Sheriff who endorsed Moore accused of sex with underage girls

[Underseer]

https://thinkprogress.org/alabama-s...used-of-sex-with-underage-girls-c908bcb457c6/

Disclaimer

• Having sex with underage girls may or may not meet the technical, legal definition of pedophilia in the state of Alabama, which contains many Fine People.
• Defending those who have sex with underage girls is not the same thing as siding with those who have sex with underage girls. I am not in any way suggesting that it would be immoral to defend people who have sex with underage girls.

 

[Derec]

Early 90s? Shouldn't there be some sort of statute of limitations on these types of accusations? Anybody can make such accusations, but it's difficult to defend oneself especially when they supposedly happened a quarter century ago.

And for Underseer's information: no, 15 (almost 16) is most definitely not "pedophilia".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why am I not surprised?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Early 90s? Shouldn't there be some sort of statute of limitations on these types of accusations? Anybody can make such accusations, but it's difficult to defend oneself especially when they supposedly happened a quarter century ago.

And for Underseer's information: no, 15 (almost 16) is most definitely not "pedophilia".

Why focus on these semantic distinctions? You sound upset about it. Wouldn't you rather be upset that it happened?

 

[Toni]

Early 90s? Shouldn't there be some sort of statute of limitations on these types of accusations? Anybody can make such accusations, but it's difficult to defend oneself especially when they supposedly happened a quarter century ago.

And for Underseer's information: no, 15 (almost 16) is most definitely not "pedophilia".

The time frame is problematic: it's a long time between the alleged assaults and present. Getting reliable evidence of any kind will be difficult, making legal charges unlikely.

That said, it would have also been extremely problematic at the time to bring charges forward and to have an actual police investigation. Partly, it is because times may have changed ever so slightly to make it easier now (but only incrementally so) but largely it would be difficult to get a local police department to file statutory rape charges against...a police officer of any kind. Now or then.

Then it brings up motivation for coming forward now, after so many years. There are a couple of reasons why this might be coming up now.

First of all, it is really difficult to actually process the fact that you've been sexually assaulted, to admit what it was, to admit that you couldn't get out of it/fight him off/avoid being in that situation in the first place. It's much easier to tell yourself that maybe you really did want it, that an adult who was twice your age surely knew better than you did what you want. It is hard to describe exactly how much girls are raised to discount their feelings, but it's pretty powerful. It can take a long, long time to fully realize what happened and also a long time to have the courage to come forward. Trust me, she knows how much she will be disbelieved by many, many people.

Secondly, this person may well have a daughter or a niece who is about the same age. Sometimes, that is enough to re-awaken a lot of memories, consciously or not, and for almost all parents, one begins to have a different kind of protective feeling for one's daughter. And if you've been assaulted yourself, multiply that by a large number.

Finally, is there a reason to believe that the police officer who assaulted her in the 90's might still be at it? Might suddenly have access to a vulnerable teenage girl? That can be a pretty powerful motivating factor: the desire to protect someone from what you went through.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

https://thinkprogress.org/alabama-s...used-of-sex-with-underage-girls-c908bcb457c6/

Looks like you have a new hero.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Early 90s? Shouldn't there be some sort of statute of limitations on these types of accusations? Anybody can make such accusations, but it's difficult to defend oneself especially when they supposedly happened a quarter century ago.

And for Underseer's information: no, 15 (almost 16) is most definitely not "pedophilia".

The time frame is problematic: it's a long time between the alleged assaults and present. Getting reliable evidence of any kind will be difficult, making legal charges unlikely.

That said, it would have also been extremely problematic at the time to bring charges forward and to have an actual police investigation. Partly, it is because times may have changed ever so slightly to make it easier now (but only incrementally so) but largely it would be difficult to get a local police department to file statutory rape charges against...a police officer of any kind. Now or then.

Then it brings up motivation for coming forward now, after so many years. There are a couple of reasons why this might be coming up now.

