Old Skool?
My understanding is that he didnât beat up the kid for âdatingâ his relative, but after walking in on the kid in the middle of having sex with said relative.
Not that it justifies things, but letâs be clear here: itâs not like he flipped out just because the kid asked his relative out to the box social.
Wouldnât have even come CLOSE to making national news if he hadnât been a teacher.
Why is this even on boingboing?
Muzzle-loaded pistols at dawn or GTFO.
Since he âwalked in on the kidâ 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? âSorry kids, just checking, never mind the hinges.â
But I agree that the only thing giving this ugly but otherwise pretty low-key story any play is the offenderâs profession.
"We appreciate the charges, their seriousness, but believe he will be vindicated under the class âdefense of othersâ.â
âIt is reasonable that he snapped. ⌠I canât say the rest of us wouldnât have over reacted [sic] as well.â
Repressed Violent Assholes⢠â protecting teenagers from evil sekkkksss by beating up other teenagers half our own size since the beginning of puritan society.
House locks are your friends. Granted, probably wouldnât have stopped this guy from going all, âHereâs Johnny!â, but at least youâd have more warning so you can quick get dressed and break out the bibles. âHonestly sir, we felt the need for some bible study to save us from our sinful thoughts.â
Also, since the kids involved seem to be equally aged schoolmates and there is nothing indicating lack of consent on anyoneâs 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 âpassive-innocent-female-with-no-agency-seduced&abducted-by-an-active-boy-about-to-defile-herâ bullshit at the root of this.
Donât forget that itâs against the law. Theyâre both under the age of consent, so unless Iâm mistaken, if they were to have sex, theyâd both be guilty of misdemeanors.
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 shouldnât 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.
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.
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 doesnât 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.
Iâm going to guess that heâs mostly a wrestling coach.
There just has to be more history to at least make it a tiny bit understandable. I canât lose more faith in humanity today.
Which just goes to show how batshit-insane some statesâ statutory rape laws are. I canât 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 itâs one of the states that doesnât, then yes, both kids could be tried as the perpetrator while simultaneously both being victims.
Cuz Gawker gets lots of clicks with stories like this, so why not get them here too?
And mostly MOSTLY a sociopathic broheem with anger issues
âwalked in onâ is a funny way of describing âbroke the door off the hinges to the teenâs bedroomâ
Unless the kid was assaulting her, this guy is doomed.
