Posted on 02/07/2006 7:06:55 PM PST by AmericanMade1776
You are so ignorant, as are many of the posters on this site on child behaviors. A child that has been sexually abused can become sexually abusive. We do not know enough from this story to know if this was an innocent childish behavior or if this child has been abused in some way and is acting out and needs help.
Here's the last paragraph:
"When he comes home, he says, 'Mommy, are police going to arrest me?' I can't even make a phone call without him (asking) who I am speaking to. He is very frustrated because he is a very emotional kid. It bothers me so much to see my son go through this," Dorinvil said.
Who knows what the school officials said to the kid? Did they use the term "sexual harrassment" with him? Were they overreacting with him?
Of course, the mom might try handling it differently. I have young sons, too, and I think I would've handled it this way: Determined what it was my son did. If it was inappropriate, explain to him why. Then explain that adults can be idiots - and, yes, Mommy is allowed to use the term "idiots" when it applies correctly to adults - and that I'm going to remove him from that awful school. Luckily, we homeschool our own, so this is not a situation I have to worry about.
They have no sexual feelings yet!
___________________
in an ideal world they sure wouldn't....I have friends that adopted some foster kids - that little girl had already been molested by at least 2 adult males by the time she was 3. How do you turn it off once it's been turned on and teach them that not all men can be coerced that way?
Do you know, we were never children, we were all born this way.
I lived in Brockton from 1984 until 1999 and even went to high school there. Since it's located in the Peoples' Republic of MA I'm not surprised to hear this. It's a city of nearly 100K people but has been in decline since the early 90's when the blue-collar type families got fed up with the illegals and moved south. There is a huge welfare population and the school system is saturated with English as 2nd Language kids and not enough teachers to accomodate proper instruction if any was to be given (see: home school). I have 2 nieces in the system and the younger one is morphing into the flippant disrespectful little snit the government is hoping for, as the parent is the enemy to the child in the governments' eyes. The city basically needs to be gutted and rebuilt in the manner it was when the work-a-day family reigned supreme.
What a bunch of absolute morons.
I got a call from the daycare at my work this am asking (they knew I had time off)me to fill in for a couple hours. I asked if I could smack them if they needed it and was told "no". I reponded with a "Why in the world would I want to work there then?".
Yeah, next when 1 one and half year old boy baby kisses a one and half year old girl baby, the little guy will end up on a sex offender list.
As for the article the little girl grabbed his pee pee and he grabbed hers in retaliation.
Kids that age have no notion of sex whatsoever. Boys and girls don't even want to have anything to do with each other until their twelve at the earliest.
We used to have an expression for it when I was young, "Girls Fleas!!!!"
Three words: Home School NOW!
We had some chick...I mean broad...I mean woman...I mean female...I mean oppositely gendered from someone such as myself attorney at our offfice last year for our indoctrination session.
She kept smiling as she dropped multiple F-bombs but it was OK, because she was quoting from cases. I'm certain that she was getting off on doing that. Several of the men did speak informally with HR about feeling harassed. It was pretty offensive because normal people should not use that language in any context within a mixed environment
She was kind of cute though. (Just kidding, I'm not a harasser)
hehe yeah we were worried about catching coodies
My son got pushed into a girl who didn't like him once, she was BEHIND him, and she complained about the same thing. I was pretty upset, too. Law requires every incident to be documented to determine if there is a pattern of abuse so if someone has it in for someone else, they can ruin a persons life just by accusations. It doesn't matter if there is any truth to it or any witnesses or anything. It's just her word. Fortunately, the adult in charge knew what was going on and put a stop to it; she actually had a talk with the girls but it's pretty scary how an innocent event can be turned into a life destroying situation. BTW, this happened in a crowd so there were people around who saw it.
The other problem with this whole sexual harrassment thing is that they push all this info about sex on kids at an age when it's NOT appropriate and then when kids do what kids do, act on the information that they WOULD NOT HAVE THOUGHT OF THEMSELVES ON THIER OWN, they get nailed for it. These idiot educators and liberals are creating the very problems they're condemning. They expose little kids to all this stuff and then make them criminals for even giving someone a hug. Kids need hugs, it's NOT sexual harrassment. The real stuff needs to be dealt with swiftly and firmly, but these folks need to get a grip.
As far as the boy *touched* the girl, we don't know what that means. Since a teacher risks sexual harrassment charges for even giving a kid a hug or pat on the back, it could be nothing more than that. Or it could be that the kid just wanted to see what kind of reaction he'd get from the adults; kids are always crossing the line. Or there could be a real problem.
I don't blame the mother for being upset, either.
I recall playing "doctor" with the little girl next door when we were both 5 years old. I don't really think these was anything wrong going on at home. I think it was more just a case of curiosity (as in - how come you've got a little butt in front?)
Heh, heh, heh.
Oh, the machinations of liberalism and their unintended consequences.
Heh, heh, heh.
