• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Rape victim ordered to pay her abuser child support

Status
Not open for further replies.
Manslaughter. No intention to shoot or harm him.
In order to ricochet with lethal velocity the round has to hit the surface at a large angle (measured from the normal to the surface). Which means she had to have aimed in his general direction (likely at him, but missed a direct hit) and not say into the air as you would expect with a warning shot.
Also, she had no conceivable grounds to fire a warning shot. She was not threatened, but was angry her ex was leaving her for someone else.
I.e. it was murder. Instead, she got off scot free because she is female.

We had similar false claims with Marissa Alexander. Her apologists (including on here) claimed she fired a "warning shot" into the "ceiling" when in reality she hit the wall, and thus aimed the gun close to her victim's head.
 
Really? The legal system disagreed.
The legal system that relies on 12 average people to make judgments will make mistakes. Often, as in this case, these mistakes are due to female privilege.
Really? The legal system disagreed.
The legal system that relies on 12 average people to make judgments will make mistakes. Often, as in this case, these mistakes are due to female privilege.
Really: The legal system relies upon police officers to conduct an investigation (interview witnesses, etc), and for the prosecutor's office to determine what, if any charges should be filed, and the court system to conduct any resulting trial, with a judge and usually a jury.

Those girls and women got charged because they shot or stabbed someone.

Did you bother reading the link I provided (gifted so anyone should be able to) about the man who murdered 93 women (that he confessed to). He was even caught just after he had killed a woman but the DA decided not to press charges because his victim was a prostitute. Or he claimed she was a prostitute. He'd do that: claim that his victim was a sex worker and there was a dispute over money, or if not a prostitute, that there was a disagreement over money or she tried to steal from him. He was caught multiple times and let go and then killed again.

Tell me again about female privilege.

I cannot seem to highlight to do a cut/paste this morning so please forgive me for only posting this link and not the most relevant portions. Contains links within the piece:

 
Manslaughter. No intention to shoot or harm him.
In order to ricochet with lethal velocity the round has to hit the surface at a large angle (measured from the normal to the surface). Which means she had to have aimed in his general direction (likely at him, but missed a direct hit) and not say into the air as you would expect with a warning shot.
Also, she had no conceivable grounds to fire a warning shot. She was not threatened, but was angry her ex was leaving her for someone else.
I.e. it was murder. Instead, she got off scot free because she is female.

We had similar false claims with Marissa Alexander. Her apologists (including on here) claimed she fired a "warning shot" into the "ceiling" when in reality she hit the wall, and thus aimed the gun close to her victim's head.
I had no idea you were both a legal expert and a ballistics expert or that you had direct access to the crime scene and witnesses.

Respect.
 
Really? The legal system disagreed.
The legal system that relies on 12 average people to make judgments will make mistakes. Often, as in this case, these mistakes are due to female privilege.
For the uninitiated - "female privilege" is code for "she didn't get what I think that lying slut deserved"
 
One of the cases he cites above, a woman fired a gun to scare her lover but the bullet ricocheted off of a car or motor cycle or something, and struck him in the buttocks. Normally not a fatal wound. But unfortunately, that bullet also nicked the femoral artery and the man died. I believe the woman was convicted of manslaughter, which Derec finds too light a sentence. I honestly don't have the time (or interest) to go back and look up that case.
Sorry, but that's murder. If you're in a position to be firing a warning shot you're almost certainly not a position where you can legally pull the trigger.
Too bad that standard doesn't seem to apply to police.
Where do you have examples of the police firing warning shots?
Read your underlined statement and you might see how irrelevant your question is.
You're not addressing it.

She fired a warning shot. I'm pointing out that warning shots almost certainly mean you weren't in a position to pull the trigger in the first place--thus she committed a felony, his death becomes felony murder.

You're going off about the police and not addressing this issue.
 
Manslaughter. No intention to shoot or harm him.
In order to ricochet with lethal velocity the round has to hit the surface at a large angle (measured from the normal to the surface). Which means she had to have aimed in his general direction (likely at him, but missed a direct hit) and not say into the air as you would expect with a warning shot.
Also, she had no conceivable grounds to fire a warning shot. She was not threatened, but was angry her ex was leaving her for someone else.
I.e. it was murder. Instead, she got off scot free because she is female.

We had similar false claims with Marissa Alexander. Her apologists (including on here) claimed she fired a "warning shot" into the "ceiling" when in reality she hit the wall, and thus aimed the gun close to her victim's head.
I had no idea you were both a legal expert and a ballistics expert or that you had direct access to the crime scene and witnesses.

Respect.
He's half-right about bullet reflections. It's not that you can't get a reflection with a low angle to the normal, but that such a reflection robs the bullet of most of it's energy. Only when you have a low angle to the surface do you get a reflection that still carries most of the energy. Mythbusters went into this one with trying to get a bullet to come back and "kill" the shooter--a straight-up reflection would be very unlikely to actually kill. They did manage to get a bullet to come back with borderline-lethal energy after bouncing it around a square.
 
One of the cases he cites above, a woman fired a gun to scare her lover but the bullet ricocheted off of a car or motor cycle or something, and struck him in the buttocks. Normally not a fatal wound. But unfortunately, that bullet also nicked the femoral artery and the man died. I believe the woman was convicted of manslaughter, which Derec finds too light a sentence. I honestly don't have the time (or interest) to go back and look up that case.
Sorry, but that's murder. If you're in a position to be firing a warning shot you're almost certainly not a position where you can legally pull the trigger.
Too bad that standard doesn't seem to apply to police.
Where do you have examples of the police firing warning shots?
Read your underlined statement and you might see how irrelevant your question is.
You're not addressing it.

She fired a warning shot. I'm pointing out that warning shots almost certainly mean you weren't in a position to pull the trigger in the first place--thus she committed a felony, his death becomes felony murder.

You're going off about the police and not addressing this issue.
Your claim that "that warning shots almost certainly mean you weren't in a position to pull the trigger in the first place" is nonsense. Of course someone who can pull a trigger to make a warning shot is in a position to pull the trigger in the first place, otherwise there could be no warning shot. Duh.

If you are somehow alluding the situation that if you make a warning shot, your life is not in immanent danger, that is also nonsense.
 
Your claim that "that warning shots almost certainly mean you weren't in a position to pull the trigger in the first place" is nonsense. Of course someone who can pull a trigger to make a warning shot is in a position to pull the trigger in the first place, otherwise there could be no warning shot. Duh.

If you are somehow alluding the situation that if you make a warning shot, your life is not in imminent danger, that is also nonsense.
And the guy that just got pumped full of a full clip is a danger because he's still holding the knife.
 
One of the cases he cites above, a woman fired a gun to scare her lover but the bullet ricocheted off of a car or motor cycle or something, and struck him in the buttocks. Normally not a fatal wound. But unfortunately, that bullet also nicked the femoral artery and the man died. I believe the woman was convicted of manslaughter, which Derec finds too light a sentence. I honestly don't have the time (or interest) to go back and look up that case.
Sorry, but that's murder. If you're in a position to be firing a warning shot you're almost certainly not a position where you can legally pull the trigger.
Too bad that standard doesn't seem to apply to police.
Where do you have examples of the police firing warning shots?
Read your underlined statement and you might see how irrelevant your question is.
You're not addressing it.

She fired a warning shot. I'm pointing out that warning shots almost certainly mean you weren't in a position to pull the trigger in the first place--thus she committed a felony, his death becomes felony murder.

You're going off about the police and not addressing this issue.
For most people, it is actually difficult to deliberately shoot someone.
 
