Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care whether you have boys or girls.

I don't care whether the boy grabbed her shirt, her belt or stuck his hand down his pants.

He invaded her space.

He held her in such a way that she couldn't escape.

He forced his tongue into her mouth.

He should be charged. Period.

One thing no one has mentioned is that boys aren't much stronger than girls at age 13. Just how did he manage to "hold her in such a way that she couldn't escape"? He's a child, and you are talking as if he were a grown man.

Well, he did have the advantage of surprise. Maybe he's not a grown man, but he assaulted a girl. I don't think he should be charged as an adult or anything like that, but he assaulted a girl. What he did was 100 percent wrong and no one should be making excuses for him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care whether you have boys or girls.

I don't care whether the boy grabbed her shirt, her belt or stuck his hand down his pants.

He invaded her space.

He held her in such a way that she couldn't escape.

He forced his tongue into her mouth.

He should be charged. Period.

One thing no one has mentioned is that boys aren't much stronger than girls at age 13. Just how did he manage to "hold her in such a way that she couldn't escape"? He's a child, and you are talking as if he were a grown man.

MS Teacher. The boys in my school have more upper body strength on average than the girls.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care whether you have boys or girls.

I don't care whether the boy grabbed her shirt, her belt or stuck his hand down his pants.

He invaded her space.

He held her in such a way that she couldn't escape.

He forced his tongue into her mouth.

He should be charged. Period.

Got it. Your empathy oozes out of you. At some point your daughter will make a stupid choice - and we'll see how life treats her then and whether it is deserved.

If my daughter did this, I would thoroughly expect her to be charged. Just because a minor is charged, does *not* mean that he or she will be convicted. Frankly, I wouldn't expect that the child would be convicted, it's more likely to be pled out or dismissed. But scaring the child straight, being arrested, processed and going through the court system? Absolutely, I would want my child or any other who did something like this charged. And if it meant that my child were convicted, well, that's the way it works when you can't keep your hands to yourself.

Anonymous wrote:I don't care whether you have boys or girls.

I don't care whether the boy grabbed her shirt, her belt or stuck his hand down his pants.

He invaded her space.

He held her in such a way that she couldn't escape.

He forced his tongue into her mouth.

He should be charged. Period.

One thing no one has mentioned is that boys aren't much stronger than girls at age 13. Just how did he manage to "hold her in such a way that she couldn't escape"? He's a child, and you are talking as if he were a grown man.

Anonymous wrote:Thread like this make me remember why the US criminal justice system is so out of control. Charging children like adults. Arresting them. Charging them with crimes. I'm from a country where children are not held criminally responsible until they are 14 years old. Other intervention happens. And the US' rape rate per 100.000 per year is three times higher than my country of origins rape rate consistently.

Children are not responsible. They need to be educated not punished. Treating children like adult criminals does NOT prevent future crimes.

+1000. Things like this make the courts look foolish.

Anonymous wrote:

In plenty areas of the U.S., girls have their own guns. My cousins out west do.

I hope they don't babysit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/12/31/the-inside-story-of-how-an-idaho-toddler-shot-his-mom-at-wal-mart/

Thread like this make me remember why the US criminal justice system is so out of control. Charging children like adults. Arresting them. Charging them with crimes. I'm from a country where children are not held criminally responsible until they are 14 years old. Other intervention happens. And the US' rape rate per 100.000 per year is three times higher than my country of origins rape rate consistently.

Children are not responsible. They need to be educated not punished. Treating children like adult criminals does NOT prevent future crimes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do I think he needs a criminal juvenile record so for his lifetime he has to answer yes, he has been charged with a crime, whenever he fills out a job application, even 30 years from now? No. And yes, I have a daughter.

"criminal juvenile record for his lifetime" is a contradiction. Juvenile records are sealed the day that the boy turns 18 and they cannot be added to. Nor do any job application questions say "ever charged with a crime". It will say "as an adult".

Pretty sure many states, taking an overdue hint from The Administration, are restricting employees from asking about arrest/conviction records. See, e.g. CA. About time.

Pretty sure you are wrong. Arrests and convictions are not protected classes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do I think he needs a criminal juvenile record so for his lifetime he has to answer yes, he has been charged with a crime, whenever he fills out a job application, even 30 years from now? No. And yes, I have a daughter.

"criminal juvenile record for his lifetime" is a contradiction. Juvenile records are sealed the day that the boy turns 18 and they cannot be added to. Nor do any job application questions say "ever charged with a crime". It will say "as an adult".

Pretty sure many states, taking an overdue hint from The Administration, are restricting employees from asking about arrest/conviction records. See, e.g. CA. About time.

This is not correct. Many employers ask about this, as do schools (application forms).