I see from your ignorance that you have not spent any time around kids.
It's a one-way street unless it's same-sex harassment.
No, silly; it is never the first one that gets caught, but the second one.
You should have remembered this from your own childhood.
It's a one-way street unless it's same-sex harassment.
No, silly; it is never the first one that gets caught, but the second one. You should have remembered this from your own childhood.
Forgot to cc Wai-Ming
The war on males continues ...
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/feb06/06-02-08.html
Twenty Years In Prison For Having Sex With His Wife
Feb. 8, 2006
by Phyllis Schlafly
William J. Hetherington has been incarcerated in Michigan prisons for more than 20 years for having sex with his wife Linda. In 1986, he became
the first man in Genesee County convicted of the new Michigan crime called spousal rape.
Linda was not a battered wife; she testified at the trial that he had never beaten her in their 16 years of marriage. Hetherington was honorably
discharged from the U.S. Air Force, received a National Defense Service Medal, and had no police record of any sort.
The sentencing guideline for this new offense was 12 months to 10 years but, without showing cause, the judge sentenced him to 15 to 30 years
(twice the time served by the average convicted rapist in Michigan). Twenty years later, despite an exemplary prison record, the parole board
routinely refuses to parole him, giving as its sole reason "prisoner denies the offense."
Hetherington has, indeed, always maintained his innocence. It was a he-said-she-said case during a custody battle; he said it was consensual sex,
she said it was rape. The judge used Michigan's new Rape Shield Law to prohibit cross-examination of Linda.
No physical evidence of rape was produced at the trial. A pelvic examination of Linda at the hospital three hours after the alleged offense showed
no evidence of injury or forced penetration. Apparently what persuaded the jury to convict was the testimony of two police officers that they had
observed tape marks on Linda's face.
The court-designated psychologist who examined Hetherington, Dr. Harold S. Sommerschield, Ph.D., concluded: "This is not a man who would
force himself sexually or hostilely on another individual, as this would be foreign to his personality dynamics. ... his histrionic personality ... would
substantiate his explanation of what has occurred in regards to the relationship with his ex-wife."
The rape charge was prosecuted simultaneously with the custody case, and the divorce court had frozen all Hetherington's assets so he had no
money to hire a lawyer or make bond. Nevertheless, the criminal court ruled that he was not indigent and refused to provide him with a lawyer.
For 12 years, the court refused to provide Hetherington with a transcript of the trial. Without funds, he was unable to buy one, so he was
effectively denied his right of appeal, and no appeal has ever been heard on the substance of this case.
At the sentencing, prosecutor Robert Weiss called Hetherington's alleged offense equivalent to "first degree murder" and falsely accused him of
beating Linda. Weiss was running for a judgeship, and observers sized up his prejudicial statements as grandstanding for support from the
feminists.
Linda walked away with custody of their three daughters, the marital home, and all marital assets.
Ten years after Hetherington's conviction, a volunteer attorney, Jeff Feldman, using the Freedom of Information Act, obtained copies of five
photographs taken of Linda by police at the alleged crime scene immediately after the alleged offense. The photographs were in a locker in a
police garage, and the prosecution had never disclosed them to the defense.
The photographs were then examined by a forensic photographer in Miami, John Valor, using all modern techniques. Valor's four-page notarized
report detailed his impressive expertise, including service as the lead forensic photographer in the trial of serial-killer Ted Bundy.
Valor's sworn statement dated January 8, 1998 stated that the pictures of Linda showed absolutely no scratches, tape marks or abnormalities of
any kind, and that marks would have been clearly visible if there had been any. If a government witness gives false testimony, a convicted
prisoner should be entitled to a new trial, but Hetherington didn't get it.
Years later, a completely unsolicited letter was sent to the parole board by Melissa Anne Suchy, who had been employed by Linda as a
babysitter. Suchy's letter is hearsay, but it has the ring of authenticity.
Suchy wrote that Linda told her she made up the story about rape because she was then pregnant with the baby of her boyfriend, and he pushed
her to press rape charges, saying that she would have to "get rid of Hetherington or he wouldn't take care of the baby."
Over the years, several pro bono lawyers and concerned citizens have tried to secure a pardon or a parole for Hetherington, but Michigan
appears determined to make him serve 30 years because he won't admit guilt and because the bureaucracy won't admit it made a mistake.
Almost everyone who reads the record of what happened to William Hetherington concludes that he was unjustly accused, unjustly convicted,
unjustly sentenced, unjustly denied his due process and appeal rights, unjustly denied a new trial based on physical evidence of inaccurate
testimony by government witnesses, and unjustly denied parole.
A good man's life has been sacrificed, and three children have been denied their father, by the malicious feminists who have lobbied for laws that
punish spousal rape just like stranger rape and deny a man the right to cross-examine his accuser. They have created a judicial system where the
woman must always be believed even though she has no evidence, and the man is always guilty.
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.