Posted on 11/02/2011 7:01:11 AM PDT by massmike
Dallas police have arrested a man who allegedly sexually assaulted a minor at the Occupy Dallas campsite downtown. Richard Armstrong, 24, was charged with sexual assault of child and failure to register as a sex offender.
Armstrong was identified as the man who police said had sex with a runaway from Garland. The alleged incident happened in a tent at one of the encampments on or before Oct. 23.
Police received information that a 14-year-old runaway from Garland was at the camp. Police checked the area and found the girl. During an interview, she revealed that she had had sex with a man in a tent. Armstrong was identified as that man and arrested.
The girl also told dectectives she had told Armstrong she was 19 years old.
He was previously convicted of sexual assault in 2009 and was ordered to register. Court papers indicate he had sex with a 14-year-old girl at a party in Coppell.
(Excerpt) Read more at wfaa.com ...
Really, so if you are a sex offender; it's now illegal to have a young female in your tent? What statute is that, exactly?
And if it's between a grown man and a 14 year old,THAT'S statutory rape....consensual or not!
Or can't you process that?
What happens when your daugher realizes that she can get revenge for you grounding her, simply by saying “Daddy touched me”?
Just because someone else may have failed as a father and now has an uncontrollable animal in their home doesn't mean we ALL raised our daughters to be little pysco-sl*ts.
Well I guess idiots are not limited to just the lie-o-crats.
That is what he did in 2009. He was tried and convicted - right? That was justice served; and if convicted a second time the judge would be right in using past behavior in his next sentence.
However, you seem intent on bypassing the current (2011) event.
Mortman has an excellent post on this. I want justice served. Based upon the fact presented we have the following.
* Girl told accused she was 19, a flat out lie
* Girl claims that sexual conduct occurred
So, assuming that sex did occur (no evidence that it did), the defendant was under the belief that it was both consentual and legal. Those are the facts.
So, what is a court supposed to do? There is NO EVIDENCE that a crime was committed, and if sex occured, it occured under the lie that the girl was of the age of legal consent, and was consentual.
Again: She went to the cops and said she slept with the guy! She told the cops she was 14! If she did or didn’t tell the guy she was 19,(And if she lies THAT much,who knows?),the law says he’s guilty anyway! Hell! If she went to a bar with a fake ID and got served,it’s the bartender they take away in cuffs!Fair or unfair,that’s the law! If we don’t agree with the law,it’s up to us as voters to try and get the laws changed!Beyond that,what else can be done?
But again,it looks like he’s in enough trouble now that they find out he hasn’t registered as a sex-offender. Looks like he might not find himself in a position to be accused of ANYTHING else for a spell....
The differenc is that you are willing to cede that power to another group of individuals; I am not. I want justice served; and justice is not served when you artifically create a class of people who can arbitrarily imprison another.
As-is; your children can - on a whim - make a statement to their teacher, coach or any other adult; and you will be yet another victim plunged into the machine. That's the fact of the matter; you should be scared wit-less.
"No, sweetie; I don't want you going out on a date with Bobby. He's 18 and you are 14; you can go out on dates when you are 16" .... and how rationale are 14 yr old girls? All it takes in one statement. It could be you, it could be your brother, neighbor, co-worker; anyone. And you seem quite happy with that.
No, please don't make up facts. Let's stick to what actually happened, not what you wish had happened.
Police received information that a 14-year-old runaway from Garland was at the camp. Police checked the area and found the girl. During an interview, she revealed that she had had sex with a man in a tent. Armstrong was identified as that man and arrested.
Did you read the article? You seem to have judged him, convicted him and are apparently making up the facts as you go along. So far, we have cops looking for a runaway; they find her. She said she had sex with 'that' guy. So far, so good?
Not the article goes on to say that she told the guy that she was 19. Does that establish the reliability of the girl's integrity? She lied to the accused 'rapist' about her age. That is what she freely admitted to the police; as part of their interview.
So, what do we have? We have a girl who told a guy she was 19, and then she said she had sex with him. How old do you THINK he thought she was? All factual evidence points to 19, right?
Those are the facts ... all right there in the article for you to read.
The difference is the bartender is trying to do an honest day's work! This guy accused of this rape has a bit of a history of sex with young girls....and doesn't seem to learn his lesson! His history suggests that he would have done the same thing whether she told him she was 19 OR 14!
