[Big Mac]

This has turned out to be one of the wackiest threads I can recall. Humorous.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You and all the other apologists are contradicting yourselves. On one hand you claim that society is to blame for making sex taboo in the first place and putting it on a pedestal, and then on the other hand you put "sexual" assault on a pedestal. If you really believe that sex is not to be specially protected, then you wouldn't make such a big deal about the distinction between sexual assault and regular assault.

Correction making a big deal about labeling a child act of inappropriate behavior as any kind of Assault.

8 year old touches the bum of another 8 year old. This is just inappropriate contact/behavior. Not assault, Not sexual assault.

23 year old touches the bum of another adult, its Sexual Assault.

Reason being is children of the age 8 do not have a full understanding of the meaning of the actions. They might know what sex is but they don't understand what it is. And the developmental skills related to social interaction, right and wrong, empathy are still "DEVELOPING" making most things kids do not applicable to adult laws. Nothing to do with putting sex on a pedestal or sex being taboo.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That doesn't say you have a disability, all it says is you're an inconsiderate jerk when you don't use the convenient tools right in front of your face. Wheelchair people probably hate your guts, because you have easy and free technology to make your disability totally transparent, yet you choose to be too lazy to use it. Meanwhile even the state of the art still costs them $$$ and even with it they are second-class citizens.

Yes it does the post above it, why I provided a link so I wouldn't have to re-post a bunch of posts, and I didn't feel like posting the other 6 threads that show you are aware of it as well. You are a liar, stop being dishonest and ignorant. Because now you are assuming I have access to tools which I do NOT. Show me a grammar checker on Safari for iOS 4. Show me a Spelling checker and Grammar checker for Internet Explorer 6 on a Internet Kiosk. Chrome which is my preferred browser at home lacks a grammar checker as well.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Correction making a big deal about labeling a child act of inappropriate behavior as any kind of Assault.

So I just conjured the "sexual" part out of thin air? Or was it in your (twice bolded) posts:

Originally Posted by Athens 

You think its Sexual Assault (It has some sexual intent behind it)
I think its just inappropriate behavior (It has some bullying intent behind it not sexual intent)

...

Originally Posted by Athens

Yes it does the post above it, why I provided a link so I wouldn't have to re-post a bunch of posts, and I didn't feel like posting the other 6 threads that show you are aware of it as well. You are a liar, stop being dishonest and ignorant.

I can't be expected to remember all of your problems But really, you never said "dyslexia" or "disability" or "handicap" on that page.

Because now you are assuming I have access to tools which I do NOT. Show me a grammar checker on Safari for iOS 4. Show me a Spelling checker and Grammar checker for Internet Explorer 6 on a Internet Kiosk. Chrome which is my preferred browser at home lacks a grammar checker as well.

Boo-hoo, my jewel-encrusted crown makes my neck tired, where's my parade? Stop being so self-absorbed. It's unbecoming. Try trying.

[Athens]

Ok I don't follow, what are you trying to say?

[Uncle Skeleton]

I don't know how to clarify it beyond my last post. You're moving the goalposts.

[Athens]

NO I really do not have a clue what your trying to say. I am not being a dick. You have lost me. Re-look at your post.

So I just conjured the "sexual" part out of thin air? Or was it in your (twice bolded) posts:

I don't know what your getting at. If your inferring I am changing my opinion then I have no idea why you think that. From the very start of this thread I have maintained calling it Adult level crimes is wrong. I have from the start called it Inappropriate or bad behavior. I never once called it an assault. You make a post about the value of Sexual assault being on a pedestal and I corrected you that its not just sexual assault, calling it any kind of assault is what I have a issue with and then you post this thing about "sexual" and bolding it. So no I DO NOT KNOW what you are trying to get at.

[Uncle Skeleton]

You and everyone else have been debating whether the incident was sexual, or whether 8 year olds get carte blanche sex-wise. Wether "sexual" modifies "assault" or any other term you want to use, doesn't detract from my point that you (plural) are objecting to putting sex on a pedestal but you are still putting sexual "bad behavior" on a pedestal.

[Athens]

No I have been arguing about adult level crimes being used to describe inappropriate behavior of children. Sexual or not. Some people are fixated on the sexual part of it. Its not about carte blanche with sexual behavior of a child but does a child have the understanding required to make it fit into a sexual crime.

