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.
Maybe if we actually did something rather than minimize the experience for the victims by saying "Oh, it's just boys being boys!" then it wouldn't be so commonplace. 3 day suspension isn't really doing much of anything.
Actually the 3-day suspension was highly effective. These are not hardened criminals but hormone-driven, young teenagers who are still struggling with self-control in almost every aspect of their lives. They are nonetheless wrong, and while it may be developmentally normal, that does not make it acceptable in society and that is what needs to be driven home to them in a meaningful way. Between the suspension from school, the measures their parents take at home, and the threat of further, more excessive punishment if it happens again, that message is almost always received loud and clear.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
I'm not defending any of it. I do however think that someone shouldn't be able to sue 14 years after the fact. We know, from her own words in 2006, that she did not know it happened and had been told what happened shortly after it happened. I would have no issue with her suing had she done it in 2002 when it happened, in 2006 when she had police contact and was made aware there were protections out there for her, or when she became 18 or even 21 - but she didn't.
And, this is not the 5 year-old but the babysitter, who was his peer age wise.
As you've previously mentioned, as a minor this rolls back to her parents; any civil or criminal action would be initiated by them.
Statute of limitations had expired by 2006 on a 2002 incident. What protections are you referring to; they all attended the same church, is this protection?
We can't assume she were offered the same counseling through DFS as the Duggar children; and that counseling came about only bc someone from the Oprah show contacted them.
As you've previously mentioned, as a minor this rolls back to her parents; any civil action would be initiated by them.
Statute of limitations had expired by 2006 on a 2002 incident. What protections are you referring to; they all attended the same church, is this protection?
We can't assume she were offered the same counseling through DFS as the Duggar children; and that counseling came about only bc someone from the Oprah show contacted them.
No, not the church, just the opposite. In 2006 when the police interviewed her I am sure they tried to make sure she knew neither the church nor the Duggars had the right to stop her from telling what truth and that they would face consequences if they tried to influence what she said.
And, she had parents, they should have sought counseling for her if she needed it. If she didn't get it that is a parenting fail.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
I just skimmed the thread, so am just chiming in, not in response to any particular post.
This victim is for sure after money and motivated by that alone.
That Josh should have to give her money seems OK to me, though, as he should be penalized SOME kind of way and he likely has money aplenty. Why not give some of it to her? I'd love to see him give it to an organization that helps victims but I am sure that won't happen.
YES teen boys will and do try to touch teen girls if the opportunity presents and my son (now aged 32) I am sure did so, but what JOSH did as described by the media, seems different than that, to me.
He touched a FIVE year old and his SISTERS, who were not teenagers.
I've been around a lot of teen boys, having raised four kids, and touching a FIVE y/o at age FOURTEEN, also sisters, is far from normal or common, I would think.
I think he has pedophilic tendencies as a 14y/o boy does not normally find a 5y/o sexually attractive, nor his sisters.
Had he touched another or several teen girls only, close to him in age, who were not related, then I'd be more willing to put it down to normal adolescent behavior.
No, not the church, just the opposite. In 2006 when the police interviewed her I am sure they tried to make sure she knew neither the church nor the Duggars had the right to stop her from telling what truth and that they would face consequences if they tried to influence what she said.
And, she had parents, they should have sought counseling for her if she needed it. If she didn't get it that is a parenting fail.
What I just said...
I've yet to find the report where she were questioned? There was no investigation, only a report written including her name, the statute of limitations expired. The officer accepted Jim Bob, Michelle and Josh's story as it were, and I believe they mentioned a friend present to verify what was said.
EDIT:
We don't know the grounds for civil suit, only speculation. I copied and posted further back n this thread..
I'm not defending any of it. I do however think that someone shouldn't be able to sue 14 years after the fact. We know, from her own words in 2006, that she did not know it happened but had been told what happened shortly after it happened. I would have no issue with her suing had she done it in 2002 when it happened, in 2006 when she had police contact and was made aware there were protections out there for her, or when she became 18 or even 21 - but she didn't.
And, this is not the 5 year-old but the babysitter, who was his peer age wise.
I really believe that this case is unusual.
We have not yet heard her side of the story. If her family holds religious beliefs similar to the Duggars, she may have been forbidden, intimidated, or shamed into speaking about the incident. Talking to police with the permission of her parents as a minor is completely different than speaking of it many years later when she is an adult, perhaps married and finally out from under the control of her parents.
We can't possibly know why she did not sue or press charges at the time, but I would not be the least bit surprised to hear that her parents would not allow it. Don't forget that women can be easily be considered tainted in the Gothard religion.
Perhaps she has been holding this secret in shame her entire life, perhaps she has been told she was not worthy and it was her fault, or perhaps her family did not tell her future husband during her courtship, and he is outraged to find out now. Perhaps she become a wife or a mother and has realized that what happened to her is not okay and there is no defense for what was done to her.
I am not even convinced that she intends to sue for any amount of money. Maybe she plans to donate any winnings to charity and just wants to send a message to young women (in her religion or otherwise) that being touched without your permission wrong. I can't believe that some people are make assumptions based on an article in In Touch magazine. Many of these the same people refused to believe In Touch when the story of Josh Duggar broke in the first place, calling it the "liberal media" and a tabloid.
I just don't get the jumping all over her and insisting that she is after anything without even giving her a chance to speak. It reeks of victim shaming and blaming.
I've been around a lot of teen boys, having raised four kids, and touching a FIVE y/o at age FOURTEEN, also sisters, is far from normal or common, I would think.
I think he has pedophilic tendencies as a 14y/o boy does not normally find a 5y/o sexually attractive, nor his sisters.
And why the family continues to be investigated by DFS, this 5 yr old still a minor. I wouldn't doubt more hidden stories.
And why the family continues to be investigated by DFS, this 5 yr old still a minor. I wouldn't doubt more hidden stories.
I watched The Duggars in passing. In the past I thought they are a cult, but that is their choice....but when a cult acts in such a fashion, I think it's not acceptable.
But then, how are they different from The Amish? I believe don't know for sure, if the Amish community handles these matters in their own community in their own way.
You seriously want to lock up every 14 year-old boy who touches a girl's breast over her clothes? SERIOUSLY?!? I taught middle school (which includes 14 year-old boys), it happens more than most parents want to admit. The normal way it was handled was that the boy got a 3-day suspension IF the girl reported it or a teacher saw it up until about 4-5 years ago. Now they might be expelled or placed in an alternative school for a semester, depending on the severity and the victim/victim's parents wishes. Quit kidding yourselves that anything worse would have happened to him. Frankly, he would have been better off had it hound through the judicial system as the records would have been sealed since he was a minor and it would have been considered a low-level offender with a high chance of rehabilitation.
The truth is we as a nation could not afford the incarceration costs, in dollars let alone destroyed lives, if this standard of punishment/definition you are quoting were the norm. That is the max. How about we save the big guns for the truly scary violent offenders? Also, I highly doubt most males would be okay with a female being able to come back and sue them for touching her breast 12-14 years later. I seem to recall slapping a few hands (and one face) in my youth, maybe I should look them up and sue.
Sounds like you just want to emote about it but not look at it from a rational perspective.
There is a huge difference in touching a girl in class who can defend herself with repeatedly touching a sleeping child who cannot. Josh repeatedly touch multiple girls, including a 5 year old, while they were sleeping. I can guarantee that if a 14 year old touched my daughter while she was sleeping, he would be hauled down to the police station and charges would be filed. I hope she a lot of money out of that bastard.
If she was the one who was pregnant then why wasn't the baby hers?
She was married and her husband was infertile. There was a ton of trouble in the marriage because her husband thought she had had an affair. Eventually they figured it out, I think when the dentist was assaulting another patient. They probably had DNA tests done at that time.
I guess I should have said, "it was years before she discovered it wasn't her husband's baby..."
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.
