young teen boys don't typically engaged in "horseplay" with girls, unless they do have some sexual feelings, even if they can't identify them as such.
Were there any other punishments handed out here? I see no sense in a punishment that won't even register for these kids for years to come.
Where do you get the idea that young teenage boys typically engage in this type of "horseplay" with other boys?
If this had happed in my social group as a "young teenage boy", quite literally there would have been people going to the hospital. This type of harrassment and assault is not excusable as mere horseplay.
I absolutely support repercussions for this criminal behavior.
My problem is with the lifelong designation of "sexual offender" which basically creates a "lower" class as far as social and professional opportunities as adults. What those "young teenage boys" did is criminal, but so is the courts actions against them.
Anybody a fan of the Colts or Peyton Manning?? He did this, well worse, when he was at Tennessee. He teabagged one of the female trainers and she was not amused.
I'm a huge Peyton Manning fan. But if he did this, he just went way down in my estimation.
(I'd never heard this. Right now I'm still Googling info. Apparently it's in the courts? Anyway. You don't do this. No matter who you are.)
I really don't know what to think......I mean just because it was boys humiliating boys..does that make it just a prank....what if the boys had done this to a girl instead of another boy...would it still be a prank?I believe the sex registry has gotten waaay out of hand....but I do believe these boys are guilty of grave wrongdoing,...and I doubt that they considered what they were doing as being playfull... they wanted to humiliate and degrade their victim.....I would be concerned about what they will become as adults if that's what they call horseing around.
Where do you get the idea that young teenage boys typically engage in this type of "horseplay" with other boys?
If this had happed in my social group as a "young teenage boy", quite literally there would have been people going to the hospital. This type of harrassment and assault is not excusable as mere horseplay.
I absolutely support repercussions for this criminal behavior.
My problem is with the lifelong designation of "sexual offender" which basically creates a "lower" class as far as social and professional opportunities as adults. What those "young teenage boys" did is criminal, but so is the courts actions against them.
Nothing but scumballs in this whole sad event.
I didn't say that it was typical. The boys' lawyers called it horseplay, not me. If a girl had been involved, it would not have fit that description, no matter how they tried to spin it.
I do think the boys should be punished. I don't think the sex abuse registry is the right way to do that.
You are also missing a huge chunk of that article...
They are being treated as sex offenders despite no evidence they committed a sex crime. They are simply caught up in the literal definition of the law.
The literal definition of a sex offender is what determines whether someone is a sex offender.
I think the point is the term "sex offender" is subjective and peoples lives are destroyed by the careless application of this legal term.
From a legal standpoint there is a legal definition of a sex offender and these boys fit the LEGAL definition. This is a problem with how the law is written and not a problem with the judge, who has the job of applying the law as written. Judges do not get to choose when applying the law is "careless". The law is what it is and must be applied accordingly.
I am not a big fan of laws like Megan's law because of the dangers of having something like this happen.
It doesn't matter whether we think that these kids sound like they are sex offenders. What matters is the law and what they did fits the definition of sex offender under the law in NJ. Judges do not have the ability to throw out the law when they do not like the outcome.
Location: Currently I physically reside on the 3rd planet from the sun
2,220 posts, read 1,877,655 times
Reputation: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momma_bear
From a legal standpoint there is a legal definition of a sex offender and these boys fit the LEGAL definition. This is a problem with how the law is written and not a problem with the judge, who has the job of applying the law as written. Judges do not get to choose when applying the law is "careless". The law is what it is and must be applied accordingly.
I am not a big fan of laws like Megan's law because of the dangers of having something like this happen.
It doesn't matter whether we think that these kids sound like they are sex offenders. What matters is the law and what they did fits the definition of sex offender under the law in NJ. Judges do not have the ability to throw out the law when they do not like the outcome.
I'm not trying to be sarcastic, which I state plainly because sometimes I am intentionally sarcastic. Here, however I just respectfully disagree with you.
The congress drafts legislation and yes, it becomes the law of the land. The courts interpret the law and set the precendence for how it is applied. Yes, judges absolutely unequivocally share responsibility for the bad application of law upon our society.
Anybody a fan of the Colts or Peyton Manning?? He did this, well worse, when he was at Tennessee. He teabagged one of the female trainers and she was not amused.
Pretty sure he didn't have to register for anything. Is everybody as disgusted by him and not buy his products, watch his games, laugh at his commercials......Just sayin'.
Back in 1996, Peyton Manning was the star of the Tennessee Volunteers (and DL Smooth just started high school). Peyton was a stud athlete and thought he could do anything. Anything at all. Including pulling his pants down and mooning his female trainer, Jamie-Ann Naughright. And he was right because he got in very little to no trouble at all. The incident died down until 2002, when Manning’s book Manning: A Father, His Sons, and a Football Legacy portrayed her as a having a “vulgar mouth”. Naughright was fired from her job because of this claim and proceeded to sue Peyton Manning.
Along with the suit of Manning, Naughright also described the “mooning” incident, as it had been referred to, as far more disgusting and offensive than a simple moon(also, more hilarious). She reported that, while examining Petyon’s foot, he pulled down his shorts and sat on her face. In her own disgusting (also, hilarious) words, “It was the gluteus maximus, the rectum, the testicles, and the area between the testicles. And all that was on my face when I pushed him up.” Nobody in their right mind reveals this to the public if it didn’t happen. I know kids who got tea-bagged in high school in front of 10-15 people and still won’t admit that it ever happened. She couldn’t just be making this up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