The one thing that is consistent is every one agrees what occurred isn't right and the boy needs punishment and correction. The debatable part was it a crime or not. Is it a sexual assault or assault or not. Can a 8 year old be held accountable under what is called sexual assault if they do not even fully understand what it is. Is it sexual in nature or not.

But im still not following you on the sex on a pedestal comment. How am I putting sexual bad behavior on a pedestal. What is the contradiction you think I have made?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Seriously, I can't make it any clearer. I quoted it right there, with red and everything. In your own words, the presence or absence of a sexual aspect is what makes the difference.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You and everyone else have been debating whether the incident was sexual, or whether 8 year olds get carte blanche sex-wise. Wether "sexual" modifies "assault" or any other term you want to use, doesn't detract from my point that you (plural) are objecting to putting sex on a pedestal but you are still putting sexual "bad behavior" on a pedestal.

We're complaining that sex gets put on such a pedestal. That doesn't change the fact that society does it and once you admit that it is on a pedestal, you have to put sexual assault on a pedestal above ordinary assault too.

[Athens]

"Seriously, I can't make it any clearer. I quoted it right there, with red and everything. In your own words, the presence or absence of a sexual aspect is what makes the difference between something being or not being a sexual assault."

Whats the contradiction?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

We're complaining that sex gets put on such a pedestal. That doesn't change the fact that society does it and once you admit that it is on a pedestal, you have to put sexual assault on a pedestal above ordinary assault too.

It's still something of a contradiction, because you're using realism about one and idealism about the other. Treating sex like it's shaking hands ranks up there with anarchy and communism as ideas that are appealing from afar but too impractical to ever work.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

"Seriously, I can't make it any clearer. I quoted it right there, with red and everything. In your own words, the presence or absence of a sexual aspect is what makes the difference between something being or not being a sexual assault."

Whats the contradiction?

OMG stop. Either it matters whether sex is involved or it doesn't, yes or no. If it matters, then you can't complain about sex being made a taboo. If it doesn't matter then you can't complain about the incident being labeled "sexual."

[Waragainstsleep]

I want to take a second to address Mattyb just to say that I hope you don't think I was criticising you for your descriptions of the incident at any point. You only had what your daughter and the school staff said to go on and I got the impression that your idea of what went down changed from something that initially quite rightly enraged you to something at least a little less sinister.

I'm not saying what these boys did wasn't seriously wrong or that they don't deserve to be punished, they do, no question. I just didn't think we had enough to go on to condemn them as sex offenders and effectively try them as adults which is what some here seemed to think. Ultimately if you or someone you trust had sat down and looked these boys in the eye and come away feeling that there was some kind of sexual intent, I would be first in the line to say that the boys should be removed from the school population (and quite possibly their parents care) and given the help they need as well as the punishment they deserve, but again, thats not the impression I got from you and the info you provided.

This thread has been very enlightening in terms of some of the frighteningly one-dimensional views that people who I know to be intelligent and otherwise thoughtful have revealed. I just wanted to temper some of those feelings and reactions with a little cold rationality.

Your daughter should not have had to experience what happened to her, and I am glad and relieved for her and for you that she seems not to have been too badly affected by it. I apologise if anything I said has given you cause to believe I wasn't entirely on her side from the start (Being entirely on someones side, doesn't always mean you can be on only their side).

[Athens]

You think its Sexual Assault (It has some sexual intent behind it)
I think its just inappropriate behavior (It has some bullying intent behind it not sexual intent)

This comment was not about treating sex like shaking hands. Or holding it at higher standard for some situations and a lower standard in others. It was in reference to the ability of a 8 year old to understand what sex is. What intent the 8 year old had. I think your misunderstanding me. And I am not 100% sure I am understanding you. I dunno what to say.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

OMG stop. Either it matters whether sex is involved or it doesn't, yes or no. If it matters, then you can't complain about sex being made a taboo. If it doesn't matter then you can't complain about the incident being labeled "sexual."

How does any of that apply to what a 8 year old's understanding is of a sexual assault?

I don't know how much more clear I can be.

1) If a person sexually touches or attacks some one else in full understanding of what sexual assault is, it is a sexual assault crime. Sexual Intent.

2) If a person touches some one in a sexual spot with little or no understanding of what sexual assault is, its not a sexual assault crime. No sexual intent.

