I like this one:
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Nice.
What is funny to me is that you don't seem to understand why people are fed up with judges who disreguard law and fail to protect the people.
I saw on a news analysis show yesterday that a former attorney I think aged 41 had sex with a 14 year old boy. The atty picked him up on the internet, met with him and had sex. The atty consealed from the child that he is HIV positive.
In a plea bargin the judge allowed the atty to recieve a sentence of months, 12 or 14 I think.
This is a guy who raped a child. He has exposed a child to a deadly disease. The judge faild to punish a person who is clearly deserving, and essentially disreguarded this 14 year old boy. This happened in the state of Utah.
Are you telling me that we need more judges like this?
C.
Well, that depends, are you telling me that every judge is like this one? You have a habit of taking one singular example and making it the poster child for all.
I don't know why this judge did what he did, but niether do you. There may have been extenuating circumstances that played into his decision. We don't know for sure. Or at least you haven't shared enough details to know. Do you have a link to this information?
What is funny to me is that just because a single judge may be bad, you and the Justice Sunday Crew are ready to cast out the entire lot for the bahavior of this one. On the surface this looks like a bad decision by this one particular judge, but without knowing the facts, I can't say that for sure.
So let me ask you a couple of questions: How does this scenario apply to all of the other judges? Why does this judge's behavior reflect poorly upon them?
"Unelected, unaccountable and arrogant." I'd say that fits a few other groups of people like gloves, too. Say, White House officials for one.
Where's the Justice Sunday outrage at them?
Oh. Right. Same party. My bad.
Speaking of 'failing to protect the people', how about all the judges who consistently rule for the corporations and corporate executives and give them 'slaps on the wrist' for stealing people's retirement, injuring people and environments, and absolve them of responsibility for their actions, and the very few anomalies who are awarded over-the-top damages are then overpublicized to represent the supposed need for 'tort reform'? They won't be happy until the little guy has nowhere to go except debtor's prison.
How many examples is enough to satisfy you KissFan? A man of 41 admits to having sex with a 14 year old child, and you think they may be extenuating circumstances? He admitted this and the fact that he hid his HIV+ disease from the child, and there are extenuating circumstances? Is every single judge bad in our country, of course not but that leads me back to my question, how many examples do you need, to recognize that there needs to be a change? Is it three, five, fifteen? How many?
Yeah Alicia, Worldcom guys, Adelphia guys, Martha Stewart, going to jail and that is a slap on the wrist. What would you do with them Alicia? Execution? Public humiliation? Maybe you should run these things past the ACLU first.
C.
How many?
Well, right now I'd settle for a link to this one.
Besides, how many examples of proper sentencing would it take to convince you that these are isolated incidents? Three? Fifteen?
I didn't say that it was right, I said I didn't know. Still waiting on the link.
I am looking for it.
Keep yer shirt on.
C.
Yeah, you don't want to see me with my shirt off. It's quite frightening. I'm huge!
/snicker
http://radio.ksl.com/index.php?n...d=19&
sid=221982
I found it .
Enjoy.
C.
Thanks. I was able to find this other article about it also which gives a few more details.
As it turns out, which is usually the case, he made a plea agreement with the prosecution and plead guilty to lesser charges. The maximum sentence allowed for the lesser charges was one year in prison. Don't get me wrong, I'm not excusing what this guy did and why the judge only sentenced him to 90 days in jail, 36 months probation, and 100 community service hours is beyond me. But I would assume that the prosecution didn't have a real airtight case if they were willing to let him plead.
Now onto whether or not this judge needs to be removed.
The judge in the case was Timothy Hanson. So I googled his name and came up with some other articles involving cases that he had heard. One of the others also involved sexual abuse of minors. The article is here, but long story short, the defendant got life in prison.
Hanson has also ruled in favor of same-sex parents but has ruled against other corrupt judges. So I guess my point is this: This one ruling seems rather shocking, but it was the prosecutors that allowed it to be plead down to lesser charges, not the judge. And when you look at more of his rulings and take them into account, you can't say that he is all bad or all good. Like I said before, maybe there were extenuating circumstances like the fourteen year-old was seeking the relationship also. Who knows? Without the trial notes, it's rather hard to say.
As far as the HIV part goes, that to me is hard to take. I would like to see a harsher penalty in this case for not disclosing that information, but I don't know all the facts of the case and therefore am willing to accept the judge's ruling as fair.