First of all, it is really difficult to actually process the fact that you've been sexually assaulted, to admit what it was, to admit that you couldn't get out of it/fight him off/avoid being in that situation in the first place. It's much easier to tell yourself that maybe you really did want it, that an adult who was twice your age surely knew better than you did what you want. It is hard to describe exactly how much girls are raised to discount their feelings, but it's pretty powerful. It can take a long, long time to fully realize what happened and also a long time to have the courage to come forward. Trust me, she knows how much she will be disbelieved by many, many people.

Secondly, this person may well have a daughter or a niece who is about the same age. Sometimes, that is enough to re-awaken a lot of memories, consciously or not, and for almost all parents, one begins to have a different kind of protective feeling for one's daughter. And if you've been assaulted yourself, multiply that by a large number.

Finally, is there a reason to believe that the police officer who assaulted her in the 90's might still be at it? Might suddenly have access to a vulnerable teenage girl? That can be a pretty powerful motivating factor: the desire to protect someone from what you went through.

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.

 

[Derec]

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?

 

[Derec]

The time frame is problematic: it's a long time between the alleged assaults and present. Getting reliable evidence of any kind will be difficult, making legal charges unlikely.

It also makes it very easy to make shit up, whether most of the story or just certain details. How, for example, can the timeline be confirmed when she was so close to the cutoff?
Maybe they did have sex, but she was a few days older than 16, making her perfectly legal for example.

That said, it would have also been extremely problematic at the time to bring charges forward and to have an actual police investigation. Partly, it is because times may have changed ever so slightly to make it easier now (but only incrementally so) but largely it would be difficult to get a local police department to file statutory rape charges against...a police officer of any kind. Now or then.

Well given that apparently the sex was willing why would she try to file charges in the first place? I could see if her parents got the wind of it.

Then it brings up motivation for coming forward now, after so many years. There are a couple of reasons why this might be coming up now.

Politics, probably.

First of all, it is really difficult to actually process the fact that you've been sexually assaulted, to admit what it was, to admit that you couldn't get out of it/fight him off/avoid being in that situation in the first place.

I do not think she was "sexually assaulted" in any real sense of the word. Yes, she was a few days shy of age of consent, but that doesn't make otherwise consensual sex de facto an "assault", only de jure. By the way, she voluntarily partied with these men. She says she had sex with several of them. This was a promiscuous teenager, not a sexual assault survivor.

It's much easier to tell yourself that maybe you really did want it, that an adult who was twice your age surely knew better than you did what you want. It is hard to describe exactly how much girls are raised to discount their feelings, but it's pretty powerful. It can take a long, long time to fully realize what happened and also a long time to have the courage to come forward. Trust me, she knows how much she will be disbelieved by many, many people.

Consent is given or not given at the time. To decide decades later to withdraw consent does not make it assault in retrospect.
Again, if she is telling the truth about the sex and the timing he did break the law, but if she had sex willingly he did not assault her.
And again, she may be misremembering of deliberately lying about the timeline if not the sex too.

Secondly, this person may well have a daughter or a niece who is about the same age. Sometimes, that is enough to re-awaken a lot of memories, consciously or not, and for almost all parents, one begins to have a different kind of protective feeling for one's daughter. And if you've been assaulted yourself, multiply that by a large number.

At the same time, being overprotective may also lead her to reinterpret consensual sex as assault.

Finally, is there a reason to believe that the police officer who assaulted her in the 90's might still be at it? Might suddenly have access to a vulnerable teenage girl? That can be a pretty powerful motivating factor: the desire to protect someone from what you went through.

In the early 90s he was still a young man. One could imagine a teenage girl having consensual sex with somebody in their late 20s even if she is a few days shy of AOC. Mid-50s, not so much.
There is not even an allegation he forced himself on this woman.

 

[Derec]

Why focus on these semantic distinctions? You sound upset about it.

I am. I think proper use of language is very important. Misusing language for political purposes is a very dangerous thing. Social liberals should know that given how similarly hyperbolic and inaccurate language was used against gays decades ago. Not that the contemporary Left has anything to do with real liberalism, of course.

Wouldn't you rather be upset that it happened?

