Mandatory 15 years jail for photos of legal girl friend: You Can Have Sex With Them; Just Don’t Photograph Them

Sex is legal, but sensual erotic photos require a 15 year jail sentence. 34 year old Rinehart has relation with 16 and 17 year old girls, above the age of consent in Indiana.

Whatever you might think of Rinehart’s judgment or ethics, his relationships with the girls weren’t illegal. The age of consent in Indiana is 16. That is also the age of consent in federal territories. Rinehart got into legal trouble because one of the girls mentioned to him that she had posed for sexually provocative photos for a previous boyfriend and offered to do the same for Rinehart. Rinehart lent her his camera, which she returned with the promised photos. Rinehart and both girls then took additional photos and at least one video, which he downloaded to his computer.

Brooke Shields 15 years, re-victimized millions of times whenever someone looks at the photo. The girl produced, possessed, distributed child porn. Why is she not in jail?  So she will learn not to victimize herself with her own photos! And the previous boy friend! Why has the FBI not arrested him yet?

In 2007 Rinehart was convicted on two federal charges of producing child pornography. U.S. District Court Judge David Hamilton, who now serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, reluctantly sentenced Rinehart to 15 years in prison. Thanks to mandatory minimum sentences, Hamilton wrote, his hands were tied. There is no parole in the federal prison system. So barring an unlikely grant of clemency from the president, Rinehart, who is serving his time at a medium-security prison in Pennsylvania, will have to complete at least 85 percent of his term (assuming time off for good behavior), or nearly 13 years.

Hamilton was not permitted to consider any mitigating factors in sentencing Rinehart. It did not matter that Rinehart’s sexual relationships with the two girls were legal. Nor did it matter that the photos for which he was convicted never went beyond his computer. Rinehart had no prior criminal history, and there was no evidence he had ever possessed or searched for child pornography on his computer. There was also no evidence that he abused his position as a police officer to lure the two women into sex. His crime was producing for his own use explicit images of two physically mature women with whom he was legally having sex. (Both women also could have legally married Rinehart without their parents’ consent, although it’s unclear whether federal law would have permitted a prosecution of Rinehart for photographing his own wife.)  You Can Have Sex With Them; Just Don’t Photograph Them

Of course not. Why would one have the right to stay out of jail for photographing the own wife if she is under 18? The wife needs to be protected, by putting her husband in jail for a decade or two.  Remember, each time someone looks at child pornography, the child is victimized.  Even if the adolescent can be fully clothed in a movie, it still can be child pornography (Knox vs. USA).

The girl is in urgent need of protection. Locking away her beloved boy friend is for 1-2 decades is for her own good. He is a creep anyway, what does a 34 year old do with TWO girl friends, 16 and 17 years old? He deserves 15 years in jail. The antifeminist is right: these laws are to instill terror in men, so they will not even look at or talk to women under 25.

Even if the woman presents you a fake ID, you still go to jail for sex or child porn. Women with fake ID need protection too.

In his sentencing statement, Hamilton urges executive clemency for Rinehart. He points out that under federal law Rinehart received the same sentence someone convicted of hijacking an airplane or second-degree murder would receive. For a bank robber to get Rinehart’s sentence, Hamilton writes, “he would need to fire a gun, inflict serious bodily injury on a victim, physically restrain another victim, and get away with the stunning total of $2.5 million.”

Capricious cruel senseless punishment

Having provocative photos of your 16 year old girl friend needs a much higher jail term then inflicting serious bodily injury while robbing a bank.  And you thought laws are supposed to make sense?

Is this not senseless, capricious, cruel, unnecessary punishment for photographing perfectly legal acts that harm nobody? Big government infringing on individual freedom without any need whatsoever? Is this not a human rights violation?

But, this is the essence of victimless crime. Punishing people for private use of fairly harmless drugs, or for consensual polygamy among Mormon adults is similar.

Sex is legal, but sensual erotic photos require a 15 year jail sentence. 34 year old Rinehart has relation with 16 and 17 year old girls, above the age of consent in Indiana.

Whatever you might think of Rinehart’s judgment or ethics, his relationships with the girls weren’t illegal. The age of consent in Indiana is 16. That is also the age of consent in federal territories. Rinehart got into legal trouble because one of the girls mentioned to him that she had posed for sexually provocative photos for a previous boyfriend and offered to do the same for Rinehart. Rinehart lent her his camera, which she returned with the promised photos. Rinehart and both girls then took additional photos and at least one video, which he downloaded to his computer.

Brooke Shields 15 years, re-victimized millions of times whenever someone looks at the photo. The girl produced, possessed, distributed child porn. Why is she not in jail?  So she will learn not to victimize herself with her own photos! And the previous boy friend! Why has the FBI not arrested him yet?

In 2007 Rinehart was convicted on two federal charges of producing child pornography. U.S. District Court Judge David Hamilton, who now serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, reluctantly sentenced Rinehart to 15 years in prison. Thanks to mandatory minimum sentences, Hamilton wrote, his hands were tied. There is no parole in the federal prison system. So barring an unlikely grant of clemency from the president, Rinehart, who is serving his time at a medium-security prison in Pennsylvania, will have to complete at least 85 percent of his term (assuming time off for good behavior), or nearly 13 years.

