3 Chicago teens ? 12 year old girl... at gunpoint... post video on facebook
Options
Comments
-
@taeboo you're right about it being illegal but that doesnt mean these boys did something heinous. ? should be taken seriously. It shouldnt be a tool used to teach boys "a lesson" about so-called "respecting girls" when at 12-years old this little ? knew exactly what she was doing.
That said it doesnt means she didnt get ? . The main thing is we shouldnt be calling young men rapists on a technicality which is what it is at this point. Unless you see them holding a gun to her head on the video there shouldnt be any judgment.
I never said it was heinous nor agreed they are guilty of aggravated ? . They did commit crimes tho and should be punished for them. I said it was gross, but I would think that if this was story about a group of adults. Men sticking their ? in the same ? right after each other is disgusting. -
How are you coming to the conclusion they should be punished if you also agree that you're unsure if they actually ? her?@taeboo you're right about it being illegal but that doesnt mean these boys did something heinous. ? should be taken seriously. It shouldnt be a tool used to teach boys "a lesson" about so-called "respecting girls" when at 12-years old this little ? knew exactly what she was doing.
That said it doesnt means she didnt get ? . The main thing is we shouldnt be calling young men rapists on a technicality which is what it is at this point. Unless you see them holding a gun to her head on the video there shouldnt be any judgment.
I never said it was heinous nor agreed they are guilty of aggravated ? . They did commit crimes tho and should be punished for them. I said it was gross, but I would think that if this was story about a group of adults. Men sticking their ? in the same ? right after each other is disgusting.
Disgusting is a matter of opinion. They're going to have to register as sex offenders. For running a damn train. What sense does that make in the long run? -
How are you coming to the conclusion they should be punished if you also agree that you're unsure if they actually ? her?@taeboo you're right about it being illegal but that doesnt mean these boys did something heinous. ? should be taken seriously. It shouldnt be a tool used to teach boys "a lesson" about so-called "respecting girls" when at 12-years old this little ? knew exactly what she was doing.
That said it doesnt means she didnt get ? . The main thing is we shouldnt be calling young men rapists on a technicality which is what it is at this point. Unless you see them holding a gun to her head on the video there shouldnt be any judgment.
I never said it was heinous nor agreed they are guilty of aggravated ? . They did commit crimes tho and should be punished for them. I said it was gross, but I would think that if this was story about a group of adults. Men sticking their ? in the same ? right after each other is disgusting.
Disgusting is a matter of opinion. They're going to have to register as sex offenders. For running a damn train. What sense does that make in the long run?
Because they had sex with a 12 yr old child and filmed it, which is illegal. Idk what's so hard to understand about that. -
So wait..the same ? sayin don't assume the boys ? her are filling this thread with the repeating of the assumption that they just know for a FACT she went there with the intent to ? everybody? thats pretty stupid
^ incendiary post ^
Nobody claimed facts to anything. ? go over to ? ' houses to ? ery'day - sometimes multiple ? .
It's called common sense. Contrary to IC logic, It doesn't have to be one extreme or another. She could've not went over there to ? and they could've not forced her into it. A reasonable person would question it though.
What I can say though is that usually when someone threatens somebody with a gun, it's more obvious than "posing and throwing gang signs".
Check some of posters cosigning you. they are sayin just that. That she clearly went there with the intent to ? .
Of course they are. They're assuming just like everyone in this thread - doesn't mean they claim it to be a "fact". They're basing it off of the circumstances and facts surrounding the case, and common sense, which they should.
I don't think most ? cases start off with the alleged victim going over to a guy's house just to talk.
I can tell you that, if most of the chicks who came over to my house, told you they came over there to "talk" - you'd be a damn fool to believe them.
-
How are you coming to the conclusion they should be punished if you also agree that you're unsure if they actually ? her?@taeboo you're right about it being illegal but that doesnt mean these boys did something heinous. ? should be taken seriously. It shouldnt be a tool used to teach boys "a lesson" about so-called "respecting girls" when at 12-years old this little ? knew exactly what she was doing.
