6-year-old charged with sexual assault for consensual doctor play

Grant County authorities have accused a 6-year-old boy of first-degree sexual assault of a child for allegedly playing “doctor” with a 5-year-old girl in September.

The case, which is plowing new legal ground in Wisconsin, calls into question when a child’s act can be considered criminal — particularly when it involves behavior some experts say is normal for children that age —

Normal behavior is criminalized (Overcriminalization)

Of course, normal behavior is criminalized at all ages. Playing doctor for kids, adolescent sexuality later, sexting and photographing legal sex acts (child pornography). Or attraction of grown men to adolescent women. All is illegal.

According to the petition for protection or services filed Nov. 12, the girl’s mother found her daughter in the boy’s yard “with her skirt and underpants around her ankles” and the boy sitting underneath her, penetrating her with his finger. The petition alleges the boy “did have sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 12.”

State law defines sexual intercourse, in part, as “intrusion, however slight, of any part of a person’s body.”

Toddlers need legal counsel and classes in stupid adult sex laws

The boy failed to read Human-Stupidity.com’s advice about playing doctor

Typical problems:

  • Only one witness, the mother. If she has a grudge with the boy, his family, or if she is mentally instable suffering from phantasies, her accusation is accepted.
    • The daughter, after being exposed to mother’s hysteria, is not a reliable witness.
    • The boy’s confession to the mother is hearsay. He needs to be read his Miranda rights and be advised to plead the 5th (not to say anything because he could incriminate himself).
    • Furthermore the boy is not fit to stand trial
    • I know, this is ridiculous.
  • language abuse: slightest penetration with the finger is called "sexual intercourse". Why does modern feminist inspired law have to pervert our language?
  • Discrimination against males: why can’t the girl be guilty for statutory rape?
  • No Romeo and Juliet clause for being of similar age

The girl told her mother they were playing “butt doctor” and told authorities the boy only touched her on the outside of her body, court documents state. A third child, a 5-year-old boy, also was with them, but he did not touch her inappropriately, the girl said.

All hinges on mother’s statement. Maybe she is hysterical?

Judge Leineweber refused to dismiss the petitions, saying the relevant part of the sexual assault allegation is the mother’s observations.  Case asks: Can a 6-year-old commit sexual assault?

Next problem:

  • confounding consensual* acts with sexual assault. Did he hold down the girl against her will? Yes, I know, the girl is unable to consent. So is the boy.

The boy needed only to have penetrated the girl and known she was under a certain age, he wrote, adding, “Even the most immature 6-year-old could appreciate these two concepts.”

Why should a 6-year-old know that playing doctor is a felony? Did we teach him?

Why should a boy understand that playing doctor is a heinous crime?  That is about as asinine as criminalizing taking one’s own photos.

has he been taught that in school? Is teaching stupid adult laws a mandatory kindergarten subject? Is Human-Stupidity’s playing doctor advice. Our blog must be mandatory reading in kindergarten.

Why should 6-year-old boys know that consensual doctor play constitutes sexual assault?

He  probably does not know what sex is. But he knows what consent is and the girl certainly consented.

The most immature 6-year-old understands the concept of consent. Adults and judges don’t understand the difference between consensual*  activities and sexual assault/rape.

Playing doctor is normal for 6-year-olds

The boy’s lawyer, Stephen Eisenberg of Madison, called the allegations “crazy” and said he has never heard of a 6-year-old being accused of first-degree sexual assault. The boy is now 7.

Right. A sensible comment.

Sexual exploration normal in young

Dr. Lucy Berliner, director of Harborview Center for Sexual Assault and Traumatic Stress in Seattle, Wash., said it is “completely outside” accepted medical practice to characterize a 6-year-old’s actions as sexual assault.

Another sensible comment

Read the entire case: Case asks: Can a 6-year-old commit sexual assault?

"Protection from Abuse" (restraining) order is Abuse

Restraining orders or protection-from-abuse orders from a random stranger are not a big deal. But if you are ordered to stay away from your home, your kids, your documents, your clothing, your medicines, your library, computer, then this is a disaster.

Restraining order to immediately stay away from own house,
all belongings, documents, clothing, children?

How can you be kicked out of your own home, with no prior warning, no chance to take your ID and documents, pick up a change of underwear, not even your credit card so you can buy underwear. But you have the obligation to continue paying the mortgage, or rent, are prohibited to even send a text message to your kids.  If this is a shared marital home, it is very bad. If this is the man’s home and the complainant a mere girl friend he allowed to live there, that now kicks him out of his own property and home, the injustice is worse.

protection-from-abuse-temporary-restraining-orderThis restraining order has the same effect as if a tsunami or tornado had passed over one’s home. Immediate homelessness, living on the street. But it is worse. After a tsunami, one can go back to the remnants of the home and try to find one’s Identification papers, and also has a chance to find a shelter. And all this basically with no due process, with no proof, and for crimes as simple as allegations of annoying a woman, without corroborating proof.

Slightest violation of unjustified protection from abuse/ restraining order:
mandatory felony jail terms

Any innocent unintended violation of a restraining order leads to mandatory felony jail terms as happened to Dr. Emerson.  His life was ruined due to unproven (probably false accusations), a protection from abuse/restraining order and the consequential criminalization of his perfectly legal gun collection. 

Why can’t she leave if she feels threatened?

Why can’t she leave if she feels threatened? Even if he committed violence, a man’s home should be sacred. 

Whoever is the main home owner, the main tenant, the payee of rent should have the right to stay.  Are there no constitutional protections? This is worse then anything I have read about the worst dictatorships.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “"Protection from Abuse" (restraining) order is Abuse” »
"Protection from Abuse" (restraining) order is Abuse
» continues here »