"The Central Park Five": Hoodlum robber rapists unjustly rewarded with US$ 40 million

Ken Burns’ THE CENTRAL PARK FIVE: The New TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD—Fiction Designed To Induce White Guilt

[See also:“It Was Fun”—Robert K. Tanenbaum vs. the Central Park Five, 25 Years Later]

“It Was Fun”—Robert K. Tanenbaum vs. The Central Park Five, 25 Years LaterKen (The Civil War) Burns’ 2012 documentary The Central Park Five, nominally about the Central Park Jogger Case, has become this generation’s To Kill a Mockingbird—now regularly assigned by Leftist educators to brainwash impressionable school kids and induce white guilt. As is typical for Burns, a story about black and Hispanic crime is transformed into a morality play set in the notorious bastion of white racism that is New York City.

Needless to say, the actual facts of the case tell a more complicated (and damning) story. But unfortunately, Burns’ agitprop may facilitate yet another $250 million-plus racial extortion payment in the form of a predatory civil suit against the city—and, ultimately, cripple law enforcement

Political correctness and "civil rights" managed to get a 40 million reward for criminals, by omitting and distorting facts about heinous crimes. Similar to the Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman hoax.

It is shocking that feminists obsess about all kind of non-violent and consensual *rape, but are quiet about a heinous mass rape with mutilating beatings with iron pipes.

A 43 page legal analysis and summary is here:

In addition to their convictions for the rape and assault on the female jogger, the
defendants were also convicted of crimes with respect to other attacks occurring that
evening; Kevin Richardson, Antron McCray, Raymond Santana and Yusef Salaam were
convicted of riot, the robbery and assault of John Loughlin and the assault upon David
Lewis. Kharey Wise was convicted of riot. Another defendant, Steven Lopez, who was
a central defendant in the case of the female jogger, arranged a plea bargain whereby
he pleaded guilty to the assault on Loughlin and received a sentence of 1 ½ to 4 years.

In addition, Michael Briscoe, Jermaine Robinson, Antonio Montalvo and Orlando
Escobar pleaded guilty to various charges of riot, assault, robbery and attempted
robbery with respect to the attacks upon Antonio Diaz, Loughlin and Lewis.
Justice Tejada ruled, as the District Attorney recommended, that the convictions on
these charges against the defendants, as well as those involving the female jogger,
should be vacated, although the newly discovered evidence of Matias Reyes’s rape of
the female jogger related only to that event. We understand the legal position
underlying Justice Tejada’s ruling, that the existence of new evidence regarding the
most significant charge against the defendants may have affected the juries’ ability to
consider evidence regarding the other charges. However, we believe that there is no
reason, on the merits, to think that a jury fairly presented with the evidence against the
defendants would come to a different conclusion than was reached before.

 

Ann Coulter: What You Won`t Read In The Papers About The `Central Park Five`

By Ann Coulter on April 24, 2014

[See also “It Was Fun”—Robert K. Tanenbaum vs. The Central Park Five, 25 Years Later, and Peter Brimelow`s 1989 London Times reaction Beasts In The Park]

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “"The Central Park Five": Hoodlum robber rapists unjustly rewarded with US$ 40 million” »
"The Central Park Five": Hoodlum robber rapists unjustly… » continues here »

Share

Nudist non-sexual child photos, legal in Germany: trouble for MP Sebastian Edathy and Merkel’s government

 

 Edathy pornography affair: The story so far

Among the ring’s customers was Edathy, who is said to have ordered material from the site between 2005 and 2010. The material consisted of pictures of naked boys assumed to be between nine and 14, in various poses, but not involved in sexual activity. The possession of such pictures is not illegal in Germany.

That is interesting. In Germany, possession of harmless photos of young children naked is not a crime yet. You can see such young children live on the innumerous nude beaches in Germany.

Human Stupidity has trouble understanding, or explaining to children, why photos of 100% legal acts, or cartoons of such acts, can be such a terrible crime. On the other hand, videos of terrorist beheadings, made exactly for the impact on the viewer and the publicity,  are legal.

The scientific truth is that accessible porn reduces rape and prostitution, countering the voodoo theory. Of course, the child sex trauma myth lobby can only ask for harder punishments

Germany’s Child Protection Agency demands that any commerce with pictures of naked children must be penalized. Justice Minister Heiko Maas also comes out in favor of stricter laws.

A huge international police inquiry because of a few photos of naked boys, which happens to be legal in Germany. Have we no other problems? Millions of obese and sedentary children have their health and future destroyed. The Euro crisis causes massive unemployment and might lead to civil war. And we care about a few nude photos?

Watch this video, one would never think that these were simple nude photos, no sexual activity or abuse.

Unfortunately, outside Germany we are not allowed to see or show the photos to understand what all the fuzz is about (Disclaimer)

 

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Nudist non-sexual child photos, legal in Germany: trouble for MP Sebastian Edathy and Merkel’s government” »
Nudist non-sexual child photos, legal in Germany: trouble for MP S… » continues here »

Share

Court rules that 32-year-old man’s sex with 17-year-old was legal… but pictures of it cost him 8 years in prison

Court rules that 32-year-old man’s sex with 17-year-old was legal… but pictures of it were not

 

Although a man who was 32 wasn’t breaking the law by having sex with a 17-year-old girl in 2008, he was by photographing the act, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

Marshall Hollins was convicted in Stephenson County of making child pornography and sentenced to 8 years in prison.

Is this not sad? It brings me to tears.

A good black man’s life destroyed, a girl’s boy friend taken away. All to protect her from "abuse". 

Where is Al Sharpton?

Where is President Barack Obama. I know, if he had a son, it would be a street fighting thug like Trayvon Martin. Where are men’s rights activists?

Where are the feminists, for the girl’s rights to have a boy friend, and to have her pictures taken?

 

He admitted he had sex with the girl when she was 17, which is the age of sexual consent in Illinois.

In a 5-2 ruling, the high court said that although the law allows 17-year-olds to consent to sex, they are still minors, making photos or video of such sex child porn.

This is nothing new:

The two dissenting justices said that because the photos don’t show an illegal act, they shouldn’t be illegal.

The dissenting minority has a bit of decency and common sense.

‘There was nothing unlawful about the production of the photographs taken by defendant in this case because the sexual conduct between defendant and (the girl) was entirely legal,’ wrote Justice Anne Burke, who was joined by Justice Charles Freeman.

‘The photographs are therefore not child pornography as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court for purposes of the First Amendment.

Due to voodoo theory and falsified research about the child sex trauma myth (Rind Study), the US supreme court made an EXCEPTION to constitutional rights of the First Amendment.

In the above case, no "*child" has been harmed through an illegal act, so there should be no reason to make an exception to constitutional first amendment rights.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Court rules that 32-year-old man’s sex with 17-year-old was legal… but pictures of it cost him 8 years in prison” »
Court rules that 32-year-old man’s sex with 17-year-old was … » continues here »

Share

A Swedish sex worker on absurdity of Swedish prostitution laws

  1. We want to save you (the sex worker). And if you don’t want to be saved, you will be punished.
  2. Are women prostituting themselves out of free choice?  Does a nurse work long night shifts out of free choice?  Or because she needs to pay the rent.
  3. It is illegal to buy temporary sexual services. What about clients that come for 20 years, outlasting several marriages?
  4. It is illegal to pay sex with money, or drugs. So if "paying" sex with a few drinks is illegal, then almost all sex is illegal prostitution.
  5. Landlords are obliged to kick out prostitutes, lest they will be charged with pimping
  6. even roommates can be charged with pimping, so sex workers MUST work alone, reducing safety.
  7. grown-up children who live for free with their mother, while studying, can get convicted for pimping.
  8. clients can not call police if they suspect trafficking or pimping. They would be accused of a crime if they called police

A Swedish sex worker on absurdity of Swedish prostitution laws

 

We discuss only

the impediments for responsible adults to decide about their own work and fate. The serious issues of teenage sexuality are not even mentioned. For example, in many countries one can have sex with a 16 year old. But if one gives her money, it becomes a felony.

Share