One of the cases he cites above, a woman fired a gun to scare her lover but the bullet ricocheted off of a car or motor cycle or something, and struck him in the buttocks. Normally not a fatal wound. But unfortunately, that bullet also nicked the femoral artery and the man died. I believe the woman was convicted of manslaughter, which Derec finds too light a sentence. I honestly don't have the time (or interest) to go back and look up that case.
Sorry, but that's murder. If you're in a position to be firing a warning shot you're almost certainly not a position where you can legally pull the trigger.
Too bad that standard doesn't seem to apply to police.
Where do you have examples of the police firing warning shots?
Read your underlined statement and you might see how irrelevant your question is.
You're not addressing it.

She fired a warning shot. I'm pointing out that warning shots almost certainly mean you weren't in a position to pull the trigger in the first place--thus she committed a felony, his death becomes felony murder.

You're going off about the police and not addressing this issue.
Your claim that "that warning shots almost certainly mean you weren't in a position to pull the trigger in the first place" is nonsense. Of course someone who can pull a trigger to make a warning shot is in a position to pull the trigger in the first place, otherwise there could be no warning shot. Duh.

If you are somehow alluding the situation that if you make a warning shot, your life is not in immanent danger, that is also nonsense.
I meant legally, not physically.

If you can take the time to pick a safe location (and you rarely actually have a safe place to send a round) to put a shot that's pretty much proof that you're not in imminent danger. Thus you're legally not allowed to pull the trigger in the first place.
 
One of the cases he cites above, a woman fired a gun to scare her lover but the bullet ricocheted off of a car or motor cycle or something, and struck him in the buttocks. Normally not a fatal wound. But unfortunately, that bullet also nicked the femoral artery and the man died. I believe the woman was convicted of manslaughter, which Derec finds too light a sentence. I honestly don't have the time (or interest) to go back and look up that case.
Sorry, but that's murder. If you're in a position to be firing a warning shot you're almost certainly not a position where you can legally pull the trigger.
Too bad that standard doesn't seem to apply to police.
Where do you have examples of the police firing warning shots?
Read your underlined statement and you might see how irrelevant your question is.
You're not addressing it.

She fired a warning shot. I'm pointing out that warning shots almost certainly mean you weren't in a position to pull the trigger in the first place--thus she committed a felony, his death becomes felony murder.

You're going off about the police and not addressing this issue.
Your claim that "that warning shots almost certainly mean you weren't in a position to pull the trigger in the first place" is nonsense. Of course someone who can pull a trigger to make a warning shot is in a position to pull the trigger in the first place, otherwise there could be no warning shot. Duh.

If you are somehow alluding the situation that if you make a warning shot, your life is not in immanent danger, that is also nonsense.
I meant legally, not physically.

If you can take the time to pick a safe location (and you rarely actually have a safe place to send a round) to put a shot that's pretty much proof that you're not in imminent danger. Thus you're legally not allowed to pull the trigger in the first place.
And yet, apparently that seems not to have been the case with respect to this shooting and accidental death.

Note: I am extremely opposed to using firearms for any reason other than hunting food for the table or in some areas, as defense against wildlife.
 
The documents were unsealed in Tangipahoa Parish Wednesday evening and detail a years-long custody process beginning in 2011 when John Barnes found out he had a daughter with Crysta Abelseth.

In April 2013, Barnes began paying Abelseth $428 in child support for the daughter he fathered after a night of drinking. In July 2015, Crysta filed a police report for the 2005 rape that led to her daughter’s birth with the Tangipahoa Parish Sheriffs Office. That report sat on their shelf and was not assigned to a detective for seven years.

In August 2015, Judge Jeffrey Cashe was assigned the case.

Six months after Cashe took over the case, a split-custody agreement was reached, and he ordered Abelseth to pay $78.41 to Barnes increasing to $117.72 per month the following year.

Four years went by and nothing happened in the court record. Then, in December 2020, Barnes filed a motion to modify custody alleging his daughter is allowed to be unsupervised with her boyfriend in Abelseth’s home.

