How on earth is this justice? Teen rapes toddler, puts video on line and doesn't do jail time.

[Katzndogz]

Is this unreal or what? What on earth was this Judge thinking? AND he produced child porn. Aye carumba! The air is blue right now in the house.

The baby was only 12 to 18 months old.

"An Iowa man who raped a toddler on camera will serve no time in prison.

Kraigen Grooms, 19, pleaded guilty on Monday to Engaging in a Lascivious Act with a Child according to KTVO, and was given a 10-year suspended sentence by the judge and just five years of supervised release."

Iowa man 19 who sexually assaulted a toddler receives NO prison time



.
.

As it turns out the toddler wasn't raped and wasn't touched. There wasn't even an assault.

 

[aaronleland]

... and had no idea child pornographers were recording him..

And you think this is some sort of 'mitigating circumstance'??? Really??? ...

Why would you cut out the rest of my quote? All of it would have affected their decision.

Because it's the most ridiculous 'rationalization' of this degenerate's actions.

The media has been reporting all day that he raped a toddler and recorded it for a child pornography ring. Turns out he masturbated in front of a child, didn't tape it and wasn't aware of any child pornography ring. If you can't see a HUGE difference how that would affect a sentencing decision then you haven't the slightest idea how our courts work.

Like I said, your 'rationalization' is just ridiculous, and your inability to recognize that makes it clear you shouldn't be allowed around children either.

Yeah, obviously you have no idea how the justice system works. You... can't... charge... people... with... crimes... they... didn't... commit. There's no rationalization to be made.

 

[Gracie]

He was masturbating in front of the child because the child was turning him on? Or was the kid in the room and he was looking at porn?

 

[Picaro]

The freak should be locked up and kept there, period. It's well known degenerates who do this type of crap are repeat offenders, and yet the system just keeps turning them loose despite all known facts about them. This is just one he got caught at, and he will do something worse later on, guaranteed.

 

[aaronleland]

Is this unreal or what? What on earth was this Judge thinking? AND he produced child porn. Aye carumba! The air is blue right now in the house.

The baby was only 12 to 18 months old.

"An Iowa man who raped a toddler on camera will serve no time in prison.

Kraigen Grooms, 19, pleaded guilty on Monday to Engaging in a Lascivious Act with a Child according to KTVO, and was given a 10-year suspended sentence by the judge and just five years of supervised release."

Iowa man 19 who sexually assaulted a toddler receives NO prison time



.
.

As it turns out the toddler wasn't raped and wasn't touched. There wasn't even an assault.

Thanks. Explain that to Picaro. He just said I shouldn't be around children because I pointed those things out.

 

[Katzndogz]

What is confusing to me is that he was 16 when he committed the crime 'but despite his age he was tried as an adult in court'. So if his crime was so serious that he was tried as an adult ...... why did he get a child's sentencing? Shall I assume he's mentally handicapped?

It wasn't the seriousness of the crime. It was his intent, even though no one was harmed his intent was to masturbate in front of the child and that's what he did.

 

[Picaro]

And you think this is some sort of 'mitigating circumstance'??? Really??? ...

Why would you cut out the rest of my quote? All of it would have affected their decision.

Because it's the most ridiculous 'rationalization' of this degenerate's actions.

The media has been reporting all day that he raped a toddler and recorded it for a child pornography ring. Turns out he masturbated in front of a child, didn't tape it and wasn't aware of any child pornography ring. If you can't see a HUGE difference how that would affect a sentencing decision then you haven't the slightest idea how our courts work.

Like I said, your 'rationalization' is just ridiculous, and your inability to recognize that makes it clear you shouldn't be allowed around children either.

Yeah, obviously you have no idea how the justice system works. You... can't... charge... people... with... crimes... they... didn't... commit. There's no rationalization to be made.

Obviously you're freaking sociopath and have no idea how bizarre your bullshit excuses are.

 

[Gracie]

So...it was the child that gave him a woody. That is sick.