Hamilton was not permitted to consider any mitigating factors in sentencing Rinehart. It did not matter that Rinehart’s sexual relationships with the two girls were legal. Nor did it matter that the photos for which he was convicted never went beyond his computer. Rinehart had no prior criminal history, and there was no evidence he had ever possessed or searched for child pornography on his computer. There was also no evidence that he abused his position as a police officer to lure the two women into sex. His crime was producing for his own use explicit images of two physically mature women with whom he was legally having sex. (Both women also could have legally married Rinehart without their parents’ consent, although it’s unclear whether federal law would have permitted a prosecution of Rinehart for photographing his own wife.)  You Can Have Sex With Them; Just Don’t Photograph Them

Of course not. Why would one have the right to stay out of jail for photographing the own wife if she is under 18? The wife needs to be protected, by putting her husband in jail for a decade or two.  Remember, each time someone looks at child pornography, the child is victimized.  Even if the adolescent can be fully clothed in a movie, it still can be child pornography (Knox vs. USA).

The girl is in urgent need of protection. Locking away her beloved boy friend is for 1-2 decades is for her own good. He is a creep anyway, what does a 34 year old do with TWO girl friends, 16 and 17 years old? He deserves 15 years in jail. The antifeminist is right: these laws are to instill terror in men, so they will not even look at or talk to women under 25.

Even if the woman presents you a fake ID, you still go to jail for sex or child porn. Women with fake ID need protection too. 

 

In his sentencing statement, Hamilton urges executive clemency for Rinehart. He points out that under federal law Rinehart received the same sentence someone convicted of hijacking an airplane or second-degree murder would receive. For a bank robber to get Rinehart’s sentence, Hamilton writes, "he would need to fire a gun, inflict serious bodily injury on a victim, physically restrain another victim, and get away with the stunning total of $2.5 million."

Having provocative photos of your 16 year old girl friend needs a much higher jail term then inflicting serious bodily injury while robbing a bank.  And you thought laws are supposed to make sense?

Sex is legal, but sensual erotic photos require a 15 year jail sentence. 34 year old Rinehart has relation with 16 and 17 year old girls, above the age of consent in Indiana.

Whatever you might think of Rinehart’s judgment or ethics, his relationships with the girls weren’t illegal. The age of consent in Indiana is 16. That is also the age of consent in federal territories. Rinehart got into legal trouble because one of the girls mentioned to him that she had posed for sexually provocative photos for a previous boyfriend and offered to do the same for Rinehart. Rinehart lent her his camera, which she returned with the promised photos. Rinehart and both girls then took additional photos and at least one video, which he downloaded to his computer.

Brooke Shields 15 years, re-victimized millions of times whenever someone looks at the photo. The girl produced, possessed, distributed child porn. Why is she not in jail?  So she will learn not to victimize herself with her own photos! And the previous boy friend! Why has the FBI not arrested him yet?

In 2007 Rinehart was convicted on two federal charges of producing child pornography. U.S. District Court Judge David Hamilton, who now serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, reluctantly sentenced Rinehart to 15 years in prison. Thanks to mandatory minimum sentences, Hamilton wrote, his hands were tied. There is no parole in the federal prison system. So barring an unlikely grant of clemency from the president, Rinehart, who is serving his time at a medium-security prison in Pennsylvania, will have to complete at least 85 percent of his term (assuming time off for good behavior), or nearly 13 years.

Hamilton was not permitted to consider any mitigating factors in sentencing Rinehart. It did not matter that Rinehart’s sexual relationships with the two girls were legal. Nor did it matter that the photos for which he was convicted never went beyond his computer. Rinehart had no prior criminal history, and there was no evidence he had ever possessed or searched for child pornography on his computer. There was also no evidence that he abused his position as a police officer to lure the two women into sex. His crime was producing for his own use explicit images of two physically mature women with whom he was legally having sex. (Both women also could have legally married Rinehart without their parents’ consent, although it’s unclear whether federal law would have permitted a prosecution of Rinehart for photographing his own wife.)  You Can Have Sex With Them; Just Don’t Photograph Them

Of course not. Why would one have the right to stay out of jail for photographing the own wife if she is under 18? The wife needs to be protected, by putting her husband in jail for a decade or two.  Remember, each time someone looks at child pornography, the child is victimized.  Even if the adolescent can be fully clothed in a movie, it still can be child pornography (Knox vs. USA).

The girl is in urgent need of protection. Locking away her beloved boy friend is for 1-2 decades is for her own good. He is a creep anyway, what does a 34 year old do with TWO girl friends, 16 and 17 years old? He deserves 15 years in jail. The antifeminist is right: these laws are to instill terror in men, so they will not even look at or talk to women under 25.

Even if the woman presents you a fake ID, you still go to jail for sex or child porn. Women with fake ID need protection too. 

 

In his sentencing statement, Hamilton urges executive clemency for Rinehart. He points out that under federal law Rinehart received the same sentence someone convicted of hijacking an airplane or second-degree murder would receive. For a bank robber to get Rinehart’s sentence, Hamilton writes, "he would need to fire a gun, inflict serious bodily injury on a victim, physically restrain another victim, and get away with the stunning total of $2.5 million."

Having provocative photos of your 16 year old girl friend needs a much higher jail term then inflicting serious bodily injury while robbing a bank.  And you thought laws are supposed to make sense?

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Mandatory 15 years jail for photos of legal girl friend: You Can Have Sex With Them; Just Don’t Photograph Them” »
Mandatory 15 years jail for photos of legal girl friend: You Can H…
» continues here »

Legal right to renounce child support empowers women, increases birth rates

Contractual freedom to agree about child support rights

Many women want to have a baby, but, for some reason, don’t find the appropriate man or husband. A man willing to the father and take on fatherly duties. The typical solution is to “forget” to take the pill or just let the man falsely assume she is taking birth control.

child-support-hearing1) Women should have right to renounce rights to father’s child support

We propose that

a) A woman should be empowered to contractually agree with a man to have his baby and not demand any child support.

Advantages:

  1. In most developed countries, more babies are urgently needed. This probably will lead to higher birth rates. The richer, more educated, more capacitated women will have children of their choice, that are wanted.
  2. No manipulation needed, no dishonesty about accidentally “forgotten birth control” to get pregnant against the man’s expressed wish
  3. female empowerment: the woman can have her wish, pick the father of her choice and have a baby.
      1. Most men would feel honored to be chosen as a father, without being obliged to support the baby nor having to get along with the woman for the next 20 years.
      2. many men would, voluntarily, by mutual agreement give some aid and support in child raising, in spite of the waiver.
  4. funny-pictures-child-support-catIt fixes our perverted system in which
    1. the most irresponsible and uncontrolled, least intelligent and poorest men have the most offspring
      1. these people are the most unfit genetically (their offspring will be less intelligent and have less self control)
      2. these people are also most unfit as parents and educators: they are less responsible, less intelligent
      3. these people are less unfit financially to provide a good home
    2. society pays for these offspring, with welfare that often encourages the poor to have more offspring to receive more money. These children are not welcome and loved, they are either accidents or planned to increase welfare income. A bad and traumatic start of a life for a baby.
    3. The well-to-do fear child support payments. Poor deadbeats that are unable to pay, and anonymous one night stances can get unlimited offspring without legal and financial responsibility
  5. island-child-supportb) A man should be allowed to contractually assume all child care and support obligations after birth

    Equally, a man can agree to take a child, after birth, assuming all child care and support.

    This might convince a woman to forego abortion, or to become pregnant.

    This ultimately empowers women, because it still is fully her choice to decide to terminate a pregnancy. She might find it attractive to have a baby without obligations.

    Or she might do it as favor for the man, almost like a surrogate pregnancy.

    All this would help to increase birth rate and reduce the population shortage problem in developed countries.

    Who will pay for children’s needs?

    If one party was relieved of his/her obligation, the other party.

    1. The party that took up the contractual obligation, mostly the mother. After all are women not empowered and independent? Don’t women have professions, salary, self sufficiency. Women did this for centuries and millennia, before the advent of liberated professional women and welfare.
    2. Welfare support. Government already pays support for children of deadbeat dads and moms in poverty. Why can’t they pay for the honest working tax paying father? Whoever took up the responsibility should pay him/herself, unless they are below poverty level.

    Your comments are welcome

    All this is a suggestion and, of course, open to discussion. Please comment

    Contractual freedom to agree about child support rights

    Many women want to have a baby, but, for some reason, don’t find the appropriate man or husband. A man willing to the father and assume fatherly duties. The typical solution is to dupe a man into fatherhood by lying about birth control.

    child-support-hearing1) Women should have right to renounce rights to father’s child support

    We propose that

    a) A woman should be empowered to contractually agree with a man to have his baby and not demand any child support.

    Advantages:

    1. In most developed countries, more babies are urgently needed. This probably will lead to higher birth rates. The richer, more educated, more capacitated women will have children of their choice, that are wanted.
    2. No manipulation needed, no dishonesty about accidentally "forgotten birth control" to get pregnant against the man’s expressed wish
    3. female empowerment: the woman can have her wish, pick the father of her choice and have a baby.
      1. Most men would feel honored to be chosen as a father, without being obliged to support the baby nor having to get along with the woman for the next 20 years.
      2. many men would, voluntarily, by mutual agreement give some aid and support in child raising, in spite of the waiver.
  6. funny-pictures-child-support-catIt fixes our perverted system in which
    1. the most irresponsible and uncontrolled, least intelligent and poorest men have the most offspring
      1. these people are the most unfit genetically (their offspring will be less intelligent and have less self control)
      2. these people are also most unfit as parents and educators: they are less responsible, less intelligent
      3. these people are less unfit financially to provide a good home
    2. society pays for these offspring, with welfare that often encourages the poor to have more offspring to receive more money. These children are not welcome and loved, they are either accidents or planned to increase welfare income. A bad and traumatic start of a life for a baby.
    3. The well-to-do fear child support payments. Poor deadbeats that are unable to pay, and anonymous one night stances can get unlimited offspring without legal and financial responsibility
  7. island-child-supportb) A man should be allowed to contractually assume all child care and support obligations after birth

    Equally, a man can agree to take a child, after birth, assuming all child care and support.

    This might convince a woman to forego abortion, or to become pregnant.

    This ultimately empowers women, because it still is fully her choice to decide to terminate a pregnancy. She might find it attractive to have a baby without obligations.

    Or she might do it as favor for the man, almost like a surrogate pregnancy.

    All this would help to increase birth rate and reduce the population shortage problem in developed countries.

    Who will pay for children’s needs?

    If one party was relieved of his/her obligation, the other party.

    1. The party that took up the contractual obligation, mostly the mother. After all are women not empowered and independent? Don’t women have professions, salary, self sufficiency. Women did this for centuries and millennia, before the advent of liberated professional women and welfare.
    2. Welfare support. Government already pays support for children of deadbeat dads and moms in poverty. Why can’t they pay for the honest working tax paying father? Whoever took up the responsibility should pay him/herself, unless they are below poverty level.

    Your comments are welcome

    All this is a suggestion and, of course, open to discussion. Please comment

    Contractual freedom to agree about child support rights

    Many women want to have a baby, but, for some reason, don’t find the appropriate man or husband. A man willing to the father and assume fatherly duties. The typical solution is to dupe a man into fatherhood by lying about birth control.

    child-support-hearing1) Women should have right to renounce rights to father’s child support

    We propose that

    a) A woman should be empowered to contractually agree with a man to have his baby and not demand any child support.

    Advantages:

    1. In most developed countries, more babies are urgently needed. This probably will lead to higher birth rates. The richer, more educated, more capacitated women will have children of their choice, that are wanted.
    2. No manipulation needed, no dishonesty about accidentally "forgotten birth control" to get pregnant against the man’s expressed wish
    3. female empowerment: the woman can have her wish, pick the father of her choice and have a baby.
      1. Most men would feel honored to be chosen as a father, without being obliged to support the baby nor having to get along with the woman for the next 20 years.
      2. many men would, voluntarily, by mutual agreement give some aid and support in child raising, in spite of the waiver.
  8. funny-pictures-child-support-catIt fixes our perverted system in which
    1. the most irresponsible and uncontrolled, least intelligent and poorest men have the most offspring
      1. these people are the most unfit genetically (their offspring will be less intelligent and have less self control)
      2. these people are also most unfit as parents and educators: they are less responsible, less intelligent
      3. these people are less unfit financially to provide a good home
    2. society pays for these offspring, with welfare that often encourages the poor to have more offspring to receive more money. These children are not welcome and loved, they are either accidents or planned to increase welfare income. A bad and traumatic start of a life for a baby.
    3. The well-to-do fear child support payments. Poor deadbeats that are unable to pay, and anonymous one night stances can get unlimited offspring without legal and financial responsibility
  9. island-child-supportb) A man should be allowed to contractually assume all child care and support obligations after birth

    Equally, a man can agree to take a child, after birth, assuming all child care and support.

    This might convince a woman to forego abortion, or to become pregnant.

    This ultimately empowers women, because it still is fully her choice to decide to terminate a pregnancy. She might find it attractive to have a baby without obligations.

    Or she might do it as favor for the man, almost like a surrogate pregnancy.

    All this would help to increase birth rate and reduce the population shortage problem in developed countries.

    Who will pay for children’s needs?

    If one party was relieved of his/her obligation, the other party.

    1. The party that took up the contractual obligation, mostly the mother. After all are women not empowered and independent? Don’t women have professions, salary, self sufficiency. Women did this for centuries and millennia, before the advent of liberated professional women and welfare.
    2. Welfare support. Government already pays support for children of deadbeat dads and moms in poverty. Why can’t they pay for the honest working tax paying father? Whoever took up the responsibility should pay him/herself, unless they are below poverty level.

    Your comments are welcome

    All this is a suggestion and, of course, open to discussion. Please comment

    Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Legal right to renounce child support empowers women, increases birth rates” »
    Legal right to renounce child support empowers women, increases bi…
    » continues here »

    Jezebel sucks: feminist excuse female child killer LaShanda Armstrong, instantly delete dissent

    LaShanda Armstrong killed herself, tried to kill her four children. One managed to escape her grip.
    Jezebel-sucks.com is trying to psycho-analyze the poor woman.

    Blame Husband’s infidelity

    Bossip.com even finds a way to blame the father’s infidelity for it: The serial cheater who berated his longtime girlfriend just before she drowned herself and their three kids in the Hudson River won’t face any charges in the tragic deaths

    Jezebel-sucks deletes dissent

    Human-Stupidity posted a comment on Jezebel that this is a psycho assassin infanticidal mother. We mentioned that feminists would not look for psychological explanations if the father were the assassin like father shot family dead.
    It took Jezebel.com-sucks 8 entire minutes, at 7 am, to delete our comment. Admirable efficiency. Dissenting opinions are not welcome. 

    Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

    Armstrong, 25, drowned along with 5-year-old Landon, 2-year-old Lance and 11-month-old Lainaina. Only her 10-year-son Lashaun escaped the tan van turned death trap NY Daily News

    Of course we, unwisely, could not refrain from mentioning that if the father had slightly fondled the kids in wrong ways, they would not try to find deep motivations in the father’s past but rather want to jail him for 20 years.
    (no, we don’t condone inappropriate fondling of children, but we think that assassination is a much more serious crime. See our teenage sexuality and child porn witch hunt topics)

    River Murder-Suicide Mom’s Tragic Final Moments

    Tragic final moments of the murderer?  a multiple child assassin? What about the tragic moment of the drowning kids? And the grieving father?

    Anna North — A day after a Newburgh, New York mom killed herself and her children by driving into the Hudson River, interviews with survivors reveal some clues about her emotional state — and the family problems she was struggling with. River Murder-Suicide Mom’s Tragic Final Moments | Jezebel sucks

    Her emotional thought? that is the fist thing feminists at Jezebel-sucks think after a multiple child assassination. Pre-meditated. Even announced it on Facebook!

    lashanda-armstrong-facebook

    According to her surviving son, ten-year-old Lashaun, she told her kids "I’m sorry, I’m going to do something crazy," and "If I’m going to die, you’re going to die with me." But just before Lashaun escaped the sinking van, she grabbed his pant leg and said, "I made a mistake."

    jezebel-sucks-ashandra-armstrong-suicide3While your car is sinking you hold your kid by the pant legs to have a chat? Probably she tried to hold him by the pant leg so he would drown too. My suspicion is confirmed by the MSNBC TV report. Obviously she was not sorry enough so she would try to save the kids.

    Initial reports made it sound like Armstrong had intentionally let Lashaun out of the car, but it now appears that he slid out through a window and swam back to shore,

    No, she wanted to kill the fourth child too.

    The newspaper quoted Ryan as saying that Lashaun’s mother held her children as the minivan slipped into the river, saying: "If I’m going to die, you’re going to die with me." MSNBC

    It is the father’s fault!

    It is unbelievable. We thought Jezebel was bad. It can get worse:

    Epitome Of A Bad Father: Deadbeat Dad Won’t Face Charges Even Though His Restraining Order Violation Drove Ex To Drown Herself And Their Kids

    Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Jezebel sucks: feminist excuse female child killer LaShanda Armstrong, instantly delete dissent” »
    Jezebel sucks: feminist excuse female child killer LaShanda Armstr…
    » continues here »

    Jörg Kachelmann rape trial of the year (Germany): prosecutor misconduct, victim’s lies

    kachelmann-bild.deThe Kachelmann case is in Germany almost like OJ Simpson case: a very famous person is accused of a heinous crime, and the population is split on their guilty-or-not verdict.  In the Kachelmann ("Tile man") case, of course, it is not even assured that a crime has happened. Feminists think he is guilty, of course.  "The criminal case of the year" in Germany is almost unknown in the English speaking Press. Only Human-Stupidity has reported com regularity on the Jörg Kachelmann rape case.

    Jörg Kachelmann, handsome, attractive and famous weather anchor man of a main German TV channel, had a dozen girl friends he juggled skillfully so each one thought she was the only one. Even if he did not rape, such immorality makes him almost a criminal. Tens of Millions see him every day on TV. A famous, well known person.

    In our world of feminist inspired laws, any man can be arrested at any time. Just one woman making an unproven accusation of rape is all that is needed. The Magna Carta, modern constitution and due process are not valid for males, Jörg Kachelmann spent several months in jail, upon the mere word of one woman, with no corroborating proof. End of career as weather man. No way to broadcast weather reports out of jail. Career destroyed.

    It turns out that there was grave misconduct of the prosecutors, from the beginning. Inquired by prosecutors, the alleged victim consistently insisted on a lie. Prosecutors warned her she must not lie, and she insisted. "Der Spiegel" recently reported that the prosecution failed to video or audio-tape the audition of the alleged victim, even when they were trying to dig deeper into her lies. They even failed to completely transcribe the conversation with the victim, with a gap at a crucial point where prosecutors allegedly only drank water or coffee with the accuser, for 20 minutes. After that coffee break she changed her story.

    Furthermore, prosecutors stated that the clearly repeated lies, proven wrong by evidence on the accuser’s computer, did not cause any doubt in them regarding the veracity of the accusations, nor made them even consider releasing the accused from prison. (Geliebte belog die Staatsanwälte // Lover lied to the prosecutors)

    Cat Lupine managed to get into the transmission room in the midst of Kachelmann’s weather report. The video went viral in YouTube.

    What happened? Rape accusations, lies, inconsistencies.

    Reader comments at the intellectual News Magazine "Der Spiegel" are fairly outspoken about the fact that this trial should have never happened, and that it is time to try the accuser for perjury and false accusations. Human-Stupidity is not alone thinking this case is a clear farce and an example of "Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned" revenge.

    Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Jörg Kachelmann rape trial of the year (Germany): prosecutor misconduct, victim’s lies” »
    Jörg Kachelmann rape trial of the year (Germany): prosecutor …
    » continues here »

    Rio de Janeiro School Gunman Serial Killer Blames Bullying, Praises Casey Hines’ Bully Body Slam

    wellington-menezes-de-oliveira-gunman-bully-victim

    Wellington Menezes de Oliveira, gunman killer that killed 12 students last week in Rio de Janeiro, left videos where he says he is taking revenge for having been bullied and for all other bullying victims.

    Human-Stupidity does not defend serial killers. But, everyone should have a right to physical safety. Physical abuse like being dumped into garbage cans, dunked into toilets, or getting tripped, punched, glasses broken clearly needs to be prevented.

    These behaviors are clearly criminal and would carry jail sentences if perpetrated among adults and tried in court. Of course, they are another example that violent crime, and crime against males, does not get the same legal and press attention as sex crimes (or criminalized normal consensual sexual behavior).

    In My 12 year old daughter brutally attacked by refugee boys at school. we quoted specialists saying that an essential element in bullying prevention is the interference of the silent majority, who should stop and discourage bully behavior.

    Photo and Video Gallery with Wellington Menezes de Oliveira, gunman school killer talking about himself having been bullied.

    "The fight that many brothers in the past have died for and that I will die for is not exclusively because of what is known as bullying. Our fight is against cruel, cowardly people who take advantage of kindness, innocence and weakness of people unable to defend themselves," he said. http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/americas/04/13/brazil.school.shooting/

    gunman-school-killer-wellington-menezesHe praises some other serial killers, but also a just slightly violent Casey Hines, a boy that violently body-slammed a school mate after getting punched the fourth time in a row and whose video went viral (see below).

    A Brazilian gunman who shot dead 12 children at his former school in Rio de Janeiro last week before killing himself was motivated by bullying, letters he wrote have revealed.

    The messages left by Wellington Menezes de Oliveira, 23, were released by police along with videos and photos.

    In them, he praises a US student who killed 32 people in 2007, calling him his "brother".

    Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Rio de Janeiro School Gunman Serial Killer Blames Bullying, Praises Casey Hines’ Bully Body Slam” »
    Rio de Janeiro School Gunman Serial Killer Blames Bullying, Praise…
    » continues here »

    Consensual sex becomes rape as soon as woman says "I need to go home", says California Supreme Court.

    "I-need-to-go-home" means "stop". ?And failing to stop in the midst of consensual sex is "rape".  A boy who failed to read the girl’s mind and make the appropriate interpretion of her cryptic comments was sent to jail for "I-need-to-to-home"-rape or "can’t-understand-women’s-subtle-hints-rape".

    It is none of the 20 types of rape,  and different from the "5-second-rape" where the "Stop" was explicit and clear. So we are up to 21 types of rape and counting.

    During consensual sex girl says "I need to go home" and "I should be going now".  "No" means "No", and "I should be going now" means "Stop".   Women like men to read their mind and understand their indirect speech. But failure to understand a woman’s veiled hint now is punishable with long jail terms for"rape".

    In our modern language aberration, everything is the same:  there is no difference between "forcible rape at knife point", taking 5 seconds to stop consensual sex when the girl says "stop" ("5-second-rape"), or taking 90 seconds to understand the deeper meaning of "I should be going now", all is the same: "rape". Our language is becoming more and more impoverished and is losing its precision and subltety, thanks to feminist manipulative language that sees only black and white with no nuances.

    The 2000 case involved two 17-year-olds who had sex in a bedroom during a party. The boy testified that the sex was consensual and that he stopped when the girl demanded. She testified the boy kept having sex with her for about a "minute and a half" after she called it off.

    The boy was convicted of rape and served about six months in a juvenile facility. The high court affirmed that conviction Monday.

    Justice Janice Rogers Brown, while agreeing with the majority on what constitutes rape, dissented on whether the boy was guilty. She wrote that the girl never clearly said stop, instead saying "I should be going now" and "I need to go home."

    Brown also wondered how much time a man has to stop once a woman says stop.

    "Ten seconds? Thirty?" she wrote.   foxnews.com

    Freerepublic reports on the "I-should-be-going-rape". The comments of the Free Republic readers are enlightening.

    Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Consensual sex becomes rape as soon as woman says "I need to go home", says California Supreme Court.” »
    Consensual sex becomes rape as soon as woman says "I need to …
    » continues here »

    "Rape is rape is rape" is a lie, Joe Biden! 20 different types of rape!

    "Rape" means a dozen different things. They are not the same! What perfidy:

    1. "Rape" had a clear, well defined meaning for thousands of years, until re-defined by feminists. The re-defined "rape" includes half a dozen acts that formerly had their own names and were not rape.
    2. Then vice president Biden comes hammering that all these dozen types of rape are the same. This is deceptive, because most of his listeners imagine he is talking about true-forcible-rape, not about Swedish-broken-condom-rape, 5-second-rape, consensual-sex-with-adolescent-girlfriend-future-wife-rape, duped-by-victim-into-raping-her-rape or didn’t-get-consent-in-writing-rape.
    3. This purposeful politically motivated rape ambiguity leads to equivocation and misunderstandings.  This must be intentional and can only be politically motivated, because everywhere else we take pride in defining terms clearly, succinctly, concisely and unambiguously.  (other exceptions are the closely related definitions of consent, child,

     

    Joe Biden: "Rape is rape is rape" | YouTube

    Vice president Joe Biden, praising the University of New Hampshire’s sexual assault policy, Biden said: "rape is rape is rape".

    Vice president Joe Biden said more stupid and patently wrong things on that day, but that is beyond the scope of our article. See:
    Are One in Five College Women Sexually Assaulted? (The vice president buys into the campus-rape lie.) He fell prey, or rather is part of the relentless feminist lie and deception campaign to bedevil men as rapists.

