That is called running.
And you are running because you are wrong just as you were wrong in the Zimmerman threads.
Your being wrong and not paying attention is not my fault, or my problem. It is yours. So run all you want.
But I will make sure I point out where you are wrong for the others reading this, whether you reply or not.
You do not know that, And I know you don't know that.
So, prove it.
It is that simple. Prove it or you are just blowing smoke.
Wrong on all counts.
One. You didn't use Occams razor. You assumed something not in evidence.
(which you are shown wrong by a quote below)
The girl lied in her allegation. She was not unconscious. That is a big red flag.
The mother admitted the girl is a liar. Big red flag confirmed.
All you are doing is making misinformed pronouncements that are not in accord with the facts.
And yes the sex was legal. Read the dam law that was in effect at the time. Like you were already told.
Everything he is quoted as saying is relevant.
Funny how you left out the following.
"But is it criminal? No.”
Everything else you said is wrong. There was no felony unless it was forced. It wasn't forced but consensual.
And Daisy, the one alleging rape, was 14, not 13.
She was not 13 at the time.
Daisy was 14.
And the other girl was with a 15 year old. And she wasn't cooperating either.
It is your responsibility when discussing topics to at least be correctly informed and be aware of the information that was previously provided.
This isn't about winning, but about the correct information being used to draw appropriate conclusions.
If you don't have correct information, you can not come to an informed opinion on the subject, or be correct.
The Statutes were revised August 28, 2012.
That does not mean that everything in the Statutes was changed.
The part that did was that they added
"to cover cases of sexual contact when a person is incapacitated or incapable of giving consent".
Which removes that from consideration and is actually contradicted by the video that was seen. Which also means her allegation is false. She was not unconscious, and it was consensual.
She was 14, so the laws regarding being
under 14
do not apply.
And as it was consensual and not forced, the other laws do not apply.
Read the following from a Huff's article.
White, the sheriff, said he never understood the Colemans' reasoning and that authorities weren't considering charges against the 14-year-old girl.
"They stonewalled the case all by themselves," he said.
Now that the family is saying they will cooperate, he wasn't sure whether that would make a difference.
"They wouldn't cooperate and then they said they would cooperate. And then they wouldn't cooperate. And then they went back and forth," White said. "I'm guessing, and this is just speculation, but I'm guessing that the prosecutor would be a little gun shy to believe that they would be willing to cooperate at this time."
He said authorities have had dealings with the suspects before and prosecuted them. Online court records show that the teen accused of assaulting Daisy had been on probation for a DWI.
"It's not that he's afraid of these boys and their families or anything like that. It's just that he was left with no alternatives," White said.
The case has drawn comparisons to one in Steubenville, Ohio, where two 17-year-old high school football players were convicted of raping a West Virginia girl after an alcohol-fueled party in 2012. The case was furiously debated online and led to allegations of a cover-up to protect the city's celebrated football team.
Missouri expanded its rape, sodomy and sexual abuse laws, effective Aug. 28, to cover cases of sexual contact when a person is incapacitated or incapable of giving consent. Those crimes previously had required "forcible compulsion." State Rep. Jay Barnes, R-Jefferson City, who had supported that change, said Tuesday that it was prompted at least partly by the Steubenville case.
Daisy Coleman Rape Case Can't Be Reopened By Missouri Attorney General