That said it doesnt means she didnt get ? . The main thing is we shouldnt be calling young men rapists on a technicality which is what it is at this point. Unless you see them holding a gun to her head on the video there shouldnt be any judgment.
I never said it was heinous nor agreed they are guilty of aggravated ? . They did commit crimes tho and should be punished for them. I said it was gross, but I would think that if this was story about a group of adults. Men sticking their ? in the same ? right after each other is disgusting.
Disgusting is a matter of opinion. They're going to have to register as sex offenders. For running a damn train. What sense does that make in the long run?
Because they had sex with a 12 yr old child and filmed it, which is illegal. Idk what's so hard to understand about that.
YOu saying that like they're 56 years old.
he's 15 ? years old. Three years older. At 12 you know EXACTLY what a ? is. You know what a ? is. And you know what sex is. Whats so hard for YOU to understand about that?
Females generally have sex with older males anyway. Since when is that not the reality? Yes its illegal but that doesnt mean it should be. She's a ? . Hoes ? random ? . Soome hoes are 12 years old. Why's that hard to understand>? -
How are you coming to the conclusion they should be punished if you also agree that you're unsure if they actually ? her?@taeboo you're right about it being illegal but that doesnt mean these boys did something heinous. ? should be taken seriously. It shouldnt be a tool used to teach boys "a lesson" about so-called "respecting girls" when at 12-years old this little ? knew exactly what she was doing.
That said it doesnt means she didnt get ? . The main thing is we shouldnt be calling young men rapists on a technicality which is what it is at this point. Unless you see them holding a gun to her head on the video there shouldnt be any judgment.
I never said it was heinous nor agreed they are guilty of aggravated ? . They did commit crimes tho and should be punished for them. I said it was gross, but I would think that if this was story about a group of adults. Men sticking their ? in the same ? right after each other is disgusting.
Disgusting is a matter of opinion. They're going to have to register as sex offenders. For running a damn train. What sense does that make in the long run?
Because they had sex with a 12 yr old child and filmed it, which is illegal. Idk what's so hard to understand about that.
YOu saying that like they're 56 years old.
he's 15 ? years old. Three years older. At 12 you know EXACTLY what a ? is. You know what a ? is. And you know what sex is. Whats so hard for YOU to understand about that?
Females generally have sex with older males anyway. Since when is that not the reality? Yes its illegal but that doesnt mean it should be. She's a ? . Hoes ? random ? . Soome hoes are 12 years old. Why's that hard to understand>?
15 or 56, it's still illegal. You get caught and provide the cops with evidence, you get punished. Just because she may be a hoe doesn't mean it's ok to have sex with her. Not all ? is worth taking.... -
How are you coming to the conclusion they should be punished if you also agree that you're unsure if they actually ? her?@taeboo you're right about it being illegal but that doesnt mean these boys did something heinous. ? should be taken seriously. It shouldnt be a tool used to teach boys "a lesson" about so-called "respecting girls" when at 12-years old this little ? knew exactly what she was doing.
That said it doesnt means she didnt get ? . The main thing is we shouldnt be calling young men rapists on a technicality which is what it is at this point. Unless you see them holding a gun to her head on the video there shouldnt be any judgment.
I never said it was heinous nor agreed they are guilty of aggravated ? . They did commit crimes tho and should be punished for them. I said it was gross, but I would think that if this was story about a group of adults. Men sticking their ? in the same ? right after each other is disgusting.
Disgusting is a matter of opinion. They're going to have to register as sex offenders. For running a damn train. What sense does that make in the long run?
Because they had sex with a 12 yr old child and filmed it, which is illegal. Idk what's so hard to understand about that.
YOu saying that like they're 56 years old.
he's 15 ? years old. Three years older. At 12 you know EXACTLY what a ? is. You know what a ? is. And you know what sex is. Whats so hard for YOU to understand about that?
Females generally have sex with older males anyway. Since when is that not the reality? Yes its illegal but that doesnt mean it should be. She's a ? . Hoes ? random ? . Soome hoes are 12 years old. Why's that hard to understand>?