So back to the point I was trying to make earlier, just because a judge makes a decision that you or I don't understand or disagree with doesn't mean that he needs to be removed from the bench. You can't take one case out of the context of an entire career and use it as an example of why a judge should be removed. I'm sure you wouldn't want the Democrats judging John Roberts based on his ruling in one single case, now would you? When you look at Hanson's other cases, he doesn't appear to be just one sided. What do you think?
Here is what I think; I saw some of the articles that you are talking about. I understand how you see that he is not all bad, and mostly good.
I don't think when it comes to a judge mostly good, is good enough.
A lawyer chose to commit statutory rape of a 14 year old boy, while concealing that he is HIV+ and the judge thinks this is some kind of "error of judgment"?
This kind of performance on the job is simply unacceptable. I see that you think the prosecution agreed to a plea-bargain, and this excuses the judge from doing what is right. This was a failure on the part of the prosecution. The judge however does not have to impose what was agreed to in the plea. However he did admit that he did this and other things like 'he answers the door naked, and he knows no boundaries? WTF? If this had been a girl of 14 they would have tossed his ass in the clink for a long while. What makes it different, from that situation? Because the child was willing?
This was simply a failure to do his job and impose a sentence on a man who is a child rapist. That is a black mark big enough to warrant he be removed from the bench. There is no other alternative. This is of course not the only time a judge fails in his or her job, how many examples are needed to see that the judiciary needs to be brought up to a higher standard?
C.
how many examples are needed to see that the judiciary needs to be brought up to a higher standard?
How many have you got? Because it's going to take a whole lot more than one judge making one bad decision.
I don't agree with every decision made by every judge (this one included) but I don't even begin to think that I am better than them. They are the experts at their job, not me or you (unless you're a judge). This is the arrogance that a lot of us on the left see from your party. Some of you act as though you are the only ones that are right about anything. It doesn't even seem to occur to you that these people got to the position that they did on their merits. It's kind of like that old saying: "Who died and made you King?" (I know, it works both ways. Democrats are not immune from this either.)
How many times have judges let drunk drivers off only to have them reoffend? How many times did judges fail to keep sex offenders in jail, but instead let them out only to have them reoffend? How about the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. and the complete disaster they are? How many times have they been over turned, because they don't want to follow the law but rather make up new law?
I don't have to be better to know that the judiciary needs to be improved. Neither do you, and it is clearly an effort on your part to make it ok for judges like Hanson to continue what they are doing. People are fed up with judges like this, and we vote to change the behavior of the court.
C.
It's interesting that Chris is so willing to indict the entire judiciary based on one case in which he knows only some of the facts. He talks about unelected, unaccountable and arrogant activist judges, yet it's the conservative supreme court justices who are the ones overturning congressionally enacted laws.
Conservatives idea of an activist judge is any judge who rules against them. Case in point would be the Schiavo matter. After about 16 judges, both conservative and liberal, all agree on an issue, i would think that would make it pretty clear what the law is. But nope, not good enough for the "activist judiciary" crowd. In that case, clearly NOT being activist was viewed as being activist. All they want is another issue to divide people over. Make up some ridiculous phony problem just so they can be the ones who are "protecting" us from that non existent problem.
As far as the case being discussed above, Chris, there is quite a bit of info missing from the article i read that could have a bearing on what the ultimate sentence should be. But since you seem to know what should have been done, perhaps you can answer them for me.
1)Did the 14 year old admit to the guy that he was only 14? Or did he claim to be 18 for example?
2)Did the 14 year old admit to several other encounters that he didn't want to give information on...and only pursued this one because he was only concerned with the HIV issue, which turned up negative?
3)What exactly were the "sexual acts" referenced in the article? And did the 14 year old have a consistent story, or was he proving to be a rather unreliable witness?
4)Did the lawyer have a history of enticing other juveniles while fully aware they were juveniles? Or was this an isolated case where maybe he was being misled?
5)Was the 14 year old even reluctant to point an accusatory finger, and this only came out in the open because the 14 year old wanted an HIV test and he was then compelled to detail his sexual history which then led back to the lawyer?
6)Was the 14 year old willing or unwilling to testify?
I could probably come up with more, but i think my point is made.
While i concede that based on a quick synopsis of the story, this sounds like a no brainer that this was an idiotic sentence. But given everything we don't seem to know, the arrogant ones are the people who want to pretend they can act as judge with nothing more than a 1/2 page news article on the issue.
