Posted on 01/17/2006 3:27:44 PM PST by churchillbuff
As you mention, many of us -- I know **I** am -- are wondering also why the subdued tone, subdued information, as in little to no media "outrage."
A lot of that peeks through with responses as to the article itself. However, MY POINT earlier and still is is that the writer seems affected somewhat and it might just be that he's affected by cultural numbing-down, by deference, by the fear that one "can't offend homosexuals" and such, because I still say he has devoted more energy to the guy's situation and financial and representational connery than he has to the victim/s. Doesn't even suggest the possibility/liklihood of more victims.
However, it's a minor thing but it's still noticable to my read, and has been, apparently, to others on this thread unrelated to me, if you'll read the comments through.
He makes a good presentation as to description of conditions, the ALLUSION of misleadments in the environment (the garden gate sign, the backyard, the new house, the false organization at taxpayer expense) and then also includes the perpetrator's sad and pathetic lies about some relationship with "God" and about the pathetic perpetrator's medical problem (AIDS), but just mentions the "rape" and the "13 year old boy" and then the charges in officially disinfected nomenclature.
There's nothing there about the child, about the child's family, statements/interviews from the community, nothing from law enforcement, no interviews or comments by anyone on behalf of the child and other likely victims, no comments from any interested medical personnel, nothing other than more focus than some of us even want to read as to the miserable perpetrator's "religious" comments and medical problems.
Yes, there are facts but by withholding and not including other personalized, informative comments/statements such as I've just suggested, the writer appears to devote far more focus/attention to the perpetrator than to the victim and/or victims.
Which is the cause for the degree of suspicion some of us note.
Which is about what I've now described several times over so I think these explanations are more than adequate.
Your comments are in the category of "Hammer Meets Nail", and eloquently stated.
Up until recently this form of sodomy was not at all chargeable as "rape". Also up until recent times, adult females could not be charged as "raping" minor boys. It had to do with the legal definition of "rape".
Homosexual sodomy is worse than "ordinary" rape, if possible. It used to be called a crime against nature, and so it is.
Not to minimize the viciousness of rape, especially when the victim is a child. Rape should be a capital crime, as it used to be.
What about assault with a deadly weopon for possibly infecting the child with HIV? What a pig.
In the 90s was in contact with some perfectly decent men jailed for "alleged" failure to pay child support. In most the cases, it wasn't that they had failed, it was that the wife had NOT cashed the checks, and then used the charge "he didn't pay" to get the guy jailed under 'Deadbeat Dads". Several were victims of homosexual rape in the jail.
A number of us involved with this learned very directly about the laws on the books at the time. And these laws "protected" assaultive sodomy, protected sexual crimes males can and do commit upon other males.
The feminists laughed in our faces, some went so far as to assert that "men are just getting what they deserve for 4,000 years of oppressing females. Now they can sit at the back of the bus too". And these comments were also published on public cyber boards; no shame whatsoever in saying such ugly things.
And so we tried to address the issue of male "rape" at public levels (articles, petitions to congress, etc.).
I don't know for fact that the legal definition of "rape" has changed (whether it be male on male or female on male regardless of age).
Sure, why not? If they've got a law on the books that fits. I think some states have written laws that are specific to knowingly spreading a potentially deadly disease. You know they'll probably dismiss most of the charges in a plea bargain so throw that in there too.
Thanks, little_jeremiah.
I wish they (the "hammer" comments) weren't necessary, however.
~;-]
Thanks for the history. Feminism is evil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.