How does your question above relate to 1 and 2

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

How does any of that apply to what a 8 year old's understanding is of a sexual assault?

I don't know how much more clear I can be.

1) If a person sexually touches or attacks some one else in full understanding of what sexual assault is, it is a sexual assault crime. Sexual Intent.

2) If a person touches some one in a sexual spot with little or no understanding of what sexual assault is, its not a sexual assault crime. No sexual intent.

How does your question above relate to 1 and 2

"Full understanding" is an inappropriate standard. I don't have "full understanding" of how a gun works, but all I need is a "very minimal" understanding of it to use it to hurt someone. I don't have "full understanding" of how to drive a car, but all I need is "very minimal" understanding of it in order to speed or run red lights.

A person doesn't need "full understanding" of sex in order to use it to attack. All they need to understand is that it is more hurtful than the same attack without the sexual component. They don't need the first clue as to what makes it so, but as long as they know it IS so, and they do it anyway, that counts. They know that they can generate more harm with less effort by using sexuality, even if they don't know exactly what sexuality is or how to use it to benefit themselves. That is what matters, that they intentionally use sexuality because it's a way of generating more harm.

It's just like if a burglar steals the one thing he knows is most valued by the victim (like a teddy bear or a trophy), even though it holds no value to the burglar. The 8yo might not derive any sexual satisfaction, just like the burglar might not even keep a teddy bear or trophy, he might just throw them away. But the whole reason for choosing a target like that is because he knows that it will be more hurtful that way. There is no "fullness" of understanding needed beyond that. It doesn't matter that he has "no full understanding" of what makes the teddy bear or trophy valued. All that matters is he knows that they are valued, and that's why he chose them in the first place.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

This thread has been very enlightening in terms of some of the frighteningly one-dimensional views that people who I know to be intelligent and otherwise thoughtful have revealed. I just wanted to temper some of those feelings and reactions with a little cold rationality.

Perpetual indecision is one-dimensional too. It's all too easy to say "let's just hold off until things get clearer" ...forever

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

"Full understanding" is an inappropriate standard. I don't have "full understanding" of how a gun works, but all I need is a "very minimal" understanding of it to use it to hurt someone. I don't have "full understanding" of how to drive a car, but all I need is "very minimal" understanding of it in order to speed or run red lights.

A person doesn't need "full understanding" of sex in order to use it to attack. All they need to understand is that it is more hurtful than the same attack without the sexual component. They don't need the first clue as to what makes it so, but as long as they know it IS so, and they do it anyway, that counts. They know that they can generate more harm with less effort by using sexuality, even if they don't know exactly what sexuality is or how to use it to benefit themselves. That is what matters, that they intentionally use sexuality because it's a way of generating more harm.

It's just like if a burglar steals the one thing he knows is most valued by the victim (like a teddy bear or a trophy), even though it holds no value to the burglar. The 8yo might not derive any sexual satisfaction, just like the burglar might not even keep a teddy bear or trophy, he might just throw them away. But the whole reason for choosing a target like that is because he knows that it will be more hurtful that way. There is no "fullness" of understanding needed beyond that. It doesn't matter that he has "no full understanding" of what makes the teddy bear or trophy valued. All that matters is he knows that they are valued, and that's why he chose them in the first place.

Your confusing understanding of the technical with capabilities of the brain to understand the emotions, the consequences, the value and the harm. This is why age is such a important factor. At 8, the brain is still lacking a lot of fundamental understandings with emotions, consequences, the meaning of what has been done. You claim a kid can generate more harm with less effort using sexuality. If they don't understand what this harm is, how can it be premeditated under that context. You and I do, and your reading into the actions of the boy as such, as if he was an adult that fully understood all the complexities around it.

This is where your opinion and my opinion differ on the subject. You think a boy at 8 understands all the complexities around the act to be fully aware of what he has done and why its wrong with a level of intention to achieve a desired result . I don't think kids at 8 fully appreciate the act and have full understanding of all the complexities around it because the brain has yet to develop the abilities to. So it comes down to the age of culpability, ability to have full understanding of the actions. As an adult your seeing adult intentions behind the motivation of the action. I am looking at it from a kids perspective which does not involve anything sexual at all. Bullying and teasing yes, those are both kid intentions and motivations. I can't see a kid Culpability in a sexual crime if the kids motives are not sexual to begin with and the lack of understanding of the complexities around sexuality and how it would be a sexual assault precludes making the act of pulling down a boys or girls under pants anything more then inappropriate behavior with NO sexual intent or motivation thus NOT a sexual crime. Knowing what sex is and understanding what sex is are totally different things. This is important for motivation and desired end results.