15 or 56, it's still illegal. You get caught and provide the cops with evidence, you get punished. Just because she may be a hoe doesn't mean it's ok to have sex with her. Not all ? is worth taking....
It sounds like you're saying anyone under 17 having sex, and/or taping it, is and should be illegal.
Putting the case at hand aside for a moment, is that what you're saying ? -
How are you coming to the conclusion they should be punished if you also agree that you're unsure if they actually ? her?@taeboo you're right about it being illegal but that doesnt mean these boys did something heinous. ? should be taken seriously. It shouldnt be a tool used to teach boys "a lesson" about so-called "respecting girls" when at 12-years old this little ? knew exactly what she was doing.
That said it doesnt means she didnt get ? . The main thing is we shouldnt be calling young men rapists on a technicality which is what it is at this point. Unless you see them holding a gun to her head on the video there shouldnt be any judgment.
I never said it was heinous nor agreed they are guilty of aggravated ? . They did commit crimes tho and should be punished for them. I said it was gross, but I would think that if this was story about a group of adults. Men sticking their ? in the same ? right after each other is disgusting.
Disgusting is a matter of opinion. They're going to have to register as sex offenders. For running a damn train. What sense does that make in the long run?
Because they had sex with a 12 yr old child and filmed it, which is illegal. Idk what's so hard to understand about that.
YOu saying that like they're 56 years old.
he's 15 ? years old. Three years older. At 12 you know EXACTLY what a ? is. You know what a ? is. And you know what sex is. Whats so hard for YOU to understand about that?
Females generally have sex with older males anyway. Since when is that not the reality? Yes its illegal but that doesnt mean it should be. She's a ? . Hoes ? random ? . Soome hoes are 12 years old. Why's that hard to understand>?
15 or 56, it's still illegal. You get caught and provide the cops with evidence, you get punished. Just because she may be a hoe doesn't mean it's ok to have sex with her. Not all ? is worth taking....
It sounds like you're saying anyone under 17 having sex, and/or taping it, is and should be illegal.
Putting the case at hand aside for a moment, is that what you're saying ?[/quote]
It is illegal, and yes it should be. You think it's ok for 15 and 16 yr olds to be ? a 12 yr old and putting up a tape of the act on facebook? -
Mike stop playing ? i know you be licking your lips at them 16 17 years old getting off the yellow bus cuz i do.
I just turned 18 so yeah but ain't no 14 year old and up ? gonna be in the same school as a 12 year old... She in 6th or 5th grade. Them ? in high school b -
How are you coming to the conclusion they should be punished if you also agree that you're unsure if they actually ? her?@taeboo you're right about it being illegal but that doesnt mean these boys did something heinous. ? should be taken seriously. It shouldnt be a tool used to teach boys "a lesson" about so-called "respecting girls" when at 12-years old this little ? knew exactly what she was doing.
That said it doesnt means she didnt get ? . The main thing is we shouldnt be calling young men rapists on a technicality which is what it is at this point. Unless you see them holding a gun to her head on the video there shouldnt be any judgment.
I never said it was heinous nor agreed they are guilty of aggravated ? . They did commit crimes tho and should be punished for them. I said it was gross, but I would think that if this was story about a group of adults. Men sticking their ? in the same ? right after each other is disgusting.
Disgusting is a matter of opinion. They're going to have to register as sex offenders. For running a damn train. What sense does that make in the long run?
Because they had sex with a 12 yr old child and filmed it, which is illegal. Idk what's so hard to understand about that.
YOu saying that like they're 56 years old.
he's 15 ? years old. Three years older. At 12 you know EXACTLY what a ? is. You know what a ? is. And you know what sex is. Whats so hard for YOU to understand about that?
Females generally have sex with older males anyway. Since when is that not the reality? Yes its illegal but that doesnt mean it should be. She's a ? . Hoes ? random ? . Soome hoes are 12 years old. Why's that hard to understand>?
15 or 56, it's still illegal. You get caught and provide the cops with evidence, you get punished. Just because she may be a hoe doesn't mean it's ok to have sex with her. Not all ? is worth taking....It sounds like you're saying anyone under 17 having sex, and/or taping it, is and should be illegal.