And don't think I'm putting angel wings on the girl! A 14 year old doesn't run away from home and start sleeping with strange men in tents unless she has a screw or two loose!
Quite frankly,they both seem like a twin pair of idiots,but the fact still remains that he is accused of sleeping with a 14 year old;and like the bartender,it doesn't matter if she lied about her age...according to the law! Fair or not is another story!
I'll be right there with you defending those dads.
Defend this guy? You're on your own!
Simple: it violates the terms of his probation re the prior conviction.
To paraphrase Ally McBeal. "It appears that the IQ of the smaller of the perp's heads is the larger..."
And I think the both of us agee this is a travesty of justice. The victim of fraud, is being held accountable. In a true and fair court; this would be thrown out by virtue of the fake ID. The bartender should not be held accountable for his actions, by virtue that falsified documents were presented. It seems that society is willing to go to any length to excuse the behavior of a minor.
His history suggests that he would have done the same thing whether she told him she was 19 OR 14!
So, is this a "Thought Crime"? Are you attempting to read his mind on this? This is a case where you are making facts up as you go along. Maybe he learned his lesson; and maybe this is the reason he asked how old she was? We simply don't know.
Simply being accused of having sex with an underage girl is not enough to imprision or arrest someone. She could have pointed to any arbitrary person in that crowd. Do they have some semen? Some DNA evidence? Maybe a cell phone recording? A witness? All we have is an allegation that sex occurred.
Now, to be sure that I'm not defending this individual (I do not know him, or her); nail him to the wall for the crime he did commit - not registering as a sex offender. Let justice do as it will on that count. But, without evidence to underage sex (other then the questionable integrity of a 14 yr old runaway) the other charge is baseless.
Legal or not,it's not the smartest move you could make!
A similar lesson Michael Jackson couldn't ever quite learn.
So, you think you can read my mind?
Since she told him she was 19, it is reasonable for him to believe he was not committing a criminal act. Case closed.
He wasn't arrested for what he MIGHT do! He was taken into custody for what the girl SAID he did!
What should the police have done...just let him walk?He was accused of a crime!
Maybe he learned his lesson;
But would you trust your daughter with him?
To be fair,I'd advise my son not to date HER,either!
I'm trying to reconcile how the law on holding bartenders meets the basic requirements of Mens rea
Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind".[1] In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence). As a general rule, criminal liability does not attach to a person who acted with the absence of mental fault. The exception is strict liability crimes.
This required element, requires the bartender to intentionally and willfully accept a fake ID as the real thing; which pre-supposed that he knew the ID was fake to begin with. I honestly don't know how any judge who attended law school (I'm an engineer, not a lawyer) can arbitrarily disregard one fundamental principle of criminal law.
Still, the last sentence "The exception is strict liability crimes" means that bartenders are liable for any action their customers take.
However, Statuatory Rape is not a criminal liability crime - so that defense doesn't work in this case (it shouldn't work in the bartender case either, IMHO).
That won't work for the bartender! I've seen bars and liquor stores closed down for selling to someone with a phony ID.
Whether I would trust my daughter (granddaughters would be the more reasonable response, in my case. All the kids are married FIRST, then grandkids, thank you) or not is not the question. Whether I trust him or not does not, nor should result in imprisonment.
What should the policemen have done? Question him, then arrest him for the crime that he did commit (failing to register). Then, using available evidence and statements of witnesses, determine whether there sufficient grounds to begin an investigation.
What do they have? Well, as I posted earlier “Mens Rea” went out the window when she said that she had told him that she was 19.
It IS glorified baby-sitting! I wouldn't recommend the job AT ALL!
Great system,isn't it,where a guy just trying to do an honest job isn't as protected at his job as rapists are?
And again, "Mens Rea" does not apply to Liability Crimes. That is to say, the bar gets busted because Jr. got busted on a DUI or fatality. The bar's insurance company feels that the bar is too high a risk, and refuses to insure the bar. Thus, the bar will close. In other cases, I have seen bars get routinely busted for underage drinking, and the City refuses to issue them a liquor license. In the city I went to college in, the bar owner made the business decision that it was cheaper to pay the fines than to turn away underage drinkers. Stupid decision on his part.
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.