• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Eighteen involved in gang rape of 11 year old girl in Texas

Thanks again. I figured if I tried to explain again I would just be horribly misinterpreted.

I'm not going through the vain action of trying to properly explain my views again. I admit that post was worded very badly, but I feel like no matter what I say it'll still be misinterpreted.


 
Last edited:
we are not in africa, although texas could be described as backward.

Texas is backward and Florida is not? I find your assertion offfending. Your state has its share of backward freaks. John Couey, Ottis Toole, and Gary Ray Bowles. In 1951 four Florida klan members murdered civil rights activist Harry T. and Harriette Moore. There names where Earl J. Brooklyn, Tillman H. Bevlin, Joseph N. Cox and Edward L. Spivey. They bombed the Moores home on Christmas day. Sounds pretty primitive and backwards to me. Before you go talkin smack about Texas I think you better check your own back yard.
 
Last edited:
Keep this number in mind the next time some lefty whines that all people need are ten round magazines in their handguns!
 
There are very few juries who would convict her and none that would sentence her to death. I think it's telling that you more vehemently condemn someone like Liblady who says she'd kill her daughter's attackers than you condemn the attackers themselves. You seem downright empathetic with molesters and rapists, not wanting them, in some cases to even be charged. Rather than make assumptions about why that could be, I'll ask, why?

Lets just say I sure am glad people more intelligent than yourself sit behind the bench in our state and federal courtrooms.

You seem downright empathetic with molesters and rapists, not wanting them, in some cases to even be charged.

And you totally ignored the reason I stated as to why. That teacher spent $500,000 dollars defending herself from FALSE CHARGES brought against her. She was found innocent, but the damage was already done. She will never teach again. Where is your sympathy for this woman? Where is the thread on this forum about a woman falsely accused whose life is now ruined? I thought that was what you conservawhackheads like, to help people. What, do I hear silence on this issue? So yes, absolutely, in the case where the evidence is lacking, charges SHOULD NOT EVEN BE FILED. You act like our justice system works on "charge the mother ****er and see if they can defend themselves." That's not how it works.

I'm going to turn this around on you. Why do YOU think charges should be brought against someone when there is no evidence? It seems that all a kid has to do is say "he touched me" and pretty much you don't give a **** about the accused and how they might not have done a damn thing, you want revenge. Revenge for a crime you "think" happened. To hell with proof, kill the son of a bitch. You're a right wing whackhead, yet another reason I left your party. They're nutty on the right, they don't use their brains, only their emotions. Don't believe me? Read the comments on the fox news article about that teacher being found innocent. The right wing whackheads STILL want her head on a platter, even after, as you say, "the system worked." Really? What system needs to be used where a right wing whackhead will actually BELIEVE someone found innocent DIDN'T DO IT? Hmm????????????????????????

Charges are brought based on evidence. Sexual charges are brought, evidence or not, and those charges are the most damning, damaging charges there are. Even found innocent, your name has been tarnished forever.

I think it's telling that you more vehemently condemn someone like Liblady who says she'd kill her daughter's attackers than you condemn the attackers themselves

I think its telling that you want to quickly ruin someones life based on no evidence. That's telling about you, and your right wing whackhead party. Personally, I condemn them both. A sexual attacker is just that. A murderer is a murderer. But only one should be put to death. This is not emotion speaking, THIS IS THE LAW. (You will NEVER know my PERSONAL beliefs on this because I actually am MATURE ENOUGH to separate emotion and the law.) Something you crazy conservative whackheads seem to have a hard time following when its an emotional issue. Whether you like it or not, the worst crime in the books is not sexual assault, but murder. (and I think in the military what is it, treason, or something, they can be hung for, but I mean the civilian world) They might NOT sentence her to death, but a good prosecutor would ask for it. You can't let emotion get in the way of justice, for ANYBODY. If she had just shot him for the **** of shooting him, shed get the death penalty. Just because she thought he was her daughters attacker, unless she catches him in the act, she would be a murderer and should be put to death, or at LEAST life without.

What seperates me from you? When you see someone charged with a sex crime, you AUTOMATICALLY think they are guilty. I do not. Considering how many people are falsely accused these days, I actually lean towards "they might NOT have done it" but always say "lets see what happens in court." I am not like the whackhead right, that wants to put the defendants head in a guillotine even BEFORE they make it to the courtroom.

Try to put a little more thought into your replies. I can back up everything I have stated here that isn't opinion based with links. You can do nothing but attack based on emotion. And YOU say its telling? Yes, it is, about you, not me.
 