Putting the case at hand aside for a moment, is that what you're saying ?
It is illegal, and yes it should be. You think it's ok for 15 and 16 yr olds to be ? a 12 yr old and putting up a tape of the act on facebook?
What part of that should be illegal -
- Minors having sex ?
- Posting a video of yourself having sex on facebook ?
I'm not saying I approve of either of those but making it "illegal" is a whole other ballgame.
Minors be ? ' - like it or not. And I want to have the right to post my own ? on line without it being illegal, so yeah. -
How are you coming to the conclusion they should be punished if you also agree that you're unsure if they actually ? her?@taeboo you're right about it being illegal but that doesnt mean these boys did something heinous. ? should be taken seriously. It shouldnt be a tool used to teach boys "a lesson" about so-called "respecting girls" when at 12-years old this little ? knew exactly what she was doing.
That said it doesnt means she didnt get ? . The main thing is we shouldnt be calling young men rapists on a technicality which is what it is at this point. Unless you see them holding a gun to her head on the video there shouldnt be any judgment.
I never said it was heinous nor agreed they are guilty of aggravated ? . They did commit crimes tho and should be punished for them. I said it was gross, but I would think that if this was story about a group of adults. Men sticking their ? in the same ? right after each other is disgusting.
Disgusting is a matter of opinion. They're going to have to register as sex offenders. For running a damn train. What sense does that make in the long run?
Because they had sex with a 12 yr old child and filmed it, which is illegal. Idk what's so hard to understand about that.
YOu saying that like they're 56 years old.
he's 15 ? years old. Three years older. At 12 you know EXACTLY what a ? is. You know what a ? is. And you know what sex is. Whats so hard for YOU to understand about that?
Females generally have sex with older males anyway. Since when is that not the reality? Yes its illegal but that doesnt mean it should be. She's a ? . Hoes ? random ? . Soome hoes are 12 years old. Why's that hard to understand>?
15 or 56, it's still illegal. You get caught and provide the cops with evidence, you get punished. Just because she may be a hoe doesn't mean it's ok to have sex with her. Not all ? is worth taking....It sounds like you're saying anyone under 17 having sex, and/or taping it, is and should be illegal.
Putting the case at hand aside for a moment, is that what you're saying ?
It is illegal, and yes it should be. You think it's ok for 15 and 16 yr olds to be ? a 12 yr old and putting up a tape of the act on facebook?
What part of that should be illegal -
- Minors having sex ?
- Posting a video of yourself having sex on facebook ?
I'm not saying I approve of either of those but making it "illegal" is a whole other ballgame.
Minors be ? ' - like it or not. And I want to have the right to post my own ? on line without it being illegal, so yeah.[/quote]
Both. 12 yr olds shouldn't be ? period nor should having sex with one be video taped and posted to be viewed by others. So at what age do you say these dudes were wrong and need to be punished? 10 yrs old? 8? -
How are you coming to the conclusion they should be punished if you also agree that you're unsure if they actually ? her?@taeboo you're right about it being illegal but that doesnt mean these boys did something heinous. ? should be taken seriously. It shouldnt be a tool used to teach boys "a lesson" about so-called "respecting girls" when at 12-years old this little ? knew exactly what she was doing.
That said it doesnt means she didnt get ? . The main thing is we shouldnt be calling young men rapists on a technicality which is what it is at this point. Unless you see them holding a gun to her head on the video there shouldnt be any judgment.
I never said it was heinous nor agreed they are guilty of aggravated ? . They did commit crimes tho and should be punished for them. I said it was gross, but I would think that if this was story about a group of adults. Men sticking their ? in the same ? right after each other is disgusting.
Disgusting is a matter of opinion. They're going to have to register as sex offenders. For running a damn train. What sense does that make in the long run?
Because they had sex with a 12 yr old child and filmed it, which is illegal. Idk what's so hard to understand about that.
