#1 By: Rob Beschizza, December 12th, 2013 09:57
#2 By: euansmith, December 12th, 2013 10:06
#3 By: Stephen Schenck, December 12th, 2013 10:13
My understanding is that he didn't beat up the kid for "dating" his relative, but after walking in on the kid in the middle of having sex with said relative.
Not that it justifies things, but let's be clear here: it's not like he flipped out just because the kid asked his relative out to the box social.
#4 By: Jonas Eggeater, December 12th, 2013 10:14
Wouldn't have even come CLOSE to making national news if he hadn't been a teacher.
#5 By: Negatron, December 12th, 2013 10:25
Why is this even on boingboing?
#6 By: Mujokan, December 12th, 2013 10:25
Muzzle-loaded pistols at dawn or GTFO.
#7 By: Gloster, December 12th, 2013 10:30
Since he "walked in on the kid" after violently invading his house, this hardly serves as a mitigating factor. What if he had kicked down the door and then found them watching a movie? "Sorry kids, just checking, never mind the hinges."
But I agree that the only thing giving this ugly but otherwise pretty low-key story any play is the offender's profession.
#8 By: The Mudshark, December 12th, 2013 10:32
"We appreciate the charges, their seriousness, but believe he will be vindicated under the class ‘defense of others’.”
“It is reasonable that he snapped. ... I can’t say the rest of us wouldn’t have over reacted [sic] as well.”
Repressed Violent Assholes™ – protecting teenagers from evil sekkkksss by beating up other teenagers half our own size since the beginning of puritan society.
#9 By: El_Acordeonachi, December 12th, 2013 10:35
House locks are your friends. Granted, probably wouldn't have stopped this guy from going all, "Here's Johnny!", but at least you'd have more warning so you can quick get dressed and break out the bibles. "Honestly sir, we felt the need for some bible study to save us from our sinful thoughts."
#10 By: Gloster, December 12th, 2013 10:43
Also, since the kids involved seem to be equally aged schoolmates and there is nothing indicating lack of consent on anyone's part, why is it the guy who gets punched? If the paragon of communal integrity thought what was happening was wrong, then surely they were both equally at fault.
I suspect there is a hefty dose of the traditional sexist "passive-innocent-female-with-no-agency-seduced&abducted-by-an-active-boy-about-to-defile-her" bullshit at the root of this.
#11 By: Jonas Eggeater, December 12th, 2013 10:48
Don't forget that it's against the law. They're both under the age of consent, so unless I'm mistaken, if they were to have sex, they'd both be guilty of misdemeanors.
#12 By: Gloster, December 12th, 2013 10:57
Which is quite nutty in and of itself (Whom is the law protecting against what? If the purpose is to protect a party from harm, presumably you shouldn't also simultaneously punish the party for participating in the very same act.), but in no way do I see physical violence and break-ins improving the situation.
#13 By: Steve Heath, December 12th, 2013 11:01
This guy is a clear menace to kids. There is no way he should be around children because he may decide some other teenage boy is acting like a teenaged boy and hand out another beating. What if it had involved girl on girl sex? OMG! The only information not addressed might be race which should change nothing in a sane persons mind but might have shorted out our family values guy. Maybe he should spend some quality time with other psychopathic men. Had he broken into my home and beaten my child I would be loathe to forgive while he still lived.
#14 By: Gloster, December 12th, 2013 11:13
I have always considered the American approach to this irrational, in the usual tradition of puritanical idiocy. For comparison, in my country (and most civil law countries, I think) the age of consent is implicitly linked to the age of criminal liability. This is mainly based on the logic that if you are old enough to be held criminally responsible for your actions, you are also old enough to decide what happens to your own body. But it also has the effect of ruling out the possibility of both parties simultaneously committing a crime on one another while also being the victims of said crime.
If both parties are below the age of consent (lets say 15 and 15), they are ipso facto also not criminally liable (That doesn't mean there will not be some legal repercussions - social services might get involved to investigate the family situation and other relevant circumstances; but why on Earth would you prosecute the kids? What positive effects is that going to have on their lives?). If one is below and one above (15 and 17), that makes it quite clear who is the one breaking the law, who is the victim and who carries the legal responsibilities. Simple as that.
#15 By: Adam Knapp, December 12th, 2013 11:17
I'm going to guess that he's mostly a wrestling coach.
#16 By: Tom, December 12th, 2013 11:31
There just has to be more history to at least make it a tiny bit understandable. I can't lose more faith in humanity today.
#17 By: Chip Andre, December 12th, 2013 11:40
Which just goes to show how batshit-insane some states' statutory rape laws are. I can't be bothered to look into the law where this took place, but some states do have exemptions for incidents where both participants are under the age of consent. If it's one of the states that doesn't, then yes, both kids could be tried as the perpetrator while simultaneously both being victims.
#18 By: millie fink, December 12th, 2013 11:44
Cuz Gawker gets lots of clicks with stories like this, so why not get them here too?
#19 By: ChrisL, December 12th, 2013 11:50
And mostly MOSTLY a sociopathic broheem with anger issues
#20 By: Rob Beschizza, December 12th, 2013 11:50
"walked in on" is a funny way of describing "broke the door off the hinges to the teen’s bedroom"
Unless the kid was assaulting her, this guy is doomed.
next page →