[Athens]

Mexico and the US have the LOWEST age of responsibility under the legal system both at 6 years old on the low end at which acts can be considered a crime.

India, Myanmar, Nigeria, Pakistan, Singapore, Sudan, Tanzania, Thailand start at 7

Australia, South Africa, Switzerland, North Ireland, England at age 10

Scotland, Canada, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Netherlands, South Korea at 12 and other countries including China, Germany, and so on goes higher at 14, 15 and 16.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

This is where your opinion and my opinion differ on the subject. You think a boy at 8 understands all the complexities around the act to be fully aware of what he has done and why its wrong with a level of intention to achieve a desired result .

WTF? I said he doesn't have it and doesn't need it.

I don't think kids at 8 fully appreciate the act and have full understanding of all the complexities around it because the brain has yet to develop the abilities to.

They don't know the "complexities" of dealing with death either, but that doesn't mean they get off for intentionally killing someone. They might go to juvi and get their record expunged when they turn 18, which is significantly more lenient than an adult would get, but it's still part of the criminal justice system.

with NO sexual intent or motivation thus NOT a sexual crime.

The knowledge that sex is forbidden and gets a bigger reaction IS a "sexual intent." It's an intent to use sex, to use something you don't understand, because you know that it is more powerful. Just like if you use a car without knowing how to drive it (but try anyway). Just like if you shoot a gun without knowing how, having only seen it on TV before. You know the outcome, but you don't know the how or why of it. It is the same with a child, they've seen sex on TV, they know the reaction it gets, but they don't know the how or why of it.

[Athens]

I'll get back to you with my response.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Just because you can eventually decipher the note doesn't mean it's no hinderance. I wrote that post half for the benefit of those who came after me, so they wouldn't waste as much time as I did on the decoding.

Many of your corrections were homophones or near-homophones.

Most people have little difficulty with these. Your "deciphering" may be of less value than you imagine.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by badidea 

Not for the victim.

Really? Because a spanking doesn't hurt as much as a beating. I have cousins who were "beaten", and they couldn't walk for some time after. There was blood, huge welts, severe bruising, etc..

Care to revise that?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by badidea 

Now you surprise me! I would have guessed that you interpret removing socks as boy going after a proper footjob! Or will you now tell me that this can't be sexual because 8 year olds don't know what a footjob is? Either way, thanks for proving my point!
(and stop trying to push this debate in any political direction. Unfortunately parental violence isn't just a problem in the republican corner!)

trollin', trollin', trollin'...

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

This has turned out to be one of the wackiest threads I can recall. Humorous.

I know, I'm done with the whole thing. I made my point and I'm now over it.

[Mrjinglesusa]

What a clusterf**k.

Athens, you are assuming that because these boys are 8 years old that they don't understand the meaning of their actions.

That is a BIG assumption that you have no basis for.

You can't assume that because the boys are 8 years old that they did not understand what they were doing. How do you know there was no sexual intent?

I'm curious, at what age would you say that this exact same act against a female changes from "inappropriate behavior" to a "sexual act"? 10? 11? 12? 13?

By your standard, at what age does someone have a "full understanding of what sexual assault is"?

Is this age the same for everyone?

If not, HOW DO YOU KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THESE BOYS DID NOT HAVE THAT UNDERSTANDING?

EDIT: Because apparently capitalizing "ass" in assumption is a personal attack.

[lpkmckenna]

I think the issue of sexual intent is besides the point.

[brassplayersrock²]

Sexual assault takes many forms including attacks such as rape or attempted rape, as well as any unwanted sexual contact or threats. Usually a sexual assault occurs when someone touches any part of another person's body in a sexual way, even through clothes, without that person's consent. Some types of sexual acts which fall under the category of sexual assault include forced sexual intercourse (rape), sodomy (oral or anal sexual acts), child molestation, incest, fondling and attempted rape. Sexual assault in any form is often a devastating crime. Assailants can be strangers, acquaintances, friends, or family members. Assailants commit sexual assault by way of violence, threats, coercion, manipulation, pressure or tricks. Whatever the circumstances, no one asks or deserves to be sexually assaulted.