YOu saying that like they're 56 years old.
he's 15 ? years old. Three years older. At 12 you know EXACTLY what a ? is. You know what a ? is. And you know what sex is. Whats so hard for YOU to understand about that?
Females generally have sex with older males anyway. Since when is that not the reality? Yes its illegal but that doesnt mean it should be. She's a ? . Hoes ? random ? . Soome hoes are 12 years old. Why's that hard to understand>?
What females have experience with penises or sex at 12 years old bruh? -
ShiveDreadz wrote: »They will beat the ? charge, may be charged for other crimes but it doesnt seem like ? to me.
Dudes wouldnt film THEMSELVES ? a broad and post it on facebook for the world to see on some bragging ? with all of their faces visible.
This was a train being ran and some young ? beating their chest.
I know i got my first peice at 13 and thats in the 90's im sure these kids ? more these days.
Moral: stop taking pictures/filming ? .
Idk...in that Ohio case they were dumb enough to take pics and others filming themselves talking about it and some tweeting while ol girl was knocked out being carried around -
At the bolded - simply put, the law is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
There seems to be plenty of reasonable doubt if you look at this with an open-mind and any type of common sense.
It's not enough to assume, "there was a gun and they are in a gang, therefore it was ? ." The burden of proof is on them, and I believe that if they did have better proof that she was forced to do it, it would've been more obvious.
This is why they shouldn't make these little "rule of thumb" sayings because people take them ? all out of context. "Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" just means that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. They are the ones that have to build the case to show that the accused committed a crime. It does not mean that you go into ever incident treating the alleged victims as liars.
And what do you mean if they had more proof it would've been more obvious. Were they supposed to be ? the chick with shirts saying "Hey we're ? her?" ? like this almost always breaks down into he said she said. The prosecution took its time deciding whether or not they had enough to place charges and they did.
You dudes want to look at every ? case as if its a lying ass hoe trying to get over on some innocent guys. That's just being biased, and looking at things in a biased manner is not grounds for reasonable doubt. Like you pointed out. We don't know everything, so none of us can say what the truth is, but ya'll cats think every chick is lying in cases like these so unless a dude is confessing in your minds he's always innocent.Halfabrick wrote: »
Cant you read the gun was never POINTED at HER. it was HELD and she could see it in one of the guys POCKET not once does it say they POINTED a gun HER directly.
Can't you read? That ? doesn't matter legally or logically. That's why menacing laws exist and that's why you can be charged with assault even if you don't actually hurt a person. Whether they pointed the gun or not is irrelevant. If they moved on her and let her know the gun was there in order to intimidate her, they still forced her.
Fam you not understanding how hot these lil girls are outchea..my neighbors daughter is the lil hoe on the block and she 13..all types of lil ? be posted up at her crib when her momma aint home..her big brother try to play his role as big brother but everybody knows there is no stoppin a wet ? from gettin ? ..pelle pelle wrote: »
Come on dog are you serious? I know the world is ? up, but are you really saying that a 12, not 21, but 12 year old girl can't visit some boys she knows without expected to have a train run on her. You guys are on some other ? .
These hoes out there aka thots
[/quote]
I feel you. I know chicks are strumpeting out there early these days. That said, I still don't believe its at the point where we should assume that 12 y/o girls are out there conning older dudes into ? them. That said, I do admit it's possible that she just cried ? because they put her up on Facebook. That's ? , but I don't have sympathy for people that pull that ? anyway. You run a train on a chick fine, but why do you want to try to take it to that next level and humiliate her? They may not deserve a ? charge for that, but actions force reactions. You do some foul ? , you open yourself up to the consequences. It's just that simple.
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
At the bolded - simply put, the law is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
There seems to be plenty of reasonable doubt if you look at this with an open-mind and any type of common sense.
It's not enough to assume, "there was a gun and they are in a gang, therefore it was ? ." The burden of proof is on them, and I believe that if they did have better proof that she was forced to do it, it would've been more obvious.
This is why they shouldn't make these little "rule of thumb" sayings because people take them ? all out of context. "Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" just means that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. They are the ones that have to build the case to show that the accused committed a crime. It does not mean that you go into ever incident treating the alleged victims as liars.
So prosecutors don't question whether or not the accuser is telling the truth ? That's preposterous.
Being innocent until proven guilty is not treated as a "rule of thumb" saying. It's the actual law if I'm not mistaken.
The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that someone, accused of a crime is guilty, beyond doubt.
And a civilized society should welcome that.The Lonious Monk wrote: »And what do you mean if they had more proof it would've been more obvious. Were they supposed to be ? the chick with shirts saying "Hey we're ? her?" ? like this almost always breaks down into he said she said. The prosecution took its time deciding whether or not they had enough to place charges and they did.
What I meant is simple. If they accuse the dudes of forcing her to have sex, with a gun, and there's a video - then I'd think that would've probably been one of the first things they mention about the video, not some ? about a gun being "visible" and she "felt scared". I'm expecting something along the lines of "He told me he would shoot me.... he threatened me with the gun... etc..."The Lonious Monk wrote: »
You dudes want to look at every ? case as if its a lying ass hoe trying to get over on some innocent guys. That's just being biased, and looking at things in a biased manner is not grounds for reasonable doubt. Like you pointed out. We don't know everything, so none of us can say what the truth is, but ya'll cats think every chick is lying in cases like these so unless a dude is confessing in your minds he's always innocent.
I look at any case with common sense and reason. If anybody's being biased, it's someone who assumes that another person is guilty, or another person is innocent - while ignoring the facts.
So ? choose not to raise questions, or not consider all the facts and the people who do, are biased ? Really ? -
SleepwalkingInJapan wrote: »Three teenagers face sex assault charges after they ? a 12-year-old girl at gunpoint and posted a video of the December attacks on Facebook, prosecutors said.
Scandale Fritz, 16, Kenneth Brown, 15, and Justin Applewhite, 16, were all ordered held in lieu of $900,000 bail in a hearing today before Criminal Court Judge James Brown, said Cook County state's attorney spokeswoman Tandra Simonton. The three were charged as adults.
The assaults took place about 3:30 p.m. Dec. 15 in Fritz's home in the 400 block of West 60th Place in the Englewood neighborhood, according to Chicago police records.
The girl had gone to Fritz's house on 60th Place that afternoon to talk to him, and when she went inside, she saw Brown, with a gun in his pocket, prosecutors said. Fritz took the girl downstairs in the house and after she declined his demands for sex, he ? and sodomized her, prosecutors said.
Brown and Applewhite came down to the basement, and Fritz demanded the girl have sex with the other two boys, prosecutors said. At first, the girl refused, but she saw that Brown had a gun in his pocket, and so they sexually assaulted her and forced her to perform sex acts on them.
Fritz videotaped the sex acts, including Brown holding a gun during sex, and all three of the boys shouting gang slogans, prosecutors said. All three of the boys are visible in the video, with Fritz entering the frame when he turns the camera toward himself.
The day after the assaults, the girl told someone about the attacks, and a police report was made and the girl was treated and examined at a hospital. On Dec. 17, the video was posted on Brown's Facebook page, and then on all three boys' Facebook pages, prosecutors said.
Fritz admitted to investigators he made the tape, prosecutors said.
Fritz and Brown, also of the 400 block of West 60th Place, are co-defendants in a previous, unrelated robbery and aggravated battery case, according to prosecutors. Brown also is on 18 months probation in a Nov. 28, 2012, unlawful use of a weapon case, prosecutors said. Brown is due back in court on that case May 22.
Applewhite, of the 500 block of East 80th Street, has no publishable criminal background, prosecutors said.
The three are due back in court June 6.
It was not known why it took until May to charge the three teens.
http://youtu.be/QY5hRAXBPGI
Had me on her side until I read that
At no point he pulled the gun out and threatened her nor was there a physical altercation/struggle
She did it willingly and was degraded by them recording it putting it on blast, hence why she told them stop
Lil ? need to listen when a chick says stop, its what ? them over -
These ? ? or busted down a 12 year old..... Ain't no way around that ? ........ These ? are like sophmores or juniors but I'm sure they are remedial and the school system just passed them along....... These ? didn't see females their own age to ? with???????? Nah they chose a 7th grader to bust down........... SMH......
