• 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

Lame..........

He got a little vacation to think about his numerous personal attacks. I haven't attacked anyone on this thread. If I had, I would have most CERTAINLY been infracted for it.

Why don't you try your best to keep on topic and not make this thread about me, k? I could easily report tons of posts on here as personal attacks. It's all you guys on the right have. You can't dispute anything I say. I post links, with facts and sources, in response you attack me, call me a sex offender lover, an idiot, and a host of other wonderful infractable things. I've kept this conversation on a very adult level, even if my competition has not. I have a history of not following the rules around here, but I'm trying my best to. I can see the mods are coming through for me and taking care of business. Thanks, guys and gals.

You attack me personally, in any way, shape or form, and I will report you. I didn't used to, but I will now. When responding to attacks gets you a two week vacation but reporting them only gets THEM a 2 week vacation, I'm all for the latter.
 
Last edited:
He got a little vacation to think about his numerous personal attacks. I haven't attacked anyone on this thread. If I had, I would have most CERTAINLY been infracted for it.

Why don't you try your best to keep on topic and not make this thread about me, k?

I didn't make it about you, you did.

Now why not get back to whining about how terribly those poor child rapists are being treated?
 
They're shouldn't be a SINGLE person on the registry for this. Do you have any idea how much it costs tax payers to follow one offender for a year? You're acceptance of an "ok" levels of dead innocent people and teenage sex offenders is disturbing.

Costs worth more than molested children... gee, what a surprise. How do you equate this my report-happy friend?
 
He got a little vacation to think about his numerous personal attacks. I haven't attacked anyone on this thread. If I had, I would have most CERTAINLY been infracted for it.

Why don't you try your best to keep on topic and not make this thread about me, k? I could easily report tons of posts on here as personal attacks. It's all you guys on the right have. You can't dispute anything I say. I post links, with facts and sources, in response you attack me, call me a sex offender lover, an idiot, and a host of other wonderful infractable things. I've kept this conversation on a very adult level, even if my competition has not. I have a history of not following the rules around here, but I'm trying my best to. I can see the mods are coming through for me and taking care of business.

You attack me personally, in any way, shape or form, and I will report you. I didn't used to, but I will now. When responding to attacks gets you a two week vacation but reporting them only gets THEM a 2 week vacation, I'm all for the latter.

Thanks, guys and gals.

You repeatedly attack people, as you did in this very post. I am sure that I am on your ignore list, and that is telling enough... but please explain why you think that child molesters and rapists should not receive a Scarlet Letter on Megan's List?
 
You repeatedly attack people, as you did in this very post. I am sure that I am on your ignore list, and that is telling enough... but please explain why you think that child molesters and rapists should not receive a Scarlet Letter on Megan's List?

I attacked no one. If you think I did, report me. Nothing stopping you, is there?

You're already showing your ignorance. There is no "megans list." There is a megans law. There is an adam walsh act. A "jessicas law". With the excepton of Megan, there are some HUGE holes in the crimes that created the jessicas law and adam walsh act.

However, to answer your question, since it was a good question, I actually do think they should be put on a list. I just don't think that list should be in the publics hands. Obviously they can't handle it.

Now, will you answer this question for me. Why haven't you addressed anything I spoke of earlier, the vigilante violence on sex offenders, the harassment of the offender and their family, etc? Do you not care about ALL children, or just "some"? What about the kids of these offenders? Do you not care that they are humiliated and yet they are innocent? What about the wives, girlfriends, parents, etc?

And you keep saying "child molesters and rapists" but that's not sex offenders. Thats child molesters and rapist. Someone that downloads photos is neither, someone that pees behind a tree is neither, someone that is 18 with a 17yo girlfriend (YES, in Arizona that will get you on the list) is neither, so make sure you specify child molester and rapist, don't say sex offender, because that's too "all inclusive."

And no, you're not on ignore. I just told you not to contact me via PM. I haven't put anyone on ignore. No reason to. It makes threads too hard to follow if you do that. Only in extreme cases would I do that. I think on 12 forums I'm a member of maybe 1 person has been put on ignore. None on this site.
 
Getting things back on track here:

Only four sexual assault suspects remain in jail - Houston Community Newspapers: News: sexual assault,

Cleveland residents still reeling after gang rape of girl, 11 | Top stories | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

The first mentions the criminal records of some of the alleged rapists and the second mentions a number of fact surrounding the case and the alleged victim.

I'm pretty sure she was a victim. "Alleged" carries with it an assumption that there is definite doubt. Whether or not each individual is guilty or not, something bad went on inside that trailer that she honestly did not want nor deserve. She is definitely a victim, DOL.
 
I'm pretty sure she was a victim. "Alleged" carries with it an assumption that there is definite doubt. Whether or not each individual is guilty or not, something bad went on inside that trailer that she honestly did not want nor deserve. She is definitely a victim, DOL.

No, alleged means their crimes have not yet been proven in court.
 
I just cannot understand those who are blaming the victim and defending the perpetrators unless they are trying to rationalize something in their own experience.

.
 
No, alleged means their crimes have not yet been proven in court.

Exactly. The papers always say "alleged", even when the perp has been caught red handed, as they don't want to give the defense an opening to say that the media prejudiced the jury and get a guilty party off.
 
No, alleged means their crimes have not yet been proven in court.

Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

I said "alleged" means there is doubt. Not proven in court means "not guilty" right now. But I was not referring to the perps, only her being a victim. He said "alleged victim" and I said that I honestly believe she was a victim, the "alleged" part is incorrect. You don't prove in court if someone is a victim.
 
Not that I agree in anyway with how you seem to have twisted this to a racial issue - but it's too late for Sharpton and Jackson.. The New Black Panther Party beat them to the punch

"Quanell X, leader of the Black Panther movement in Houston - a mere 45 miles away - told ABC News: 'Every adult male that had sex with this child should go to prison, I don't care what the colour is.

'But I do not believe black males are the only ones that had contact with this young child. It appears to me there's only been the selective prosecution of one community, which is African-American"


Read more: Horrific gang rape by 18 men of girl, 11, in Texas sparks racial tension | Mail Online

I'm not the one who twisted it into a racial issue. I was just commenting that someone surely would.....which they already have done. So is Quanell X's opinion that there were more than 18 guys who raped this girl and the cops just rounded up the 18 that were black?
 
Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

I said "alleged" means there is doubt. Not proven in court means "not guilty" right now. But I was not referring to the perps, only her being a victim. He said "alleged victim" and I said that I honestly believe she was a victim, the "alleged" part is incorrect. You don't prove in court if someone is a victim.

It doesn't mean there is doubt. In America someone is always innocent (even when cought red handed) until proven guilty in court. In our system of law, not saying alleged before guilt is proven in court can lead to slander charges, that does not mean there is doubt.
 
It doesn't mean there is doubt. In America someone is always innocent (even when cought red handed) until proven guilty in court. In our system of law, not saying alleged before guilt is proven in court can lead to slander charges, that does not mean there is doubt.

Again you're speaking of the perps I'm talking about the victim.
 
Again you're speaking of the perps I'm talking about the victim.

The alleged victim? Is that what you're getting at? That the victim-ness of the victim is in doubt? Seriously?
 
The alleged victim? Is that what you're getting at? That the victim-ness of the victim is in doubt? Seriously?

it is semantics. since the alleged perpetrators have not yet been convicted, it could be argued that either a.) the victim-ness of the victim is in doubt or b.) the authorities arrested the wrong guys

I'm no lawyer, but...I think one of the elements of the case that the prosecution must prove in court is that the rape/assault did in fact occur.

so, technically, until someone is convicted she is an alleged victim. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
The alleged victim? Is that what you're getting at? That the victim-ness of the victim is in doubt? Seriously?

No!!!!! That the victimness of the victim is NOT in doubt!!! Damn dude!!! Stop trying to make me out to be a villain and read what is written!!!!

I'm pretty sure she was a victim. "Alleged" carries with it an assumption that there is definite doubt. Whether or not each individual is guilty or not, something bad went on inside that trailer that she honestly did not want nor deserve. She is definitely a victim, DOL.
 
Last edited:
I just cannot understand those who are blaming the victim and defending the perpetrators unless they are trying to rationalize something in their own experience.

.

Nobody has blamed the victim, this is a perversion of several of the arguments being made in here. The closest statement that anyone made to that is: "It is possible that she willingly had sex with some or all of those men."

I am inclined to disagree and believe that even if she willingly had sex with one or two (maybe the 14 year olds), she was raped by many more. In the same light, I'm not sure this was the appropriate place to bring the argument up considering how obvious it is people were going to attack anyone who made it.

Nonetheless, the above statement is not victim blaming. Victim blaming would have been, 'Those guys didn't rape her' or 'It's her fault for coming onto them'.

Not a single person has said that or implied it. On the other hand, those who have accused others of victim blaming do so under assumption that 11 year olds never have sex and that anyone who acknowledges the reality that this has happened in the past are 'victim blamers'. Maybe she had sex with one of the younger ones, he told some people and the rest of them took advantage and raped her.

None of us know the entire story, but it's such a perversion of people's arguments to say that in bringing up possibilities, anyone has blamed the victim.
 
Last edited:
No!!!!! That the victimness of the victim is NOT in doubt!!! Damn dude!!! Stop trying to make me out to be a villain and read what is written!!!!

I did read what you wrote. And unless you're new to English, you aren't writing what you think you are writing. let's break it down:

I'm pretty sure she was a victim.

Meaning: it's possible she's not.

"Alleged" carries with it an assumption that there is definite doubt.

Alleged is not used here to indicate doubt, it's used to indicate that as of yet, the perpetrator has not been convicted. The "alleged" rapist = The "accused" rapist.

Whether or not each individual is guilty or not, something bad went on inside that trailer that she honestly did not want nor deserve.

The only way anyone is innocent in this situation is if they were not present at the time this occured. Everyone in that trailer at the time that girl was being raped is guilty of Rape or accessory to rape. (once proven in court)

She is definitely a victim, DOL.

So is it definitely, or probably?
 
Last edited:
I attacked no one. If you think I did, report me. Nothing stopping you, is there?

Debatable, and reporting people is for sissies...

You're already showing your ignorance. There is no "megans list." There is a megans law. There is an adam walsh act. A "jessicas law". With the excepton of Megan, there are some HUGE holes in the crimes that created the jessicas law and adam walsh act.

Oh brother... I have referred to the Megan's Law website as the Megan's Law website repeatedly and if you think that one time calling it Megan's List is anything other than an abbreviated version of that with a typo, "L"" then I don't hold out much hope for your critical thinking skills buddy, because that is truly pathetic.

However, to answer your question, since it was a good question, I actually do think they should be put on a list. I just don't think that list should be in the publics hands. Obviously they can't handle it.

Some people can't handle it and those that can't should be arrested and tried as criminals, if they commit an offense...

Now, will you answer this question for me. Why haven't you addressed anything I spoke of earlier, the vigilante violence on sex offenders, the harassment of the offender and their family, etc? Do you not care about ALL children, or just "some"? What about the kids of these offenders? Do you not care that they are humiliated and yet they are innocent? What about the wives, girlfriends, parents, etc?

I have spoken about this. I do care that innocent people are accused and convicted of crimes that they don't commit, of course. Who wouldn't. That is really not much of a counter argument against the many many MANY more that do, and THAT ARE GUILTY. I don't want the innocent humiliated. Who does? I want the guilty humiliated though...

And you keep saying "child molesters and rapists" but that's not sex offenders. Thats child molesters and rapist. Someone that downloads photos is neither, someone that pees behind a tree is neither, someone that is 18 with a 17yo girlfriend (YES, in Arizona that will get you on the list) is neither, so make sure you specify child molester and rapist, don't say sex offender, because that's too "all inclusive."

I specifically addressed the 18 year old having sex with the 17 year old... and as mac pointed out, there is a 3 year gap that is allowed meaning that an 18 year old can have sex with a 16 year old and it is not statutory rape. I don't think that a 17 and 18 year old having sex is a crime. I think that a person downloading certain types of photos are criminals, since they are contributing demand to an illegal activity. Peeing behind a tree is not a crime, and as I said, some of the things being listed as crimes should not be listed as crimes.

And no, you're not on ignore. I just told you not to contact me via PM. I haven't put anyone on ignore. No reason to. It makes threads too hard to follow if you do that. Only in extreme cases would I do that. I think on 12 forums I'm a member of maybe 1 person has been put on ignore. None on this site

When it is all said and done, I appear to be much more realistic and open here than you, based off of what we are both sayin'. Just sayin'
 
I'm pretty sure she was a victim.

Meaning: it's possible she's not.

it is possible she's not. highly improbably, but it is theoretically possible... if we are going to get nit picky and disect every single comment made.
 
Back
Top Bottom