I am more upset about him apparently misappropriating $750,000 in jail funds than allagedly having consensual sex with a 15.95<a<16 year old >25 years ago.
But I can see how the latter is more salacious, especially when one misuses highly charged words.

 

[ZiprHead]

Now I'm wondering if underseer deserves an apology.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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?

You certainly are presuming a lot. First, that this was "willing" and second that she'd not be traumatized days later.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Why focus on these semantic distinctions? You sound upset about it.

I am. I think proper use of language is very important. Misusing language for political purposes is a very dangerous thing. Social liberals should know that given how similarly hyperbolic and inaccurate language was used against gays decades ago. Not that the contemporary Left has anything to do with real liberalism, of course.

Wouldn't you rather be upset that it happened?

I am more upset about him apparently misappropriating $750,000 in jail funds than allagedly having consensual sex with a 15.95<a<16 year old >25 years ago.
But I can see how the latter is more salacious, especially when one misuses highly charged words.

That's not the comparison I asked you about. You seem more concerned with being a grammar nazi than in calling out the diddling of a young girl which you CLAIM was willing while powerful adults were present.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Now I'm wondering if underseer deserves an apology.

Whatever for?

 

[Derec]

That's not the comparison I asked you about. You seem more concerned with being a grammar nazi

Seriously though, this is an issue not of grammar but of word usage (and your confusion of grammar and word usage is word usage mistake in itself). But Underseer et al are not making an innocent word usage mistake. They are deliberately misusing highly charged words to score political points.

than in calling out the diddling of a young girl

But we do not know it happened, or if it happened how much of it happened or when (a few days later and she is perfectly legal). Also it supposedly happened over quarter century ago so there is no possible way we can ever find out.
So, why should I be concerned about an unsubstantiated accusations from that long ago?

Underseers obsessions and deliberate misuse of words on the other hand we know is happening and it is happening now. So I am obviously much more concerned with that.

which you CLAIM was willing while powerful adults were present.

Her own story suggests that. She says she had sex with the future and former sheriff on four separate occasions. If she was attacked the first time, why come back to those parties? She also says she had sex with other adult men. That suggests she was a promiscuous teenager.

 

[laughing dog]

I am more upset about him apparently misappropriating $750,000 in jail funds than allagedly having consensual sex with a 15.95<a<16 year old >25 years ago.

His appropriation of funds was perfectly legal under Alabama law, while his alleged sex was not. So your response is truly telling.

 

[Derec]

His appropriation of funds was perfectly legal under Alabama law,

Do you think it should be legal? It is quite fucked up that this loophole exists. I think closing that loophole should have higher priority than worrying about sex from quarter century ago.

while his alleged sex was not. So your response is truly telling.

Tell me one way you can determine if two people had sex >25 years ago and determine, precise to the day (because such fine timing is what decides whether it was against the law or not), when that hypothetical sex occurred.

I am waiting.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

His appropriation of funds was perfectly legal under Alabama law,

Do you think it should be legal? It is quite fucked up that this loophole exists.

while his alleged sex was not. So your response is truly telling.

Tell me one way you can determine if two people had sex >25 years ago and determine, precise to the day (because such fine timing is what decides whether it was against the law or not), when that hypothetical sex occurred.

I am waiting.

You don't seem to mind even if it were illegal because 1. You said she was "willing" and 2 close enough in age anyway. You care more about being a word usage nazi than this.

 

[laughing dog]

His appropriation of funds was perfectly legal under Alabama law,

Do you think it should be legal? It is quite fucked up that this loophole exists.

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

Tell me one way you can determine if two people had sex >25 years ago and determine, precise to the day (because such fine timing is what decides whether it was against the law or not), when that hypothetical sex occurred.

Witnesses. Videotape.

More importantly, what he alleged did was illegal. 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.

 

[Derec]

You don't seem to mind even if it were illegal because 1. You said she was "willing" and 2 close enough in age anyway. You care more about being a word usage nazi than this.

If she was willing and close to age of consent then, while technically against the law, it would not be a big deal in my book.

And we do not know how much, if any, of it happened anyway.

So yes, word usage is more important than this ancient, small-potatoes, case.