Owen Labrie, Harsh Penalty for shagging 15 yo, He was 18

[PaintMyHouse]

We have turned into a country of self-righteous pussies, mod excluded of course.

Mod excused for below average intelligence. He just demonstrated he has no idea what "plain old rape" is.

Plain old rape is she still has her panties on and says no but you don't stop, exactly what happened in this case. That's rape, boys.

 

[Meathead]

We have turned into a country of self-righteous pussies, mod excluded of course.

Not a mod if not acting in mod-capacity is my reading of the rules. Wanna weigh in on threads and be a dick you can. But we can treat you like we do each other too is my reading of the Rules.

Good to know. I amend my previous comments and add that West is a self-righteous pussy.

Long as it stays like a user vs user exchange it's in the rules. If during such exchanges, you break a rule and he 'puts his mod hat on' then you're in jeopardy as I myself was during the summer.

So, it I get reprimanded for telling Paint and West what they are, it'll be you fault?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

We have turned into a country of self-righteous pussies, mod excluded of course.

Not a mod if not acting in mod-capacity is my reading of the rules. Wanna weigh in on threads and be a dick you can. But we can treat you like we do each other too is my reading of the Rules.

Oh, good for you!

I'm thinking you got your ass kicked a lot in school.

 

[Meathead]

We have turned into a country of self-righteous pussies, mod excluded of course.

Mod excused for below average intelligence. He just demonstrated he has no idea what "plain old rape" is.

Plain old rape is she still has her panties on and says no but you don't stop, exactly what happened in this case. That's rape, boys.

Really, tell us more! Is that the law, or does that only apply if you have a self-righteous pussy?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

We have turned into a country of self-righteous pussies, mod excluded of course.

Not a mod if not acting in mod-capacity is my reading of the rules. Wanna weigh in on threads and be a dick you can. But we can treat you like we do each other too is my reading of the Rules.

Good to know. I amend my previous comments and add that West is a self-righteous pussy.

Long as it stays like a user vs user exchange it's in the rules. If during such exchanges, you break a rule and he 'puts his mod hat on' then you're in jeopardy as I myself was during the summer.

So, it I get reprimanded for telling Paint and West what they are, it'll be you fault?

Depends on your wording. Can't insult mods for being mods or doing their job like. But if int he course of a thread they take a position you hate and diss them for that, that's ok. Long as the criticism's germaine to the thread should be ok.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

It wasn't statutory. According to every bit of evidence I have seen it was rape pure and simple. Like I said the little asshole got off lucky and the poor girl no doubt is now set up for life and no longer needs to ever have to find a job. That's how the rich handle things. That or they just have their enemy killed.

The jury acquitted on that charge, so you're wrong.

Yes, they did. A jury acquitted OJ too. Your point?

My point? It wasn't "plain old rape". I'm beginning to wonder if you even know what rape is.

Did the girl say "no".

She did not have the legal right to say 'yes' is the point.

That's the reasoning behind stat rape laws and to an extent I agree. Branding him a pervert for life is cruel and unusual punishment. BTW, that's why these sex registries, as they are, will be overthrown in federal court.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

We have turned into a country of self-righteous pussies, mod excluded of course.

Mod excused for below average intelligence. He just demonstrated he has no idea what "plain old rape" is.

Plain old rape is she still has her panties on and says no but you don't stop, exactly what happened in this case. That's rape, boys.

Really, tell us more! Is that the law, or does that only apply if you have a self-righteous pussy?

That would mean forced, AKA unwilling, penetration, which is plain old rape. Now you know.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

We have turned into a country of self-righteous pussies, mod excluded of course.

Not a mod if not acting in mod-capacity is my reading of the rules. Wanna weigh in on threads and be a dick you can. But we can treat you like we do each other too is my reading of the Rules.

Oh, good for you!

I'm thinking you got your ass kicked a lot in school.

Did. Least until I started Aikido, then for some strange reason it stopped.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The jury acquitted on that charge, so you're wrong.

Yes, they did. A jury acquitted OJ too. Your point?

My point? It wasn't "plain old rape". I'm beginning to wonder if you even know what rape is.

Did the girl say "no".

No she didn't. There sex was mutual. The judge's position was that the girl wasn't mature enough to know what she was consenting to.

Did you actually read the article?

When you call someone stupid you should make sure you understand the proper usage of the English language there bucko. It is "THEIR", not "THERE".

You're excused.

You're comparing a typo to not know what rape is?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The jury acquitted on that charge, so you're wrong.

Yes, they did. A jury acquitted OJ too. Your point?

My point? It wasn't "plain old rape". I'm beginning to wonder if you even know what rape is.

Did the girl say "no".

She did not have the legal right to say 'yes' is the point.

That's the reasoning behind stat rape laws and to an extent I agree. Branding him a pervert for life is cruel and unusual punishment. BTW, that's why these sex registries, as they are, will be overthrown in federal court.

They've been around for sometime now. They aren't going anywhere. They are constitutional.

 

[Meathead]

We have turned into a country of self-righteous pussies, mod excluded of course.

Not a mod if not acting in mod-capacity is my reading of the rules. Wanna weigh in on threads and be a dick you can. But we can treat you like we do each other too is my reading of the Rules.

Good to know. I amend my previous comments and add that West is a self-righteous pussy.

Long as it stays like a user vs user exchange it's in the rules. If during such exchanges, you break a rule and he 'puts his mod hat on' then you're in jeopardy as I myself was during the summer.

So, it I get reprimanded for telling Paint and West what they are, it'll be you fault?

Depends on your wording. Can't insult mods for being mods or doing their job like. But if int he course of a thread they take a position you hate and diss them for that, that's ok. Long as the criticism's germaine to the thread should be ok.

I'm safe then. I actually spared him ridicule because he was a mod. Only when I found that I could call him a self-righteous pussy despite being a mod did I do so. Thanks.

 

[westwall]

Yes, they did. A jury acquitted OJ too. Your point?

My point? It wasn't "plain old rape". I'm beginning to wonder if you even know what rape is.

Did the girl say "no".

No she didn't. There sex was mutual. The judge's position was that the girl wasn't mature enough to know what she was consenting to.

Did you actually read the article?

When you call someone stupid you should make sure you understand the proper usage of the English language there bucko. It is "THEIR", not "THERE".

You're excused.

You're comparing a typo to not know what rape is?

You missed this part of your own link didn't you....

And you're the one who claimed I was stupid, then made a fundamental error in the usage of the English language. I was merely pointing out the ironic nature of your post. I am sorry if it bothers you so much.

"Judge Lawrence Smukler said he rejects Labrie’s defense argument that the jury found the teenagers had consensual sex."

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

We have turned into a country of self-righteous pussies, mod excluded of course.

Not a mod if not acting in mod-capacity is my reading of the rules. Wanna weigh in on threads and be a dick you can. But we can treat you like we do each other too is my reading of the Rules.

Oh, good for you!

I'm thinking you got your ass kicked a lot in school.

Did. Least until I started Aikido, then for some strange reason it stopped.

Good. No problem with that.

 

[Anathema]

Both horny teenagers

Sounds like a parental/school oversight issue to me.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

My point? It wasn't "plain old rape". I'm beginning to wonder if you even know what rape is.

Did the girl say "no".

No she didn't. There sex was mutual. The judge's position was that the girl wasn't mature enough to know what she was consenting to.

Did you actually read the article?

When you call someone stupid you should make sure you understand the proper usage of the English language there bucko. It is "THEIR", not "THERE".

You're excused.

You're comparing a typo to not know what rape is?

You missed this part of your own link didn't you....

And you're the one who claimed I was stupid, then made a fundamental error in the usage of the English language. I was merely pointing out the ironic nature of your post. I am sorry if it bothers you so much.

"Judge Lawrence Smukler said he rejects Labrie’s defense argument that the jury found the teenagers had consensual sex."

The judge argued statutory rape, not "plain old rape". And the fact that the jury agreed that the sex was mutually agreed to speaks louder than a judge saying he knows better. The jury nullified and judges hate juries that do that. Fuck em.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Not a mod if not acting in mod-capacity is my reading of the rules. Wanna weigh in on threads and be a dick you can. But we can treat you like we do each other too is my reading of the Rules.

Good to know. I amend my previous comments and add that West is a self-righteous pussy.

Long as it stays like a user vs user exchange it's in the rules. If during such exchanges, you break a rule and he 'puts his mod hat on' then you're in jeopardy as I myself was during the summer.

So, it I get reprimanded for telling Paint and West what they are, it'll be you fault?

Depends on your wording. Can't insult mods for being mods or doing their job like. But if int he course of a thread they take a position you hate and diss them for that, that's ok. Long as the criticism's germaine to the thread should be ok.

I'm safe then. I actually spared him ridicule because he was a mod. Only when I found that I could call him a self-righteous pussy despite being a mod did I do so. Thanks.

 

[Meathead]

My point? It wasn't "plain old rape". I'm beginning to wonder if you even know what rape is.

Did the girl say "no".

No she didn't. There sex was mutual. The judge's position was that the girl wasn't mature enough to know what she was consenting to.

Did you actually read the article?

When you call someone stupid you should make sure you understand the proper usage of the English language there bucko. It is "THEIR", not "THERE".

You're excused.

You're comparing a typo to not know what rape is?

You missed this part of your own link didn't you....

And you're the one who claimed I was stupid, then made a fundamental error in the usage of the English language. I was merely pointing out the ironic nature of your post. I am sorry if it bothers you so much.

"Judge Lawrence Smukler said he rejects Labrie’s defense argument that the jury found the teenagers had consensual sex."

I called you a self-righteous pussy as well as stupid for your agreeing withe the absurd comment about it being 'rape, pure and simple'. Nothing?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Both horny teenagers

Sounds like a parental/school oversight issue to me.

