Sheriff who endorsed Moore accused of sex with underage girls

[Derec]

Whatever it is, it is up to the state of Alabama to fix it. What he did was legal.

And for all we know what he did 25 years ago was legal as well. You do not know this chick is telling the truth.

Witnesses. Videotape.

You can remember when and with whom your friends had sex in 1992? To the very day?
Videotape would be better, but I have seen no indication it exists. Remember, video cameras then looked something like this.

We are not talking people taking hi-def video on their phones.
Even if there was video tape, it would have to have an untampered with date stamp to show that a crime was committed. Because again, on her 16th birthday, she is legal.

More importantly, what he was illegal.

Huh? Missing a verb here?
And only allegedly. It was only illegal if everything she says was true.

Yet here you are either dismissing the seriousness of the charge of a crime against a young girl or downplaying its importance while whining about a legal but ethically dubious appropriation of money. Your response is vividly telling about your debased priorities.

My priorities are so based you could use them as a sub-woofer.
If any crime occurred (big if!) it is only a crime because of the calendar. A crime now, perfectly legal few days later. Might as well get your panties in a bunch over somebody allegedly drinking 5 days before their 21st birthday in 1992.

 

[laughing dog]

And for all we know what he did 25 years ago was legal as well. You do not know this chick is telling the truth.

Which is why is it should be investigated instead of dismissed. Your use of a date and slightly insulting term for a woman is duly noted.

You can remember when and with whom your friends had sex in 1992? To the very day?...[ **rape apologia**** .....

I might if I witnessed it. You asked a question, and I answered it. And, of course, another way comes to mind - admission.

My priorities are so based you could use them as a sub-woofer.
If any crime occurred (big if!) it is only a crime because of the calendar. A crime now, perfectly legal few days later. Might as well get your panties in a bunch over somebody allegedly drinking 5 days before their 21st birthday in 1992.

Typical rape apologia. The point is that there is an allegation that an officer of the court charged with enforcing the law broke the law. It doesn't matter what your opinion of the law is.

Of course, the bigger picture is that this allegation (if true) paints a more complete picture of this man, just like the ethically questionable appropriation. If he should decide to run for office, the voters deserve a full picture of his character.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I would like to add 2 things here. These types of events are traumatic, the trauma sometimes lasts decades. It's dependent on many factors. Also, in this situation, a budding politician and police officers may make a victim not trust the system or authority. And why should they? The officers recently leaving the county makes the victim safer to report.

Allegedly this girl attended these parties and had sex with men older than her willingly. You think that because she was a few days shy of her 16th birthday she was "traumatized" but presumably she would not be a few days later?

There's a substantial range between out-and-out rape and willingly. I have a big problem with relationships with a high power imbalance. While they are not inherently wrong the person with the power needs to bend over backwards to avoiding using it. That clearly didn't happen here.