Correction: It was a different poster (and not Chris) who referred to "unelected, unaccountable and arrogant".
My mistake for suggesting otherwise.
People are fed up with judges like this, and we vote to change the behavior of the court.
No Chris, you are fed up with judges like this. Republicans are fed up with judges like this because they rule in a way that you don't always agree with. As I pointed out and as Ickabod pointed out (much better than I did, by the way) we don't know all of the facts. You talk about people being let out only to reoffend. Sometimes it's not the judge's decision to do that. Just like the plea deals are the job of the prosecution. You're trying to lay blame at the feet of one person when there are many other factors that contribute.
And I really love the phrase "legislate from the bench." What the hell does that mean? Do you really believe that these judges are just making shit up? They're following the law as they understand it and applying it to the case at hand. In other words, they're doing the job they were elected/appointed to do.
Speaking of jobs, what do you do for a living Chris? You seem to think that you're an expert in a lot of fields. Law, education, foriegn policy,.... What's your profession?
Ickabod, if I understand your post you think that some how it is ok for a man of 51 to have sex with a 14 year old. The attorney ADMITTED in a plea bargin to having sex with a child! It makes all of your questions moot.
This is what is wrong with the left. You think that it is ok if the kid said he was 18, you think it is ok if what. some act of sex with a child are permissible? What the fu*k is in your head? Sexual contact with a child is a crime, and should be punished severly. If the guy had had no previous sex and was a virgin and new to picking up young boys with his computer, does that make it ok that he had sex with a child? Was the child willing to testify? The atty admitted to the act, what difference does it make? This is possibly the most retarded logic I have seen in years.
This in my view is what is wrong with the left. The notion that everything is ok, and we can't judge and who am I, Chris Brownell to say that a 51 year old guy deserves to be in prison for 7 or 8 years for raping a child.
Not everything is ok, permissible and not to be judged. We have the power to see and decide what is right and wrong. It is our responsiblity to do what is right for our families and for society. Society should not say 90 days or what ever is ok for a child rapist.
Right now KissFan I am a stay at home father of three. I have been for just over two years. I am lucky that my wife makes bank, and that we can do this for our kids.
I don't have to be a lawyer to know that the judge can impose a proper sentence for a child rapist. I don't have to be a foreign policy expert to know that appeasement only encourages the bad guys. I have a child in school and was on a parent advisory council, discussing matter of NCLB and that is why I went to lengths to know and understand why we have NCLB. It doesn't take a genious to know that our public schools by and large are simply hi fi day care. It doesn't take a masters degree in education to know that private schools educate better for less money.
C.
I forgot to proof and spell check before posting, ugh, forgive me.
C.
The fact that you pathetically danced around answering the questions was noticed.
So based on your logic, Chris, there can be no differering levels of degree. So throw away the key everytime someone kills someone, whether it's a cold blooded murder, or an accident, or self defense. Whether it's in the heat of the moment during a barroom brawl, or whether it was planned a month ahead of time.
By your logic, there's no difference between George Bush and Osama Bin Laden. They both killed innocent civilians to further a cause. Period. End of story. That's all we need to know (according to you).
Frankly, you know one piece of information. A 51 year old had sex with a 14 year old. Ignoring the fact that i have no doubt you would claim the 14 year old was an adult if he killed someone and should be tried as such, you really have no idea what you're talking about. You make it sound like the guy broke into the kids house, kidnapped him and raped him at gunpoint.
There's a reason laws are set up so that there are a range of penalties that can be assessed. Not every murderer gets the maximum sentence. Not every bank robber gets the maximum. And no, not every rapist gets the maximum. If the judge sentenced him to 90 days, then i'll assume the law allows for that sentence. And i'll assume the law allows for that sentence because the people who crafted the law (not the runaway judge, but the elected officials) understand that circumstances very well may exist that would render such a penatly to be just. You have NO idea as to whether or not they exist here. None.
Since you considered the questions moot (since you didn't have the answers) humor me and just answer this one. Let's suppose the kid claimed to be 22. And let's suppose the 51 year old was skeptical so he asked the kid for ID. The kid whips out 3 IDs, all photo ID's showing him to be 22. Would that make a difference? A simple yes or no will suffice.
You keep falling back on the notion he admitted raping the kid. Get real. He admitted having sex with someone who we now know to be 14. And he did so in the midst of a legal process that sometimes compels innocent people to plead guilty for any number of reasons. Not saying that's the case here, but it is enough of a possibility that his "admitting" the crime doesn't eliminate the need to take other considerations into account.
Maybe your world is all black and white. The real world, however, doesn't work that way. I will add, however, you very well may be right. Perhaps the sentence was far too light. Perhaps he deserved 20 years. But we don't know that based on a 1/2 page news article. So your anti judicial jihad here is nothing more than silly.
Well Ickabod you are wrong about me demanding ultra harsh sentences for kids, for not seeing that there are gray areas, and so on.
No surprising considering that you are defending a person who raped a child, and the judge that let him off with 90 days. If I remember correctly both sides, or maybe just the prosecution said he looked young. Maybe we should expect a man of 51 who is a lawyer to know better, and to have better judgment? What do you think? Or is it ok with you that 14 year olds get raped if they get talked into coming over to the rapists house?
If a man admits to raping a 14 year old girl in exactly the same circumstances, do you think that the atty would have only gotten 90 days? Probably you do. As for your stupid question, well lets say that the guy should stick to having sex with people within 20 years of his age, rather that 37. His behavior was in everyway inexcusable. As is your moronic defense that the judge was only following some guideline. The judge has the right to not sentence him at all if he wants. He can set aside a conviction, or impose a much harsher sentence.
As for Terri Schindler, well you’re right I am aghast at the judges who failed to protect life. That is me, a pro life crazy person. I am against killing babies and sick people and old people. I know I know, how utterly extreme of me.
How about you think about coming around to the notion that not all behavior is ok. That there is right and wrong, and that people have a duty to society to do what is right, even if they don't like it.
On a side note, I am willing to bet that this 14 year old has already been molested by someone. I will also bet that this demonstration of self-destructive behavior is a symptom of it. Victims will often find ways to connect with victimizers, and vice versa.
C.
So you're a stay at home father. That's fine, I have nothing against it, but I meant what is your chosen field of work? What field are you trained in? When you were working outside the home, what did you do?
Also,
This is possibly the most retarded logic I have seen in years.
This is uncalled for. Please be respectful to the other posters here.
Ickabod, I was wondering, what circumstances would make it ok for an adult to have sex with a 14 year old boy, or girl for that matter?
C.
I am a chef, and before that I have worked in IT but only for about two years, and before that I was in aviation maintence. I worked on small air craft from Cessna 150's to Beech Queen air's and some helicopters. I have worked in MN, ND, OR, CA, NV, and most recently WA.
I grew up in So Cal, and was in the USAF for about seven years. I more or less hate CA, and met my wife in ND, and consider that where I want to live, but work doesn't pay as well there as in WA.
C.
Ickabod, I was wondering, what circumstances would make it ok for an adult to have sex with a 14 year old boy, or girl for that matter?
Ok Chris, in spite of the fact you refuse to answer any of my 7 questions, i'll still answer you're 1. I don't think there are any circumstances that make it ok to have sex with a 14 year old, but you can't seem to help yourself when it comes to insisting i'm suggesting otherwise. Under any and all circumstances, there should be some sort of punishment. I'm not disagreeing with that, in spite of your attempts to argue that i am. If the only way you can win a debate is to turn it into something it's not, you've lost. Though that does seem to be a consistent tactic with those on the right. "Oppose the war? Then you don't support the troops, so you're wrong" quickly comes to mind.
I also like the way you throw around the term "rape" consistently, as though this was, again, a matter of the guy kidnapping the kid and holding a gun to his head. This is statutory rape. There's a difference. Big difference. And there's also a difference between statutory rape of a 14 year old and of an 8 year old. Once again, by your convoluted, extremist logic, the 51 year old should be put away even if it was the kid who held a knife to the old man's head and raped him, because, as we know, there are NO circumstances where he shouldn't be put away for having sex with a 14 year old.
You claim to understand the concept of gray areas, yet you totally ignore that concept here. I'm skeptical of your claim.
Ok, Chris, you're 0 for 7. I'll give you one more chance at answering a question. You're basing your anger on the notion that a 51 year old raped a 14 year old boy. No other circumstances are at all relevant to anything. None. We know everything we need to know. A 51 year old man raped a 14 year old boy. So my question is this. Based on that little bit of information, i think the guy should be put away for at least 20 years. 15 as an absolute minimum. So why did the prosecutor only recommend 1 year? 1 year for a 51 year old raping a 14 year old? Are you kidding me? 1 year? He raped a 14 year old boy for cryin' out loud. Or, hmmmmm, were there extenuating circumstances? Because that's the only way i can imagine a prosecutor letting a 51 year old get away with raping a 14 year old with only a 1 year sentence.
If a 51 year old has sex with a 14 year old what difference does the circumstance make? You seem to indicate that you can only believe that the prosecutor knew of extenuating circumstances, but what you seem to over look is that he simply failed to do his job, as a very likely reason.
Lets say that the kid said he was 18, and this 14year old had some stubble and it was some how plausible that he was looked older than he is. The kid came to his home, and the guy had been drinking, and what ever. It is the judge’s responsibility to see what happened for what it is. A man had sex with a child. The judge, the prosecutor, everybody involved has a duty to society to punish and make an example of this guy. If this was a 14 year old girl, they would have been screaming for his head. Why is it different because it is a boy? Do people hesitate because they don't want to be seen as condemning homosexuality, whether it is true or not? Is the kid a delinquent, and there for not worth putting this guy in a prison for 7 or 8 years? Does that make any difference?
Society as a whole should be condemning this man, and the judge’s failure to deal appropriately with a man who committed statutory rape. Anything less is unacceptable.
Statutory rape is still rape. A child does not have the decision making ability that an adult has. Is there a difference between a violent rape where a person is kidnapped or rapped off the street and forced to commit sexual acts? Yes of course. But don't forget that kidnapping is a separate and punishable offense all on its own. Isn't having sex with someone who is unable to make decisions for themselves the same as coercing them into doing something they shouldn’t? The law allows for a difference between statutory rape and a sexual battery rape. I am fine with that. The judge however failed to do what is right and punish a man who is clearly deserving, err go he must be removed before he has another lapse of judgment.
C.
Just to make sure I have this straight:
Anyone that does something that Chris doesn't agree with or anyone that does something that Chris thinks others would call a lapse in judgement, should be removed from their job.
Sound about right?
No, not really but it doesn't surprise me that you would attempt to convolute my point of view into something it's not.
C.
There's that word again.
Look, you are clearly not willing to accept the fact that we don't know everything about this case. But with a limited amount of information, you have taken it upon yourself to be the judge and the jury in the matter. Furthermore, you assert, with no evidence to back it up, that the judge is letting him off easy because it wasn't a girl, insinuating that he's trying to avoid what may be construed as a homophobic driven sentence. So now who's convoluting?
Imagine that. A conservative jumping to conclusions with insufficient evidence to back them up. Unheard of!
One thing to look forward to, though. If Bush hears about what you're doing he may just give you a position on his staff. /snark
The homophobic thing is just a possiblity, not fact or anything close to it.
On the flip side of what you think I am doing is you, and Ickabod, saying that the judge is right in giving a guy only 90 days for having sex with a child. And you think I am a loon! The lawyer has ADMITTED to haveing sex with a child. Tell me then what circumstances it would be ok for an adult to do this. Are there any, or are you unwilling to agree that society should frown on sex with kids no matter the circumstances?
I will ask again, Do you agree that sex with a child is a criminal act, no matter the circumstances?
C.
Hmmmm....
Let's see, I've said:
"I would like to see a harsher penalty in this case for not disclosing that information, but I don't know all the facts of the case and therefore am willing to accept the judge's ruling as fair."
"I don't agree with every decision made by every judge (this one included) but I don't even begin to think that I am better than them."
And Ickabod has said:
"While i concede that based on a quick synopsis of the story, this sounds like a no brainer that this was an idiotic sentence."
"Based on that little bit of information, i think the guy should be put away for at least 20 years. 15 as an absolute minimum."
Sorry, Chris. You're wrong. Ickabod and I have never said that the judge was right. We've consistently said that we don't know enough of the story to claim that he was wrong. We're willing to wait until we know all of the facts before making that decision.
I'm sorry KissFan, what other facts do you need before you would condemn this judge? The guy admitted it. The proecutor failed to ask for enough time in prison, but then the judge doesn't have to agree to that, just because there is a plea agreement.
It seems to me you are failing to condemn this judge because you don't have "enough facts". So what else do you need?
C.
Under any and all circumstances, there should be some sort of punishment. I'm not disagreeing with that, in spite of your attempts to argue that i am. Ickabod.
What punishment then ? 120 days? a year? how long?
If the judge sentenced him to 90 days, then i'll assume the law allows for that sentence. And i'll assume the law allows for that sentence because the people who crafted the law (not the runaway judge, but the elected officials) understand that circumstances very well may exist that would render such a penatly to be just. You have NO idea as to whether or not they exist here. None.
Ickabod
Again what "circumstances" would make it ok for a 51 year old to have sex with a 14 year old?
I don't really care about extenuating circumstances, as I don't believe it to be ok for a man to have sex with a child in any form. Thus thre is NO CIRCUMSTANCE where it would be permissible.
I don't know why this judge did what he did, but niether do you. KissFan.
Doesn't matter to me. Do you want to wait around to see if does it again? Is that your plan? How many times is ok? Once? three times?
I don't understand how you can say well we just don't know enough to say this guy was wrong, and he should have done better. I bet you get more pissed off if your favorite sports team loses!
In my opinion if you are a judge you are EXPECTED to know better, to do better, and to be better. "OK" isn't good enough. 97% isn't good enough. When it comes to children I expect judges to be harsh and firm in their resolve to deal with those in society who harm them.
Not enough information is a cop out.
C.
How long did Mary Kay Laturneau get for having sex with a child? five years?
C.
Well, the original complaint, a list of all the evidence, the statements of both the defendant and the victim, the specifics of the plea deal, and a transcript of the courtroom proceedings would probably suffice. Until then, I can only speculate, which is what you've been doing all along.
You are a teacher aren't you?
C.
Yep.
and your not willing to make a judgement even though the guilty party agreed to go to jail?
C.
What do you teach and what grade?
C.
I teach band and chorus to fifth through twelfth graders.
If there's one thing I've learned through teaching and dealing with kids and parents it is that there is never a clear cut answer to anything outside of the classroom. Clearly this man deserves to go to jail. But as I've said before, I don't know all of the facts. What if, as Ickabod said, this kid lied? Nowhere in the articles that we've read does it say that the lawyer knew of the kid's age prior to the sex. This may be a situation where the kid was the aggressor. Sure, it says the guy sought him out, but what if this is the kid's game. He could be a junkie turning tricks for drug money. We don't know. If the kid lied and consented, then what the guy was doing was not illegal in his mind at the time he was committing the act. That does not excuse it, however, but it changes the perspective of things.
No, sex with a child is never right. On the surface, 90 days seems too short. But I'm not going to say that the judge or the prosecutor made the wrong decision until I know exactly what happened. It may very well turn out that the boy isn't the only victim of a crime in this case.
What about a minor that buys alcohol with a false ID? Who's the person at fault? The kid for possessing a false ID or the retailer for selling to what appeared to be a legal adult? In case you don't know, it's not the retailer that gets in trouble.
All I'm saying is that we simply don't know enough about the case. Yes, he confessed, but it never says that he confessed to knowing the kid was underage prior to the act.
I'm sorry if that sounds crass or uncaring, but I've seen too many mistakes made by jumping to conclusions before knowing all of the information.
The lawyer has ADMITTED to haveing sex with a child. Tell me then what circumstances it would be ok for an adult to do this.
Like we said, it's not ok. Listen up.
And you talk about us convoluting YOUR points into something they're not? I'll say this again, for what seems like the 4th time now. Please, seriously, listen up. We never said it's ok. We're saying we don't know why a judge would sentence someone to a whole 9 months less than the maximum that the prosecution agreed to (assuming it's not the maximum allowed by the law - that the elected legislature agreed to)....and 3 years probation, probable disbarment, and being registered as a sex offender.
Here's another thing we don't know didn't happen. I won't waste my time phrasing it into a question because you seem unable to answer them adequately anyways.
The article doesn't specify the sex acts actually committed, nor does it say much of anything else that happend. So with that:
Kid says he's 19 and talks the guy into inviting him over. Guy invites him over. When the kid shows up, the guy is skeptical of the kids age and questions him on it. Kid insists he's 19. They start having sex. Guy can't get it out of his head that something doesn't seem right. Guy halts everything and presses the kid some more on his age. Kid finally fesses up to being 14. Guy goes into the bathroom, throws up, then throws the kid out of the house and tells him never to come back. Maybe even the guy tells the kid to get dressed, counsels him for about an hour, then sends him home.
But Chris would say put the guy away for 10 years.
Commenting by HaloScan