I think at a point the law needs to step in, but imposing a life sentence is harsh. Teens having sex is a slap on the wrist issue and should be treated that way. This offends the sense of justice most people have.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Did the girl say "no".

No she didn't. There sex was mutual. The judge's position was that the girl wasn't mature enough to know what she was consenting to.

Did you actually read the article?

When you call someone stupid you should make sure you understand the proper usage of the English language there bucko. It is "THEIR", not "THERE".

You're excused.

You're comparing a typo to not know what rape is?

You missed this part of your own link didn't you....

And you're the one who claimed I was stupid, then made a fundamental error in the usage of the English language. I was merely pointing out the ironic nature of your post. I am sorry if it bothers you so much.

"Judge Lawrence Smukler said he rejects Labrie’s defense argument that the jury found the teenagers had consensual sex."

The judge argued statutory rape, not "plain old rape". And the fact that the jury agreed that the sex was mutually agreed to speaks louder than a judge saying he knows better. The jury nullified and judges hate juries that do that. Fuck em.

"Owen Labrie, a former New Hampshire prep school senior, was found not guilty of raping a 15-year-old freshman, but guilty of lesser charges, including misdemeanor sexual assault. Labrie broke down in tears as the judge read out one of the guilty charges. The jury found Labrie, 19, not guilty on three counts of aggravated rape, guilty of three counts of misdemeanor sex assault, guilty of a Class B felony for using a computer to lure the victim, guilty of endangering a child and not guilty of simple assault"
St Paul’s rape trial: Owen Labrie breaks down as mixed verdict read

TITLE LXII
CRIMINAL CODE
CHAPTER 632-A
SEXUAL ASSAULT AND RELATED OFFENSES
Section 632-A:4
632-A:4 Sexual Assault. –
I. A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor under any of the following circumstances:
(a) When the actor subjects another person who is 13 years of age or older to sexual contact under any of the circumstances named in RSA 632-A:2.
(b) When the actor subjects another person, other than the actor's legal spouse, who is 13 years of age or older and under 16 years of age to sexual contact where the age difference between the actor and the other person is 5 years or more.
(c) In the absence of any of the circumstances set forth in RSA 632-A:2, when the actor engages in sexual penetration with a person, other than the actor's legal spouse, who is 13 years of age or older and under 16 years of age where the age difference between the actor and the other person is 4 years or less.
II. A person found guilty under subparagraph I(c) of this section shall not be required to register as a sexual offender under RSA 651-B.
III. (a) A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if such person engages in sexual contact or sexual penetration with another person, or causes the person to engage in sexual contact on himself or herself in the presence of the actor, when the actor is in a position of authority over the person under any of the following circumstances:
(1) When the actor has direct supervisory or disciplinary authority over the victim by virtue of the victim being incarcerated in a correctional institution, the secure psychiatric unit, or juvenile detention facility where the actor is employed; or
(2) When the actor is a probation or parole officer or a juvenile probation and parole officer who has direct supervisory or disciplinary authority over the victim while the victim is on parole or probation or under juvenile probation.
(b) Consent of the victim under any of the circumstances set forth in this paragraph shall not be considered a defense.
(c) For the purpose of this paragraph, "sexual contact'' means the intentional touching of the person's sexual or intimate parts, including genitalia, anus, breasts, and buttocks, where such contact, or the causing of such contact, can reasonably be construed as being for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of the person in the position of authority, or the humiliation of the person being touched.
IV. Upon proof that the victim and defendant were intimate partners or family or household members, as those terms are defined in RSA 631:2-b, III, a conviction under this section shall be recorded as "Sexual Assault--Domestic Violence.''

Source. 1975, 302:1. 1985, 228:5. 2003, 226:5; 316:7. 2005, 290:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2006. 2008, 334:14, eff. Jan. 1, 2009. 2010, 223:2, eff. Jan. 1, 2011. 2014, 152:8, eff. Jan. 1, 2015.
Section 632-A:4 Sexual Assault.

 

[westwall]

Did the girl say "no".

No she didn't. There sex was mutual. The judge's position was that the girl wasn't mature enough to know what she was consenting to.

Did you actually read the article?

When you call someone stupid you should make sure you understand the proper usage of the English language there bucko. It is "THEIR", not "THERE".

You're excused.

You're comparing a typo to not know what rape is?

You missed this part of your own link didn't you....

And you're the one who claimed I was stupid, then made a fundamental error in the usage of the English language. I was merely pointing out the ironic nature of your post. I am sorry if it bothers you so much.

"Judge Lawrence Smukler said he rejects Labrie’s defense argument that the jury found the teenagers had consensual sex."

The judge argued statutory rape, not "plain old rape". And the fact that the jury agreed that the sex was mutually agreed to speaks louder than a judge saying he knows better. The jury nullified and judges hate juries that do that. Fuck em.

Do you understand the English language. If it was consensual it would be classified as statutory. The fact that he REJECTS that claim makes it rape you moron.