The National Center for Victims of Crime - Library/Document Viewer


and since the boy admitted to wanting to pull down her panties

The intentional touching of the victim's, the defendant's, or any other person's intimate parts, or the intentional touching of the clothing covering the immediate area of the victim's, the defendant's, or any other person's intimate parts, if that intentional touching can be reasonably ...

Safe Haven :: Sexual Assault - Vocabulary

So, yes, it was sexual assault.


Can we stop this bickering, and now just hope that the girl is safe at school now, and that everything will be relatively okay?

[Athens]

Yes thats a dam good definition for sexual assault for teens/Adults. Kids = inappropriate behaviour. Stop attaching adult labels to children who do not have the concept or the brain development to understand that.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Yes thats a dam good definition for sexual assault for teens/Adults. Kids = inappropriate behaviour. Stop attaching adult labels to children who do not have the concept or the brain development to understand that.

I was a little rude the way I phrased things above, but I'll ask again nicely:

How do you know for a fact that these kids did NOT have the concept or the brain development to understand their actions?

You are making a big assumption that just because these kids were 8 years old they did not know what they were doing and thus this was just "inappropriate behavior".

I'm curious, at what age would you say that this exact same act against a female changes from "inappropriate behavior" to a "sexual act"? 10? 11? 12? 13?

By your standard, at what age does someone have a "full understanding of what sexual assault is"?

Is this age the same for everyone?

Your entire opinion is based on an unfounded and unsupported assumption that this could not have been a sexual assault because these kids did not and could not understand that their actions were sexual. What is your evidence of this? That they were 8 years old?

[Athens]

Medical Science, Professionals of the field and what they say, whats taught in university as fact. The human brain is pretty consistent on developmental abilities for every one. Understanding/concepts and physical development are pretty consistent. While kids today know more then before and some go through puberty sooner thanx to exposure to drugs, the brains development still develops at the same rate. Its why every sane Country on the planet does not prosecute children for adult crimes until the age of 12. The ability to be culpable for them is lacking below that age. I will have to go with the experts that age 12 is the starting point sexual assault. Im not making any assumptions btw, just going with what science knows of the situation and whats culturally accepted and legally defined where I come from.

[Shaddim]

Rubbish. I remember doing things that I knew were wrong when I was 7-8 years old. In fact, if it was something really bad, I remember getting mad at my sister and flushing her goldfish down the toilet, I would run off and hide for the rest of the day.

I also played doctor with one of my cousins when I was about the same age and I knew about her "special place", and I also knew I'd get into a lot of trouble if I got caught touching her there. So we used my grandmother's cellar to keep anyone from finding out.

Kids develop at different rates, and at a young age some definitely understand more than others.

[Athens]

Knowing something is wrong and understanding why and what makes it wrong are totally different. If your going to accuse the kid of being a sexual deviant one would expect the kid to know the sexual meaning and understanding behind it to be guilty of that.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

The human brain is pretty consistent on developmental abilities for every one.

It's surprising to hear a person who claims to have such a large collection of mental abnormalities try to make such an obviously false claim.

If your going to accuse the kid of being a sexual deviant one would expect the kid to know the sexual meaning and understanding behind it to be guilty of that.

If your going to accuse a kid of being a murderer one would expect the kid to know the spiritual meaning and understanding behind death to be guilty of that.

Oh wait that's insane. Just because someone doesn't exploit murder to its full potential, by getting an emotional high or by collecting on life insurance and inheritance, doesn't make it no longer murder. What would you do with this 8 year old? 8-Year-Old Accused Of Dad's Slay In Court - CBS News
Give him a stern talking-to and send him back to class?


If your going to accuse a kid of being a thief one would expect the kid to know the monetary value and worth behind the thing he stole, to be guilty of that. No wait that's completely stupid. Just because the kid doesn't know how to steal properly, doesn't mean he doesn't have a full understanding that stealing is wrong, that it hurts people, and that doing it anyway makes him a bad person, young or old.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If your going to accuse a kid of being a murderer one would expect the kid to know the spiritual meaning and understanding behind death to be guilty of that.


If your going to accuse a kid of being a thief one would expect the kid to know the monetary value and worth behind the thing he stole, to be guilty of that. No wait that's completely stupid. Just because the kid doesn't know how to steal properly, doesn't mean he doesn't have a full understanding that stealing is wrong, that it hurts people, and that doing it anyway makes him a bad person, young or old.