Next ? gonna be like "She was 10 years old, she could have said no. But she knew they was gonna run a train, so that's on her." smh............ -
hALF_pAST_7EVEN wrote: »SleepwalkingInJapan wrote: »
Had me on her side until I read that
At no point he pulled the gun out and threatened her nor was there a physical altercation/struggle
She did it willingly and was degraded by them recording it putting it on blast, hence why she told them stop
Lil ? need to listen when a chick says stop, its what ? them over
The gun dont got to be pointing at your head to be threatened. Shes 12 there older and supposedly in a gang. them just flashing the gun and the gun being in her presence was enough to make her feel threatened. Yall ? acting like if a dude walked into chucky cheese with a visible gun ? wouldnt tense up. -
How are you coming to the conclusion they should be punished if you also agree that you're unsure if they actually ? her?@taeboo you're right about it being illegal but that doesnt mean these boys did something heinous. ? should be taken seriously. It shouldnt be a tool used to teach boys "a lesson" about so-called "respecting girls" when at 12-years old this little ? knew exactly what she was doing.
That said it doesnt means she didnt get ? . The main thing is we shouldnt be calling young men rapists on a technicality which is what it is at this point. Unless you see them holding a gun to her head on the video there shouldnt be any judgment.
I never said it was heinous nor agreed they are guilty of aggravated ? . They did commit crimes tho and should be punished for them. I said it was gross, but I would think that if this was story about a group of adults. Men sticking their ? in the same ? right after each other is disgusting.
Disgusting is a matter of opinion. They're going to have to register as sex offenders. For running a damn train. What sense does that make in the long run?
They deserve everything thats coming to them. Yall defending these chief keefs without really knowing anything. From what was given in the article two high school juniors and a sophmore had sex with a 6th grader and yall see nothing wrong with that? Really? Its Just a train really? If it was just a train what was the gun for? Who are you to say she wasnt threatened by the presence of the gun. -
It was just a train.
There was a gun cuz ? have guns. The gun aint even important in this ? . They wanna look "cool" in the video.
Id bet there was weed /cigs/money somewhere in the video too.
The ? is 12 which usually means 7th grade. A ? being 14 or 15 ? her is not out of the ordinary as far as age. When I was a senior my girl was a sophomore. Two year age difference.
These lil ? /hoes be outchere ? at younger ages. ? in middle school is common nowadays. Especially in (im assuming) no-good neighborhoods like that one. -
The day after the assaults, the girl told someone about the attacks, and a police report was made and the girl was treated and examined at a hospital. On Dec. 17, the video was posted on Brown's Facebook page, and then on all three boys' Facebook pages, prosecutors said.
^ The bold indicates that the crime was reported prior to them posting it on facebook. The article also somewhat indicates that the girl is still 12, since they didn't include a "and now 13".
Whether it was ? or not, they still ? up by posting a vid of them ? a 12 year old.
self ether, on all accounts. -
So prosecutors don't question whether or not the accuser is telling the truth ? That's preposterous.
Being innocent until proven guilty is not treated as a "rule of thumb" saying. It's the actual law if I'm not mistaken.
The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that someone, accused of a crime is guilty, beyond doubt.
And a civilized society should welcome that.
Of course they do, but they don't go into an investigation assuming the victim is a liar. Best case, everyone involved goes into the situation with no bias and builds their opinion of what happened based on the evidence available. Your problem is you're trying to argue that the boys should be treated fairly which is true, but your idea of treating them fairly seems to involve dismissing the victim's allegations as ? unless some irrefutable evidence removes any and all doubt. That's not how ? works and it's not how ? should work. Almost no criminal would ever be prosecuted if that's the way things were done.What I meant is simple. If they accuse the dudes of forcing her to have sex, with a gun, and there's a video - then I'd think that would've probably been one of the first things they mention about the video, not some ? about a gun being "visible" and she "felt scared". I'm expecting something along the lines of "He told me he would shoot me.... he threatened me with the gun... etc..."
How do you know none of that was said? Just because it's not in the article doesn't mean it's not the case. Article covering incident =/= prosecutor's case. The prosecutors are most likely holding a lot of details back especially due to the child's age.
I look at any case with common sense and reason. If anybody's being biased, it's someone who assumes that another person is guilty, or another person is innocent - while ignoring the facts.
So ? choose not to raise questions, or not consider all the facts and the people who do, are biased ? Really ?
Again, questions are good, silly loaded questions that basically assume that the victim is lying are pointless. Again, you keep pointing out that people are judging without considering facts. You don't have access to anymore facts than anyone else, yet you've clearly made up your mind that the chick is lying. So you're doing the same ? you're railing against.
-
But she didn't say they flashed the gun did she?hALF_pAST_7EVEN wrote: »SleepwalkingInJapan wrote: »
Had me on her side until I read that
At no point he pulled the gun out and threatened her nor was there a physical altercation/struggle
She did it willingly and was degraded by them recording it putting it on blast, hence why she told them stop
Lil ? need to listen when a chick says stop, its what ? them over
The gun dont got to be pointing at your head to be threatened. Shes 12 there older and supposedly in a gang. them just flashing the gun and the gun being in her presence was enough to make her feel threatened. Yall ? acting like if a dude walked into chucky cheese with a visible gun ? wouldnt tense up.
? in gangs have guns, but if they ain't threaten you with it then I'm not going with the flow they flat out ? her
It was a train and them ? going to jail for ? a 12 year old and taped it
But I don't believe they forced her to do anything
-
If it was a ? I don't think those ? would have posted it..? do stupid ? but i hope they not that stupid..hALF_pAST_7EVEN wrote: »
But she didn't say they flashed the gun did she?hALF_pAST_7EVEN wrote: »SleepwalkingInJapan wrote: »
Had me on her side until I read that
At no point he pulled the gun out and threatened her nor was there a physical altercation/struggle
She did it willingly and was degraded by them recording it putting it on blast, hence why she told them stop
Lil ? need to listen when a chick says stop, its what ? them over
The gun dont got to be pointing at your head to be threatened. Shes 12 there older and supposedly in a gang. them just flashing the gun and the gun being in her presence was enough to make her feel threatened. Yall ? acting like if a dude walked into chucky cheese with a visible gun ? wouldnt tense up.
? in gangs have guns, but if they ain't threaten you with it then I'm not going with the flow they flat out ? her
It was a train and them ? going to jail for ? a 12 year old and taped it
But I don't believe they forced her to do anything
They probably didnt realize ? a 12 year old can also be considered ? ..I think she went over there to ? and got more than what she bargained for..i.e. facebook exposure
-
hALF_pAST_7EVEN wrote: »
But she didn't say they flashed the gun did she?hALF_pAST_7EVEN wrote: »SleepwalkingInJapan wrote: »
Had me on her side until I read that
At no point he pulled the gun out and threatened her nor was there a physical altercation/struggle
She did it willingly and was degraded by them recording it putting it on blast, hence why she told them stop
Lil ? need to listen when a chick says stop, its what ? them over
The gun dont got to be pointing at your head to be threatened. Shes 12 there older and supposedly in a gang. them just flashing the gun and the gun being in her presence was enough to make her feel threatened. Yall ? acting like if a dude walked into chucky cheese with a visible gun ? wouldnt tense up.
? in gangs have guns, but if they ain't threaten you with it then I'm not going with the flow they flat out ? her
It was a train and them ? going to jail for ? a 12 year old and taped it
But I don't believe they forced her to do anything
It's not far fetched to assume a 12 year old girl in a room when she knows one of the three older people she's in the room with has a gun would possibly cause her to feel a bit threatened and fearful of what would happen if she doesn't go along with it. Ya'll keep forgetting this is a 12 year old not an adult.
And ? , even with adults you don't have to show a gun to someone to threaten them with it. Just the knowledge that someone has a gun on them will change how most people act towards them.
