Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No bond. They claim it was consensual but there is no such thing as consensual sex with a 14yo so they are pretty much guaranteed a conviction followed by prison and deportation.

I've seen this statement floating around. I say this NOT associated with this case, but there are plenty of 14 yo having consensual sex. This was true when I went to HS I can imagine it's the same, if not worse now.

In Md you can consent 14-16 to somebody <4 years older.

Come on... We all go to our bi annual sexual harassment training. We all know 'no means no'. Assuming the girl said no at the time violent pentration into her mouth v and a occured. These guys have no chance of getting off.

No also means no in Spanish right. Irregardless ignorance of the law is not a license to break it.

Sure. If you can prove she said no, in a court of law, beyond reasonable doubt. If she is in a sexual relationship with the boy nobody will believe she said no unless there are bruises and lacerations.

You can't convict somebody of rape because you hate undocumented immigrants.

Wait, what?? I'm not the PP you responded to, but WTF?? Do you think it's impossible to rape in the context of a marriage? Do you think rape can NEVER occur in couples who may have had a relationship at one time but no longer do? A girl (because she was only a 14 year old girl in this case) is always fair game? Even when she is screaming for help and obviously not consenting?

That's disgusting. I hope you are not teaching your son that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo is now reporting that bail will be revisited given the texts and pictures that were exchanged between the students. Still a crime given her age though right? Probably reduces the charge though?

What sort of texts and pictures?

The Post article says they are compromising, and that they agreed to meet for sex in the texts.

And this is how the scummy sleazy lawyer ends up being effective. Putting doubt in people's heads that this was the case even if it's not. Gross. She was 14.

I agree 14 year olds can have consensual sex but not so much with a 21 year old. I hope they can prove that this bastard was over 18.

You hope she was raped and it was not consensual?

You are coming across as dense.
I am a different poster. I can understand that the pp is hoping the attorneys can PROVE that this young girl was raped. Because THAT is what she said happened.

You are dense.

She realized the texts show it was consensual. So since it was probably consensual, she hopes he is actually older (21) so it can be statutory. She want to find a way to make it rape.

I'm the PP. No. You have it backwards. I know that it was rape and I want to see these two men appropriately punished.

How do you know? Because she said so. You don't know. You hope it was rape because you don't want to believe girls consent to that type of sex.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo is now reporting that bail will be revisited given the texts and pictures that were exchanged between the students. Still a crime given her age though right? Probably reduces the charge though?

What sort of texts and pictures?

The Post article says they are compromising, and that they agreed to meet for sex in the texts.

And this is how the scummy sleazy lawyer ends up being effective. Putting doubt in people's heads that this was the case even if it's not. Gross. She was 14.

I agree 14 year olds can have consensual sex but not so much with a 21 year old. I hope they can prove that this bastard was over 18.

You hope she was raped and it was not consensual?

You are an idiot.

I am certain this was rape because the girl was 14 and the police report was brutal. The girl was on her period. What 14 year old girl agrees to any kind of sex on her period, let alone anal sex at 9am in the morning. And she was screaming and grabbing onto the sink so they wouldn't take her into the stall.

This was rape and I want them to be able to prosecute these assholes. Not get by on some BS defense.

So a police office witnessed this? That is how the report was written?

The police report is her words, not fact.

That is why physical evidence is so crucial.

Often girls don't know they are on their period, that was clear in the report, she didn't realize it until she saw blood.

I beleived it was rape, but if there is proof to the contrary the courts need to consider it.

Your hair would curl if you heard some of the consensual teen sex stories.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo is now reporting that bail will be revisited given the texts and pictures that were exchanged between the students. Still a crime given her age though right? Probably reduces the charge though?

What sort of texts and pictures?

The Post article says they are compromising, and that they agreed to meet for sex in the texts.

And this is how the scummy sleazy lawyer ends up being effective. Putting doubt in people's heads that this was the case even if it's not. Gross. She was 14.

I agree 14 year olds can have consensual sex but not so much with a 21 year old. I hope they can prove that this bastard was over 18.

You hope she was raped and it was not consensual?

You are coming across as dense.
I am a different poster. I can understand that the pp is hoping the attorneys can PROVE that this young girl was raped. Because THAT is what she said happened.

You are dense.

She realized the texts show it was consensual. So since it was probably consensual, she hopes he is actually older (21) so it can be statutory. She want to find a way to make it rape.

I'm the PP. No. You have it backwards. I know that it was rape and I want to see these two men appropriately punished.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo is now reporting that bail will be revisited given the texts and pictures that were exchanged between the students. Still a crime given her age though right? Probably reduces the charge though?

What sort of texts and pictures?

The Post article says they are compromising, and that they agreed to meet for sex in the texts.

And this is how the scummy sleazy lawyer ends up being effective. Putting doubt in people's heads that this was the case even if it's not. Gross. She was 14.

I agree 14 year olds can have consensual sex but not so much with a 21 year old. I hope they can prove that this bastard was over 18.

You hope she was raped and it was not consensual?

You are an idiot.

I am certain this was rape because the girl was 14 and the police report was brutal. The girl was on her period. What 14 year old girl agrees to any kind of sex on her period, let alone anal sex at 9am in the morning. And she was screaming and grabbing onto the sink so they wouldn't take her into the stall.

This was rape and I want them to be able to prosecute these assholes. Not get by on some BS defense.

+1000

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo is now reporting that bail will be revisited given the texts and pictures that were exchanged between the students. Still a crime given her age though right? Probably reduces the charge though?

What sort of texts and pictures?

The Post article says they are compromising, and that they agreed to meet for sex in the texts.

And this is how the scummy sleazy lawyer ends up being effective. Putting doubt in people's heads that this was the case even if it's not. Gross. She was 14.

I agree 14 year olds can have consensual sex but not so much with a 21 year old. I hope they can prove that this bastard was over 18.

You hope she was raped and it was not consensual?

You are an idiot.

I am certain this was rape because the girl was 14 and the police report was brutal. The girl was on her period. What 14 year old girl agrees to any kind of sex on her period, let alone anal sex at 9am in the morning. And she was screaming and grabbing onto the sink so they wouldn't take her into the stall.

This was rape and I want them to be able to prosecute these assholes. Not get by on some BS defense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No bond. They claim it was consensual but there is no such thing as consensual sex with a 14yo so they are pretty much guaranteed a conviction followed by prison and deportation.

I've seen this statement floating around. I say this NOT associated with this case, but there are plenty of 14 yo having consensual sex. This was true when I went to HS I can imagine it's the same, if not worse now.

In Md you can consent 14-16 to somebody <4 years older.

Come on... We all go to our bi annual sexual harassment training. We all know 'no means no'. Assuming the girl said no at the time violent pentration into her mouth v and a occured. These guys have no chance of getting off.

No also means no in Spanish right. Irregardless ignorance of the law is not a license to break it.

Sure. If you can prove she said no, in a court of law, beyond reasonable doubt. If she is in a sexual relationship with the boy nobody will believe she said no unless there are bruises and lacerations.

You can't convict somebody of rape because you hate undocumented immigrants.

Where exactly did i say i hated people? Oh, that's right... I didn't. So you are saying all the mandatory sexual harassment training is wrong? Interesting because ive seen coworkers tried, fired and sued for much less. You can't be saying men can rape with abandon as long as they say 'she didn't say no', and leave no bruise. You are not saying that right??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo is now reporting that bail will be revisited given the texts and pictures that were exchanged between the students. Still a crime given her age though right? Probably reduces the charge though?

What sort of texts and pictures?

The Post article says they are compromising, and that they agreed to meet for sex in the texts.

And this is how the scummy sleazy lawyer ends up being effective. Putting doubt in people's heads that this was the case even if it's not. Gross. She was 14.

I agree 14 year olds can have consensual sex but not so much with a 21 year old. I hope they can prove that this bastard was over 18.

You hope she was raped and it was not consensual?

You are coming across as dense.
I am a different poster. I can understand that the pp is hoping the attorneys can PROVE that this young girl was raped. Because THAT is what she said happened.