Last edited:
That's not what I meant. I don't think that I'm closer to the truth than anyone; if you knew me in person, you would know that's not true. For that very reason, I am genuinely interested in and open to understanding other people's points of view on reality because I, like everyone else, has only had a limited amount of experiences. Therefore, understanding other people's beliefs and experiences gives me more relative truth to work with. (For example, if reality was a cube, I want to understand every side of it and I leave myself open to understanding every side.)

My comment to him was based on him implying that he won't read my posts because he's disagreed with other things I've posted in the past. I was saying that I'm more open to accepting other people's opinions because I would never limit myself from reading other people's posts because of past disagreements. I hope that makes sense.

Bottom line: I do not think that my opinions are more valid or truthful than others. I do think I'm more open to listening to other people's opinions than RevH is though based on his comment. (Perhaps that doesn't show sometimes, I get frustrated in here.)

Thanks for taking the time to explain your position further.
 
There is a backward freak in us all trying to get out.

Yuri Orlov: Beware of the Dog? You don't have a dog. Are you trying to scare people?
Vitaly Orlov: No, it's to scare me. Remind me to be aware of the dog in me. The dog that wants to **** everything that moves, wants to fight and kill weaker dogs. I guess it's to remind me to be more human.
 
Yuri Orlov: Beware of the Dog? You don't have a dog. Are you trying to scare people?
Vitaly Orlov: No, it's to scare me. Remind me to be aware of the dog in me. The dog that wants to **** everything that moves, wants to fight and kill weaker dogs. I guess it's to remind me to be more human.

Interesting quote, but I don't recognize it. What's it from?
 
I am yet to meet a single person who can properly grasp what I'm trying to say, maybe it''s just my wording.

I understand. Don't worry. This forum is not made for people who see past the story du jour. In 2 weeks they won't remember who the little girl was or care much about what happened to her attackers. Some new little girl will be on tv and they'll worry about her instead.
 
I understand. Don't worry. This forum is not made for people who see past the story du jour. In 2 weeks they won't remember who the little girl was or care much about what happened to her attackers. Some new little girl will be on tv and they'll worry about her instead.

That or some celebrity will be caught doing drugs again.
 
That or some celebrity will be caught doing drugs again.

I'm talking about the American obsession with lost little girls. I can count on my hands the number of times I've heard the 'liberal media' talk about the thousands of little girls raped in the DRC last year alone. When that Natalie Holoway girl disappeared, that's all the media talked about, no comparable mentions of the thousands of women who were killed and raped in Darfur during the same period.
 
The defense attorney: It's not like this little girl was forced to do anything, she wasn't kidnapped. She might have been a willing participant. Police affidavit says the 11 y/o was making threats (against the police).

Well now, if this same 11 year old wanted an abortion, pro-choice would be supporting her right to 'bodily sovereignty'.

Pro-choice, as per the premise of their abortion position, must support the 11 y/o here and defend the "rapists". She said 'yes', after all. She willingly made her own *choice*.

Not surprising to see she comes from a fatherless home with a criminal mother, either.

Way to support family values, lefties : ‘The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do.....
 
Last edited:
Some in Texas town blaming young girl in assault | AP Texas News | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

"Many who attended the meeting said they supported the group of men and boys who have been charged in the case. Supporters didn't claim that the men and boys did not have sex with the young girl; instead they blamed the girl for the way she dressed or claimed she must have lied about her age — accusations that have drawn strong responses from those who note an 11-year-old cannot consent to sex and that it doesn't matter how she was dressed.

Other people in this small town about 40 miles northeast of Houston said earlier this week they were outraged by the attacks. The age of consent in Texas is 17 and ignorance of a girl's age is not a legal defense."...


..."After the meeting, many in attendance told reporters that the girl had consented to the sex.

"She lied about her age. Them boys didn't rape her. She wanted this to happen. I'm not taking nobody's side, but if she hadn't put herself in that predicament, this would have never happened," said Angie Woods, who lives in Houston but grew up in Cleveland.

The AP was unable to locate the family this week, but her mother has told The Houston Chronicle that Child Protective Services placed the girl in a foster home with restricted access to her family"
 
Last edited:
The defense attorney: It's not like this little girl was forced to do anything, she wasn't kidnapped. She might have been a willing participant. Police affidavit says the 11 y/o was making threats (against the police).

Well now, if this same 11 year old wanted an abortion, pro-choice would be supporting her right to 'bodily sovereignty'.

Pro-choice, as per the premise of their abortion position, must support the 11 y/o here and defend the "rapists". She said 'yes', after all. She willingly made her own *choice*.

Not surprising to see she comes from a fatherless home with a criminal mother, either.

Way to support family values, lefties : ‘The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do.....

Unbelievable....

I am lost for words about how unbelievably ignorant and wrong this post is.
 
"She lied about her age. Them boys didn't rape her. She wanted this to happen. I'm not taking nobody's side, but if she hadn't put herself in that predicament, this would have never happened," said Angie Woods, who lives in Houston but grew up in Cleveland.

This dumb ass needs to be locked up with the 18 animals that raped that little girl.
 
This dumb ass needs to be locked up with the 18 animals that raped that little girl.

Ignorance isn't a crime. I may disagree with them, but they still have the right to think what they want. Must you always react so intensely? And what is it with everyone that is trying to insinuate they are sub-human? As I believe playdrive said, "There's no point in denying reality."
 
Last edited:
Some in Texas town blaming young girl in assault | AP Texas News | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

"Many who attended the meeting said they supported the group of men and boys who have been charged in the case. Supporters didn't claim that the men and boys did not have sex with the young girl; instead they blamed the girl for the way she dressed or claimed she must have lied about her age — accusations that have drawn strong responses from those who note an 11-year-old cannot consent to sex and that it doesn't matter how she was dressed.

Other people in this small town about 40 miles northeast of Houston said earlier this week they were outraged by the attacks. The age of consent in Texas is 17 and ignorance of a girl's age is not a legal defense."...


..."After the meeting, many in attendance told reporters that the girl had consented to the sex.

"She lied about her age. Them boys didn't rape her. She wanted this to happen. I'm not taking nobody's side, but if she hadn't put herself in that predicament, this would have never happened," said Angie Woods, who lives in Houston but grew up in Cleveland.
Sounds like some posters in this thread.
 
Sounds like some posters in this thread.

I don't think anyone in this thread has said that. You're just condemning everyone who didn't react with intense anger and disgust. I guess the guys who support vigilante justice and murder are just fine though.
 
I don't think anyone in this thread has said that. You're just condemning everyone who didn't react with intense anger and disgust.
Oh, I disagree. I think DoL and Don'tWorryBeHappy have come very close to suggesting the same things.

I guess the guys who support vigilante justice and murder are just fine though.
Vigilante justice is still justice, and murder is simply a legal concept that varies from state to state. In most states "sudden passion" is a mitigating factor that can reduce murder to manslaughter. Granted, it get's a little hard to argue sudden passion after about your 11th kill.
 
Oh, I disagree. I think DoL and Don'tWorryBeHappy have come very close to suggesting the same things.

Too bad I wasn't saying anything like that at all. My opinion is people should stick roughly to their own age groups.

Rape is never acceptable. What I said was not even close to what you claim. The claims prompting my response suggested first that someone at that age cannot consent and that it was pedophilia. One of those positions was incorrect and, in my opinion, the other was also incorrect.

Looking at the situation it would not surprise me if the girl was lying about how things started out. We only have her word that she was coerced into the situation. That would have a lot of relevance in my mind as it concerns the charges and potential sentencing.

I think what he's trying to say is there's a difference between a little girl being brutally forced to engage in sexual activities, and a little girl willingly engaging in sexual activities. I think he's not saying that either should be accepted behavior, but that one obviously requires a much greater level of sadism, and that that should effect our judgement of it. He's also saying that we hardly know anything at this point, and we shouldn't be passing such extreme judgement yet. At the very worst he's saying that children have the proper knowledge and judgement skills to make an informed decision on whether or not to have sex. I think he's simply acknowledging that technically they can consent, as any conscious being can consent.

Even if I'm wrong he's nowhere near as ignorant as the people; Who are basically just saying the little girl was a slut and was asking for it.

I feel bad for everyone involved. It's a bad situation all the way around. The poor girl, sheesh, shes messed up for life. And those young adults that made a one-time stupid decision have ruined the rest of their lives. It's just bad all the way around.

I wish'd it of never happened.

Oh yea, Ikari, X factor comes across as a bunch of hot air to me. I know men 10 times tougher than him that came back from Iraq after having been in a firefight and killing insurgents who were SHOOTING AT THEM and they are visibly shaken by having to take another mans life, and in that case, they had no choice. I would say 95% of people who say they would shoot these people would not do it, or would do it and run like a scared rat. They wouldn't take their consequences like a man. It's easy to talk tough on a web forum, in real life though, that's a whole 'nother story. He wants to be seen as all "tough" to his fellow web members, but usually the ones that talk the most trash are the ones that would cower in a real incident.

I fail to see how his views are similar to their's.
 
Last edited:
Oh, I disagree. I think DoL and Don'tWorryBeHappy have come very close to suggesting the same things.

Really? Well just like most on the right, you might want to open your eyes and read what's actually been posted.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...11-year-old-girl-texas-12.html#post1059334866

And for the record, for the idiots on here who think I condone this ****, in no way do I think this girl consented. Even if she said yes, at 11, she has no idea what shes saying yes to. Now, rightwingnutjobs, is that clear enough?

Jeez, it's like reasoning with a dead rat.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom