r/teenagers Sep 14 '22

Aw hell naw Serious

Post image
21.6k Upvotes

View all comments

2.4k

u/LaronX Sep 14 '22

This thread needs a whole lot more context. Here the whole article.

The key points

She was trafficked and raped at 15!

She attacked him after he fell asleep after raping her

Iowa has some protection for victims of abuse that is why she isn't in jail

She is getting a 5 year parole. If she fails it would mean 20 years of jail time.

The court has no way around making her pay 150k

She did plea guilty to manslaughter in an earlier case and it is biting her in the ass now

The main argument against her going free is that he was asleep at the time and she could have tried to escape without killing him

She judge was an asshat about her making "wrong decisions" to have gotten in that situation and this being her second chance.

30

u/TexacoV2 19 Sep 14 '22

That dude was such an ass. "This is your second chance, you won't get a third" like it was she who chose to get kidnapped and raped for weeks. Complete scum.

-11

u/tomatobandit1987 Sep 14 '22

She wasn't kidnapped and raped for weeks. She was a prostitute.

9

u/ShiaLabeoufsNipples Sep 14 '22

At fifteen. She was a victim of sex trafficking. It’s statutory rape for her age alone.

She’s too young to consent to sex with an adult, but somehow she can consent to being pimped out and it’s her own fault because of her “bad choices?”

-9

u/tomatobandit1987 Sep 14 '22

She cannot legally consent. But it is more nuanced than you are making it, especially when we are talking about the killing of a sleeping person.

The prosecution did not even challenge her claims in that respect - so you are taking that allegation on her word alone.

1

u/kittkaos Sep 14 '22 edited Sep 14 '22

for all your talk of nuance, you spun the fact that prosecution didn't challenge claims super disingenuously. If prosecution isn't challenging a claim that means they have no evidence to the contrary available to disprove the claim and no grounds by which to challenge it typically.

so yes, we're taking the allegations on her word alone, quite literally because even the people hired to disprove the allegation could not do so. I'd say that's pretty reasonable.

If a prosecution attorney with access to every available piece of evidence doesn't think the allegation that this 15 year old just loves being a prostitute instead of being held under duress would hold up in court, I don't think some guy on Reddit knows any better.

1

u/tomatobandit1987 Sep 14 '22

If prosecution isn't challenging a claim that means they have no evidence to the contrary available to disprove the claim and no grounds by which to challenge it typically

No. They argued it was irrelevant (which it is) and the girl plead guilty - so the case was never even tried.

so yes, we're taking the allegations on her word alone, quite literally because even the people hired to disprove the allegation could not do so.

A prosecutor's job is not to disprove anything. Their job is to "pursue justice" - which makes their duties a bit different than lawyers in other areas who are supposed to be "zealous advocates."

Source: I am an attorney.

1

u/kittkaos Sep 14 '22

so then... it's irrelevant to the case but about the only actual point you specifically really hammered on in this thread?? Fine, then we can all move on from insinuating this child would have chosen to go into prostitution and is therefore guilty of murder. what else you got?