You don't think that understanding stealing and even murder and why they are wrong is a bit simpler than sex?

[Athens]

Wow talk about a epic failure of parental supervision. Thank you for pointing that out. If the parents had lived here and survived the assault they would be looking at a wide range of charges including but not limited to Careless Use of a Firearm, improper storage of a fire arm. Improper storage of ammo. Child endangerment. I would expect the full arm of the law to be thrown at them. The kid would end up in a foster home.


Careless use of firearm, etc.
86. (1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, uses, carries, handles, ships, transports or stores a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition in a careless manner or without reasonable precautions for the safety of other persons.

Contravention of storage regulations, etc.
(2) Every person commits an offence who contravenes a regulation made under paragraph 117(h) of the Firearms Act respecting the storage, handling, transportation, shipping, display, advertising and mail-order sales of firearms and restricted weapons.

Punishment
(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

You don't think that understanding stealing and even murder and why they are wrong is a bit simpler than sex?

You don't think that understanding anything enough to use it for good is more complicated than understanding it just enough to use it for evil?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

The kid would end up in a foster home.

Do you really think that should be the full extent of his punishment?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Do you really think that should be the full extent of his punishment?

For the parent or parents epic failure, yup. Though if they lived I would be expecting at least 5 years for the person taking care of the kid.

[Athens]

I'll give you another example. 8 Year old takes car out for a spin and crashes into the house across the street killing some one. Kids fault or parents. Again parents. How did he get access to the keys. How did he leave the house unnoticed. Where is the supervision of the parents. A parent doing its job would not provide the keys to the kid. Would not miss the kid exiting the house. The kid should never have been able to get into the car unnoticed.

[Shaddim]

Hell, I was able to do most things unnoticed, you must have sucked at being a kid.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

For the parent or parents epic failure, yup.

So to review what you've said so far, for attempted molestation, they deserve punishment, but for premeditated murder in cold blood, no punishment. Yeah that sounds like a perfectly well-thought-out philosophy.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Hell, I was able to do most things unnoticed, you must have sucked at being a kid.

Or your parents sucked at being parents. Not until about 11, 12 when supervision started becoming less and less did I have opportunities to get in more and more trouble. And some of the things I got away with had I been a kid growing up in the USofA, I would have been incarcerated at 10 and grown up in Juvenal with how screwed up your laws are. Trying to sneak out at 8, not a chance.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So to review what you've said so far, for attempted molestation, they deserve punishment, but for premeditated murder in cold blood, no punishment. Yeah that sounds like a perfectly well-thought-out philosophy.

Yes lets recap. For inappropriate touching, appropriate punishment. Detention, loss of privileges, grounding.

Access to gun's and ammo resulting in the death of some one I squarely put 100% all blame on the care taker of the child who allowed it to happen through carelessness.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Or your parents sucked at being parents.

Or were single.

If I was sick (or could convincingly fake it) I was unsupervised the whole day. My dad needed to go to work.

[Athens]

I had a single mom, didn't stop her. The only time I could get in trouble was when I was trusted in the care of others, like school and friends parents.

[subego]

Not all people can afford to take a day off when their kid is sick.

[Athens]

Yes I know, the US lacks social programs and worker rights which would allow for such a thing.

But there are always options
- Send kid to Grand Parents
- Send kid to uncles or aunts
- Send kid to neighbors house
- Send kid to school anyways
- Pay a babysitter
- Stay home from Work
- Bring kid to work

i mean its not like parenting is a full time job or anything. Its just a hobby.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Yes I know, the US lacks social programs and worker rights which would allow for such a thing.

But there are always options
- Send kid to Grand Parents
- Send kid to uncles or aunts
- Send kid to neighbors house
- Send kid to school anyways
- Pay a babysitter
- Stay home from Work
- Bring kid to work

Family were hours away. Babysitters were in school (or at their own day jobs). My neighbors sucked. Staying home from work means I don't get fed, and sending me to work or school gets everybody sick.

Originally Posted by Athens 

i mean its not like parenting is a full time job or anything. Its just a hobby.

Was that necessary?

[brassplayersrock²]

Again, lets stop this bullshyt, and be glad that the girl is relatively okay, and that it didn't escalate into something worse.