In January 2021, the child’s school counselor notified DCFS as a mandatory reporter that the child alleged Barnes physically and mentally abused her. Abelseth requested that Barnes custody be limited. Judge Cashe denied that motion.

By November, Barnes filed motions to have Abelseth held in contempt over a cell phone.

On Feb. 2, 2022, Cashe found Abelseth in contempt over the phone and ordered her to pay $500. Abelseth was instructed not to provide her daughter with a cell phone.

That same month— court records note for the first time that the child was conceived from a rape. It’s also alleged that Barnes drugged and sexually assaulted his daughter on Feb. 21, 2022 and Feb. 22, 2022.

“She was transported to New Orleans where she was evaluated and the doctor confirmed that there was evidence of forced entry congruent with sexual assault,” the document reads.

On March 18, 2022, Judge Cashe dismisses all of Abelseth’s claims saying all criminal charges have not been accepted and the evidence does not support the allegations made by the daughter.

Court records were not clear on what evidence led the judge to make his decision. An abuse advocate for Abelseth tells WBRZ the Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff's Office has not cooperated with the family over the location of the daughter's rape kit. The sheriff's office, once again, did not respond to requests for comment Thursday.
Well, the dad sounds like a real piece of work. Anyone else ready to defend him?

Wait, what? He had sex with a 16-year-old when he was 30 and never even bothered to check back up on her, but using the fact (of it is a fact) that the mother allows the 15-year-old daughter unsupervised contact with her boyfriend (presumably someone close in age, someone the mother has known for a whole, someone who isn't going to go on a dive if something happens) as an argument to restrict her custody, and the court follows his line of reasoning? That alone is absurd.
 
He had sex with a 16-year-old when he was 30 and never even bothered to check back up on her,
He had sex with a woman he picked up in a bar with a minimum age requirement of 21. Tom
He had sex with a 16-year-old when he was 30 and never even bothered to check back up on her,
He had sex with a woman he picked up in a bar with a minimum age requirement of 21. Tom
He had sex with a 16-year-old when he was 30 and never even bothered to check back up on her,
He had sex with a woman he picked up in a bar with a minimum age requirement of 21. Tom
 
He had sex with a 16-year-old when he was 30 and never even bothered to check back up on her,
He had sex with a woman he picked up in a bar with a minimum age requirement of 21. Tom
He had sex with a 16-year-old when he was 30 and never even bothered to check back up on her,
He had sex with a woman he picked up in a bar with a minimum age requirement of 21. Tom
He had sex with a 16-year-old when he was 30 and never even bothered to check back up on her,
He had sex with a woman he picked up in a bar with a minimum age requirement of 21. Tom

Yes.
She was in a bar, drink in hand, minimum age requirement 21, and she got laid.

Those are the facts.
Tom
 
Yes.
She was in a bar, drink in hand, minimum age requirement 21, and she got laid.

Those are the facts.
Tom

This. I think the state should have to prove that the defendant either knew or should have known that the person he had consensual sex with was underage. Something like picking up somebody at a bar should be considered sufficient defense and lead to a judge to dismiss charges.

I also think 16, rather than 18, is a better age of consent. Most of the developed world agrees, or goes even lower.
Age_of_Consent.png
 
He had sex with a 16-year-old when he was 30 and never even bothered to check back up on her,
He had sex with a woman he picked up in a bar with a minimum age requirement of 21. Tom
He had sex with a 16-year-old when he was 30 and never even bothered to check back up on her,
He had sex with a woman he picked up in a bar with a minimum age requirement of 21. Tom
He had sex with a 16-year-old when he was 30 and never even bothered to check back up on her,
He had sex with a woman he picked up in a bar with a minimum age requirement of 21. Tom

Yes.
She was in a bar, drink in hand, minimum age requirement 21, and she got laid.

Those are the facts.
Tom
And she was under the age of consent- a fact you omitted .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom