News
Aug 27, 2013 at 7:07 am
Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
More In News
Popular Articles
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
BURN EVERYTHING.
OH, WELL, if some of them were family members, that obviously deserves that little "although" exception. Because sexual predators NEEEVVVVER prey on family members. That's a thing that doesn't happen at all. Bring on the teenaged family members, because this guy is safe!
If anything like this happened to my daughter, all I'm saying is, I wouldn't be able to start 'getting past it' until something profoundly unpleasant happened to this guy. I ain't sayin', I'm just sayin'.
Does that mean that it would have been legal had the parents acknowledged the relationship and consented?
(Age of consent in MT. 16. And there are no allowances for close-in-age relationships.)
#14
What you're "just saying" is that you've make a threat of physical violence in public on the Internet and thus you have made yourself liable to investigation and enforcement.
Voters, often. Therein lies the problem.
Though more troubling is the idiot is running for re-election and is unopposed.
The school warned him in 2005 to not touch or be alone with female students. And he was still working as a teacher? What the hell kind of school system is this?
He violated his court ordered sex offender rehab three ways - wasn't showing up for meetings, was in contact with minors and was having sex with a woman. Who was sleeping with this guy?!?
He doesn't consider his behavior a problem and the court thinks he's at low risk to reoffend. Really? He seems to be taking the law so seriously. Must be afraid of those terrible legal consequences to his actions or something. Ye gods Montana.
What do you wanna bet there might have been a bit harsher sentence if his victim's last name wasn't Morales?
Because he can't get laid; therefore, he projects his hostility on women.
/seriously.
Wow.
Lots of violence and psychopathy on this thread.
You all sound like Sons of Zimmerman.
I'm neurotic, not psychotic, but I would deeply enjoy slitting Mr. Rambold's miserable throat.
My other thought reading the repulsive comments from the judge: if the teacher had assaulted an underage boy, there would have been a different ruling. The gender of either party should not matter, but it always seems to be part of the decision in sexual crimes.
A Florida judge will decide the gay Florida teen’s fate Tuesday after prosecutors pulled her plea deal when they discovered she’d exchanged about 20,000 text messages with the underage teen girl at the center of the case against her.
Prosecutors filed a new charge against Hunt, accusing her of “transmission of material harmful to minor by electronic equipment.” In a court filing, the state said it violates Florida law for her to have sent the “harmful” texts to a minor.
Their relationship began when Hunt was 18 and the girl was 14. The girl’s family said the relationship was sexual. Hunt’s family has said the relationship was consensual, but under Florida law, a 14-year-old can’t give consent.
Hunt, who turned 19 last week, was charged with two felony counts of lewd and lascivious battery.
Deal nixed
Prosecutors had offered Hunt a deal: Plead guilty to one felony that could later be removed from her record and two misdemeanors in exchange for community service — with no jail time and no mandatory ankle bracelet.
Now, prosecutors want her bond revoked after the discovery of the texts. They say Hunt violated a February court order to not contact the girl. There will be a hearing at 1 p.m. Tuesday in an Indian River County court.
Hunt had been free on bail while awaiting trial. She was booked into detention Monday night after her bail bond company declined to secure the $5,000 bond any longer and picked her up. Hunt can go free if her family or another bail bond company comes up with the money.
In court documents, prosecutors say Hunt gave the girl an iPod in February that was used to receive and send about 20,000 text messages between the two.
Prosecutors also said 25 photographs were also sent, and secret meetings took place between the two.
“These photographs are explicit and depict the defendant nude,” the documents state.
Prosecutors also included examples of texts they say Hunt sent to the girl, including: “(N)o matter what if they find out we talked I’m going to jail until trial starts.”
The state also said the girl told a detective that Hunt would drive her to “a remote location where they would have intimate physical contact.” The court papers claim that the most recent meeting took place two weeks ago.
17-year-old student athlete engages in relationship (consensual, according to both sides) with 14-year-old student athlete, parents of latter disapprove, girls secretly continue their relationship. Punishment? Expelled from school, facing felony charges, already served more time than the above was sentenced to.
So tell me. Do you agree that the punishments fit the crime(s)?
Yes Rambold is scum, and yes he deserves to go to jail for a long time. But as a society, we've decided that it's better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man go to jail. Rambold is one of those lucky ten.
What possible problems?
Seems like if they already had evidence there should be no problems and it would be case closed.
NOT TO MENTION: Rambold pled guilty.
Kaitlyn Hunt was going to get a pretty decent deal under a plea agreement wherein she wouldn't have to register as a sex offender, but she wouldn't stop contacting the other girl (and much of that contact involved guilt tripping and threatening the girl to stay quiet). Now the hammer is coming down. Sucks to be her.
As to Rambold pleading guilty: I doubt he did that out of the goodness of his heart. He almost certainly did so pursuant to a plea agreement, which got him the sweet "31 days in jail" deal.
(2): Confrontation Clause applies even in a murder trial! There are some exceptions (e.g., the famous "dying declaration"), but those don't apply here.
(3): The aphorism is pervasive throughout the justice system, not just the standard of proof.
BTW: Your inability to analyze the facts from a procedural standpoint suggests that you are not a lawyer. I suggest you do not argue law with someone who is.
Are you fucking kidding me? Did you actually read the article?
It was solely the judge's decision to give that motherfucker 30 days in jail.
Reading through the article again, it's not clear to me whether there was a plea agreement or not. I don't see any mention of a trial, so it would bizarre if they were at the sentencing phase already without an agreement. I can't imagine any defendant pleading guilty without a deal, but then again the Fort Hood guy proved me wrong earlier this month. :)
The original plea agreement was that Rambold was going to get a sweetheart deal wherein he would mainly just need to get sex offender counseling. But he didn't so much as try to hold to that agreement, so that's when the prosecution hauled him in to court to send him to real prison. It was the judge's decision to suspend everything except 30 days in jail despite the fact that he's an unrepentant sex offender who refused to actually go through with his court-mandated counseling or to stay away from minors.
The 30-day "sentence" was the judge's call. Full stop.
Essentially, don't talk about liberty and due process on one hand and decry the results with the other. That's some Fox News bullshit.
The statements about "old for 14" are troubling, though.
Yes, but it goes back to my original questions.
The case seems dependent on having the victim as a witness.
As you state, him pleading guilty initially and getting a bargain which he then violated sent him back to square one. However, his admission of guilt could not be used against him.
That means they had to go back to the victim. So, the victim was the only testimony against him that had relevance meaning there was no evidence of intercourse.
And even if he pleaded guilty, if it was to get a plea bargain, you can't say for sure if he was guilty or just seeing a situation where he could not get justice and decided to take the easier way out!
The statements about "old for 14" are completely irrelevant! All that had to be established was some kind of contact. What is more -- this guy was her teacher, and there are laws that make the consent laws go out the window when the person is in a position of power over the minor.
And the last unresolved issue is -- can "consent" be given by parents when the person is under the age of consent, in Montana. And if so, did the parent give consent? Or is that the sticking point for a clear case of guilt!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageabl…
#49
Rape Culture is when a bunch of Marxist Feminists make all Men guilty -- all the time and without proof.
Rape culture is when all heterosexual sex is recast as rape to increase the power and reach of the centralized state.
Whether it's this case, or Miley Cyrus twerking on Robin Thicke's 38 year old foam finger, the apparatchiks of the socialst state come out en masse to tongue lash and jail.
They've made their decision before the case is heard or tried. It happens every day. All day long. In SLOG.
Please sign so we can get this man off the bench!!
http://www.change.org/petitions/federal-…
"Rape Culture is when a bunch of Marxist Feminists......"
Hahahahahahahahaah.....aaahhhh....Haaaaaaaaahahahahaha......Omg wow...you are SUCH a fuckin comedian! Where do you find this great material?!? Please, no more, you are making my sides hurt from the laughter.
Was he blackmailing the judge? Oh God, is this a case where the judge did something similar himself once and now has to act like it's okay because otherwise he'd have to admit to himself that it isn't?
Your exchange is exactly why I'm not entirely comfortable with the outrage directed toward the judge (I am completely comfortable with the outrage directed toward the rapist). A deferral agreement means that the rapist had admitted the charge, but, as long as he complied with the agreement's conditions, the charges would be dismissed. No conviction, no imprisonment, no probation.
The judge was given a chance to sentence the rapist because he missed meetings, had an apparently consensual sexual relationship with an apparently adult woman, and spent time with minors (who were evidently relatives, for whatever that's worth. It's more important to me that he hasn't been accused of doing anything abusive).
So it all depends on whether the judge believes that he is sentencing the guy for the rape of a young girl, or sentencing him for missing some meetings, having a relationship and being around kids. I'm guessing (hoping?) he thought of it as the latter, his bizarre and troubling "older-than-her-chronological-age" comment notwithstanding. Which is not to say that that was the right frame of mind here. But, as wrongheaded as it might be (and it would certainly seem to have been an opportunity to correct the injustice potentially caused by the poor girl's death), I can't help but sympathize with the judge to some degree.
"Here judge, this guy missed some meetings, and he has a girlfriend, and he spent time with some kids. If he hadn't done that stuff, we were fine with him never being convicted or serving any time. But you throw him in prison for ten years." I can see that being a tough pill to swallow.