 

[aaronleland]

Why would you cut out the rest of my quote? All of it would have affected their decision.

Because it's the most ridiculous 'rationalization' of this degenerate's actions.

The media has been reporting all day that he raped a toddler and recorded it for a child pornography ring. Turns out he masturbated in front of a child, didn't tape it and wasn't aware of any child pornography ring. If you can't see a HUGE difference how that would affect a sentencing decision then you haven't the slightest idea how our courts work.

Like I said, your 'rationalization' is just ridiculous, and your inability to recognize that makes it clear you shouldn't be allowed around children either.

Yeah, obviously you have no idea how the justice system works. You... can't... charge... people... with... crimes... they... didn't... commit. There's no rationalization to be made.

Obviously you're freaking sociopath and have no idea how bizarre your bullshit excuses are.

It doesn't matter what you or I believe. That's not how our justice system works. When you're living in Picaroworld you're free to make your own laws.

 

[Picaro]

So...it was the child that gave him a woody. That is sick.

Bingo. Aaronland will be completely mystified as to why that's wrong, though. He thinks that because the pedo didn't know he was being filmed it's okay ...

 

[Gracie]

btw...the parents are morons. They didn't want him prosecuted.

 

[Katzndogz]

He was masturbating in front of the child because the child was turning him on? Or was the kid in the room and he was looking at porn?

As silly as it sounds now, he did it because real predators told him to do it.

 

[Gracie]

So...it was the child that gave him a woody. That is sick.

Bingo. Aaronland will be completely mystified as to why that's wrong, though. He thinks that because the pedo didn't know he was being filmed it's okay ...

I am seeing it from a different point of view. Dude is maybe babysitting? I dunno. Looking at porn on the pc, kid is in the room, dude is jacking off, kid has no clue what is going on nor probably cares since he/she is probably playing with toys. Dude is not looking at kid? He is looking at the pc? Or is Dude looking at kid and getting a woody, then jacking off due to looking at KID?

That's the question I ask.

 

[Katzndogz]

Now if he had gone into a girl's locker room and done it in front of slightly older girls he would be an lbgtqi hero.

 

[aaronleland]

So...it was the child that gave him a woody. That is sick.

Apparently some child pornographers had talked him into it by pretending to be a teenage girl. They said this ring had done it to at least a hundred kids in the past, and had gotten good at talking children into things they would have never done before. The kid still sounds like a sicko, but a lot of other circumstances led to the light sentence.

 

[Gracie]

Never mind. I read the link.

 

[Gracie]

Most 16 years olds are old enough to know right from wrong. Dude is sick in the head.

 

[aaronleland]

So...it was the child that gave him a woody. That is sick.

Bingo. Aaronland will be completely mystified as to why that's wrong, though. He thinks that because the pedo didn't know he was being filmed it's okay ...

Find in this thread where I said anything even remotely close to it was okay. I gave the reasoning behind the lighter sentence he received, you chopped almost all of my quote up, and left only the part where I said he didn't know he was being recorded. Do you deny that that's exactly what you did?

 

[aaronleland]

Gracie This was my original post...

What is confusing to me is that he was 16 when he committed the crime 'but despite his age he was tried as an adult in court'. So if his crime was so serious that he was tried as an adult ...... why did he get a child's sentencing? Shall I assume he's mentally handicapped?

Turns out he hadn't harmed the child, and had no idea child pornographers were recording him. I'm assuming the fact that he plead guilty and had already spent two years in jail also affected the decision.

This is what Picaro chopped it up into...

What is confusing to me is that he was 16 when he committed the crime 'but despite his age he was tried as an adult in court'. So if his crime was so serious that he was tried as an adult ...... why did he get a child's sentencing? Shall I assume he's mentally handicapped?

... and had no idea child pornographers were recording him..

And you think this is some sort of 'mitigating circumstance'??? Really??? ...

Now he says I'm rationalizing the man's actions, and is insinuating that I'm a pedophile. Now you can see where our argument began.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

The kid is obviously going to be groomed to be a Democrat.