You are dense.

She realized the texts show it was consensual. So since it was probably consensual, she hopes he is actually older (21) so it can be statutory. She want to find a way to make it rape.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo is now reporting that bail will be revisited given the texts and pictures that were exchanged between the students. Still a crime given her age though right? Probably reduces the charge though?

What sort of texts and pictures?

The Post article says they are compromising, and that they agreed to meet for sex in the texts.

And this is how the scummy sleazy lawyer ends up being effective. Putting doubt in people's heads that this was the case even if it's not. Gross. She was 14.

I agree 14 year olds can have consensual sex but not so much with a 21 year old. I hope they can prove that this bastard was over 18.

You hope she was raped and it was not consensual?

You are coming across as dense.
I am a different poster. I can understand that the pp is hoping the attorneys can PROVE that this young girl was raped. Because THAT is what she said happened.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo is now reporting that bail will be revisited given the texts and pictures that were exchanged between the students. Still a crime given her age though right? Probably reduces the charge though?

What sort of texts and pictures?

The Post article says they are compromising, and that they agreed to meet for sex in the texts.

And this is how the scummy sleazy lawyer ends up being effective. Putting doubt in people's heads that this was the case even if it's not. Gross. She was 14.

I agree 14 year olds can have consensual sex but not so much with a 21 year old. I hope they can prove that this bastard was over 18.

You hope she was raped and it was not consensual?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No bond. They claim it was consensual but there is no such thing as consensual sex with a 14yo so they are pretty much guaranteed a conviction followed by prison and deportation.

I've seen this statement floating around. I say this NOT associated with this case, but there are plenty of 14 yo having consensual sex. This was true when I went to HS I can imagine it's the same, if not worse now.

In Md you can consent 14-16 to somebody <4 years older.

Come on... We all go to our bi annual sexual harassment training. We all know 'no means no'. Assuming the girl said no at the time violent pentration into her mouth v and a occured. These guys have no chance of getting off.

No also means no in Spanish right. Irregardless ignorance of the law is not a license to break it.

Sure. If you can prove she said no, in a court of law, beyond reasonable doubt. If she is in a sexual relationship with the boy nobody will believe she said no unless there are bruises and lacerations.

You can't convict somebody of rape because you hate undocumented immigrants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo is now reporting that bail will be revisited given the texts and pictures that were exchanged between the students. Still a crime given her age though right? Probably reduces the charge though?

What sort of texts and pictures?

The Post article says they are compromising, and that they agreed to meet for sex in the texts.

And this is how the scummy sleazy lawyer ends up being effective. Putting doubt in people's heads that this was the case even if it's not. Gross. She was 14.

I agree 14 year olds can have consensual sex but not so much with a 21 year old. I hope they can prove that this bastard was over 18.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No bond. They claim it was consensual but there is no such thing as consensual sex with a 14yo so they are pretty much guaranteed a conviction followed by prison and deportation.

I've seen this statement floating around. I say this NOT associated with this case, but there are plenty of 14 yo having consensual sex. This was true when I went to HS I can imagine it's the same, if not worse now.

In Md you can consent 14-16 to somebody <4 years older.

Right. I was not talking about *this* case. Just in general I have seen a couple of articles where people can't believe that a 14 year old could possibly be having sex.

THIS case yes, a 14 year old and 18 year old is not ok.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo is now reporting that bail will be revisited given the texts and pictures that were exchanged between the students. Still a crime given her age though right? Probably reduces the charge though?

What sort of texts and pictures?

The Post article says they are compromising, and that they agreed to meet for sex in the texts.

Of course that's what the Post says.

They were not even willing to say that the men were here ILLEGALLY. They have a very obvious agenda.

Here is the Post article. The attorneys for these alleged rapists are the ones saying there are texts and compromising pictures.

Interesting that comments have been closed for this article. I am not surprised. People are angry.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/rockville-high-school-rape-suspect-contends-sexual-contact-was-consensual/2017/03/27/b19d06ea-1332-11e7-9e4f-09aa75d3ec57_story.html?utm_term=.f9e27cf8b947