     

    Rape is not rape is not rape is not rape

    Rape is ill defined, is ill defined, is ill defined. Dozens of types-of-rape

    "A rape is a rape is a rape" is a lie, Joe Biden! What perfidy! Manipulative ambiguity is perfidy.  Who thinks that all these are the same? It is an offense to victims of true-forcible-rape to conflate their true violent victimization with other kind of consensual rape.

     

    1) True-forcible-rape (rape-rape)

    A women gets threatened by 3 thugs with knives, dragged into the woods, held down, raped and beaten, while screaming. Dragging-into-the-bushes-at-knife-point-rape is the classical meaning of rape and is what most people imagine when they hear the word "rape".

    This is the perfidy of the language abuse regarding the meaning of the word "rape". It is difficult to justify a long prison term and sex offender registration for kissing-underage-girlfriend-rape. See Equivocation | Wikipedia

    rapist_Julian_Assange2) Swedish-broken-condom-rape 

    In the Julian Assange case, the women decided to press charges after they found out that Assange had sex with both of them (revenge-for-for-being-cheated-rape). They used a Swedish law that sex without condom is rape. This gained so much power because the United States (where broken-condoms-sex is not rape) wants to punish Julian Assange for unusual and unprecedented publishing-confidential-documents-rape  (see cartoon)

    3) Consensual-sex-with-adolescent-girl-friend-rape

    "Rape" means a dozen different things. They are not the same! What perfidy:

    1. "Rape" had a clear, well defined meaning for thousands of years, until re-defined by feminists. The re-defined "rape" includes half a dozen acts that formerly had their own names and were not rape.
    2. Then vice president Biden comes hammering that all these dozen types of rape are the same. This is deceptive, because most of his listeners imagine he is talking about true-forcible-rape, not about Swedish-broken-condom-rape, 5-second-rape, consensual-sex-with-adolescent-girlfriend-future-wife-rape, duped-by-victim-into-raping-her-rape or didn’t-get-consent-in-writing-rape.
    3. This purposeful politically motivated rape ambiguity leads to equivocation and misunderstandings.  This must be intentional and can only be politically motivated, because everywhere else we take pride in defining terms clearly, succinctly, concisely and unambiguously.  (other exceptions are the closely related definitions of consent, child,

     

    Joe Biden: "Rape is rape is rape"|YouTube

    Vice president Joe Biden, praising the University of New Hampshire’s sexual assault policy, Biden said: "rape is rape is rape".

    Vice president Joe Biden said more stupid and patently wrong things on that day, but that is beyond the scope of our article. See:
    Are One in Five College Women Sexually Assaulted? (The vice president buys into the campus-rape lie.) He fell prey, or rather is part of the relentless feminist lie and deception campaign to bedevil men as rapists.

     

    Rape is not rape is not rape is not rape

    Rape is ill defined, is ill defined, is ill defined. Dozens of types-of-rape

    "A rape is a rape is a rape" is a lie, Joe Biden! What perfidy! Manipulative ambiguity is perfidy.  Who thinks that all these are the same? It is an offense to victims of true-forcible-rape to conflate their true violent victimization with other kind of consensual rape.

     

    1) True-forcible-rape (rape-rape)

    A women gets threatened by 3 thugs with knives, dragged into the woods, held down, raped and beaten, while screaming. Dragging-into-the-bushes-at-knife-point-rape is the classical meaning of rape and is what most people imagine when they hear the word "rape".

    This is the perfidy of the language abuse regarding the meaning of the word "rape". It is difficult to justify a long prison term and sex offender registration for kissing-underage-girlfriend-rape. See Equivocation | Wikipedia

    rapist_Julian_Assange2) Swedish-broken-condom-rape 

    In the Julian Assange case, the women decided to press charges after they found out that Assange had sex with both of them (revenge-for-for-being-cheated-rape). They used a Swedish law that sex without condom is rape. This gained so much power because the United States (where broken-condoms-sex is not rape) wants to punish Julian Assange for unusual and unprecedented publishing-confidential-documents-rape  (see cartoon)

    3) Consensual-sex-with-adolescent-girl-friend-rape

    "Rape" means a dozen different things. They are not the same! What perfidy:

    1. "Rape" had a clear, well defined meaning for thousands of years, until re-defined by feminists. The re-defined "rape" includes half a dozen acts that formerly had their own names and were not rape.
    2. Then vice president Biden comes hammering that all these dozen types of rape are the same. This is deceptive, because most of his listeners imagine he is talking about true-forcible-rape, not about Swedish-broken-condom-rape, 5-second-rape, consensual-sex-with-adolescent-girlfriend-future-wife-rape, duped-by-victim-into-raping-her-rape or didn’t-get-consent-in-writing-rape.
    3. This purposeful politically motivated rape ambiguity leads to equivocation and misunderstandings.  This must be intentional and can only be politically motivated, because everywhere else we take pride in defining terms clearly, succinctly, concisely and unambiguously.  (other exceptions are the closely related definitions of consent, child,

     

    Joe Biden: "Rape is rape is rape"|YouTube

    Vice president Joe Biden, praising the University of New Hampshire’s sexual assault policy, Biden said: "rape is rape is rape".

    Vice president Joe Biden said more stupid and patently wrong things on that day, but that is beyond the scope of our article. See:
    Are One in Five College Women Sexually Assaulted? (The vice president buys into the campus-rape lie.) He fell prey, or rather is part of the relentless feminist lie and deception campaign to bedevil men as rapists.

     

    Rape is not rape is not rape is not rape

    Rape is ill defined, is ill defined, is ill defined. Dozens of types-of-rape

    "A rape is a rape is a rape" is a lie, Joe Biden! What perfidy! Manipulative ambiguity is perfidy.  Who thinks that all these are the same? It is an offense to victims of true-forcible-rape to conflate their true violent victimization with other kind of consensual rape.

     

    1) True-forcible-rape (rape-rape)

    A women gets threatened by 3 thugs with knives, dragged into the woods, held down, raped and beaten, while screaming. Dragging-into-the-bushes-at-knife-point-rape is the classical meaning of rape and is what most people imagine when they hear the word "rape".

    This is the perfidy of the language abuse regarding the meaning of the word "rape". It is difficult to justify a long prison term and sex offender registration for kissing-underage-girlfriend-rape. See Equivocation | Wikipedia

    rapist_Julian_Assange2) Swedish-broken-condom-rape 

    In the Julian Assange case, the women decided to press charges after they found out that Assange had sex with both of them (revenge-for-for-being-cheated-rape). They used a Swedish law that sex without condom is rape. This gained so much power because the United States (where broken-condoms-sex is not rape) wants to punish Julian Assange for unusual and unprecedented publishing-confidential-documents-rape  (see cartoon)

    3) Consensual-sex-with-adolescent-girl-friend-rape

    Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “"Rape is rape is rape" is a lie, Joe Biden! 20 different types of rape!” »
    "Rape is rape is rape" is a lie, Joe Biden! 20 different…
    » continues here »

    Rapists-proven-innocent are majority (57%) of prisoners released by Innocence Project

    153 of the 268  exonerations in the Innocence Project were for rape. This is 57.1 % rape convictions, we found in a search of the innocence project for "Rape".  A large number was due to eyewitness misidentification. People freed by DNA testing are freed because the innocence has been proven.

    This confirms the false rape society suspicion,  that people can easily be locked up for rape accusations, and that due process is violated especially in rape cases. 

     There have been 268 post-conviction DNA exonerations in United States history. These stories are becoming more familiar as more innocent people gain their freedom through postconviction testing. They are not proof, however, that our system is righting itself. # Seventeen people had been sentenced to death before DNA proved their innocence and led to their release.

  10. Seventeen people had been sentenced to death before DNA proved their innocence and led to their release.
  11. The average sentence served by DNA exonerees has been 13 years.
  12. About 70 percent of those exonerated by DNA testing are members of minority groups.
  13. In almost 40 percent of DNA exoneration cases, the actual perpetrator has been identified by DNA testing.
  14. Exonerations have been won in 34 states and Washington, D.C.

    Source: innocenceproject.org/know/

  15. The innocence Project is a national litigation and public policy organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals trough DNA testing and reforming the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice. innocenceproject.org/

    Kenny Waters, an innocence case that was not due to rape but murder and robbery conviction

    The listing of men convicted of rape and freed due to innocent project.

     

    Last First State Conviction Year Exoneration Date Real Perpetrator Found Compensation
    Abbitt Joseph NC 1995 2009 Not Yet Not Yet
    Abdal Habib Wahir NY 1983 1999 Not Yet Yes
    Adams Kenneth IL 1979 1996 Yes Yes
    Alexander Richard IN 1998 2001 Yes Not Yet
    Anderson Marvin VA 1982 2002 Yes Yes
    Atkins Herman CA 1988 2000 Not Yet Yes
    Barnes Steven NY 1989 2009 Not Yet Not Yet
    Bauer Chester MT 1983 1997 Not Yet Not Yet
    Bibbins Gene LA 1987 2003 Yes Yes
    Bivens Phillip MS 1980 2010 Yes Not Yet
    Bloodsworth Kirk MD 1985 1993 Yes Yes
    Booker Donte OH 1987 2005 Yes Yes
    Bradford Ted WA 1996 2010 Not Yet Not Yet
    Bravo Mark Diaz CA 1990 1994 Not Yet Yes
    Briscoe Johnny MO 1983 2006 Yes Not Yet
    Brison Dale PA 1990 1994 Not Yet Not Yet
    Brown Dennis LA 1985 2005 Not Yet Not Yet
    Brown Keith NC 1993 1997 Yes Yes
    Bryson David Johns OK 1983 2003 Not Yet Not Yet
    Buntin Harold IN 1986 2005 Not Yet Not Yet
    Burnette Victor VA 1979 2009 Not Yet Not Yet
    Butler A.B. TX 1983 2000 Not Yet Yes
    Byrd Kevin TX 1985 1997 Not Yet Yes

    These were the last names starting with letters A and B. Click on "more" to see the rest of the alphabet.

     

    Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Rapists-proven-innocent are majority (57%) of prisoners released by Innocence Project” »
    Rapists-proven-innocent are majority (57%) of prisoners released b…
    » continues here »