The Sordid Tale Of Cyntoia Brown

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yet here, crickets chirping.

The crickets are in your own head. What we saw here was an OP and one person immediately buying into her story of self defence without question, as did many more people mentioned in the articles including celebrities. I challenged that bias. Derec then took some bias the other way seemingly, and I challenged him on that too, pointing out the same police cases you point to. He then backed it up with more articles with more information. It does indeed appear that she was engaging in a robbery and this wasn't self defence. So ya, I spoke up against biases at work here. Derec took that in stride. Your pals haven't and likely won't.

 

[laughing dog]

Yet here, crickets chirping.

The crickets are in your own head. .

Nope. Your response is a perfect example of the bs and double standard at play. Whenever some police officer or some fine upstanding citizen (usually of a certain race) shots someone in self defence, the usual suspects line up with the "presumption of innocence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" arguments while taking the killer's story as verbatim truth even when the killer's story is not consistent with the evidence (George Zimmerman's killing of Trayvon Martin is a good example). Notice that no one has made the argument of "beyond a reasonable doubt" here - it is "likely".

The argument that she robbed the guy after he was dead does not indicate she planned to rob him. It is entirely possible that her fear of her pimp and his demands led her to rob him after the fact. Do I know whether that scenario is true? I don't, but it is just the kind of after-the-fact justifications that Derec and LP routinely offer up whenever they approve of the killer and disapprove of the victim.

I am not arguing she is innocent - I am pointing out the clear double standards.
Here is another example in this thread. Derec pointed out that a jury found her guilty. However, whenever a jury (or a judge) delivers a verdict with which he disagrees, then juries are unreliable or they cannot be trusted.

The real issue here is whether it is fair or just for this convicted felon to be serving a sentence that she would not receive now if she were convicted. Neither you, nor Derec nor LP address this pertinent issue. For someone who proclaims he stands for fairness and justice, your silence is a telling as your whiteknighting of LP and Derec.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The argument that she robbed the guy after he was dead does not indicate she planned to rob him. It is entirely possible that her fear of her pimp and his demands led her to rob him after the fact. Do I know whether that scenario is true? I don't, but it is just the kind of after-the-fact justifications that Derec and LP routinely offer up whenever they approve of the killer and disapprove of the victim.

Shot in the back is pretty hard to make self defense. When it doesn't remotely match up with the claimed events it's clearly murder.

 

[untermensche]

Being a coerced abused frightened child is a defense.

I don't think many can imagine a life of serving some sadistic pimp.

Especially as a child that doesn't know anything else.

 

[Toni]

The age of consent in Tennessee is 18. She was a rape victim the night she killed her trick—who was committing statutory rape against her. The fact that she was working as a prostitute does not excuse the rape nor does it provide any cover to presume that the John did not know her age. In fact, he was in all likelihood looking to have sexual with an underage girl.

Everything about this case from every source however unfavorable to the girl tells the story of a girl who was the victim of a great deal of sexual abuse. It is absolutely unsurprising that she would also use drugs, lie, suffer mental illness and have a host of emotional problems.

It is absolutely unsurprising that Derec would be outraged at a prostitute killing a John who she feared or out of fear for her pimp. It is 100% unsurprising that Loren and Derec would be outraged st a 16 year old black teenager killing a white man. White men are allowed to kill black children on any pretext but no black teen is allowed to defend himself or herself against any threat from a white man, however credible the threat.

In fact, Allen was such a creep that waitresses would avoid having to serve him because he made them so uncomfortable. He had a habit of pursuing underage girls and is accused of raping at least one other girl.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Everything about this case from every source however unfavorable to the girl tells the story of a girl who was the victim of a great deal of sexual abuse. It is absolutely unsurprising that she would also use drugs, lie, suffer mental illness and have a host of emotional problems.

And that's information which would be relevant for the sentencing, not for the determination of guilt. She doesn't deserve a life sentence for this and needs counselling and support so that she can get her life together, but she did shoot a sleeping guy in the back of the head, robbed him and then lied to the police during the investigation, so the guilty verdict was clearly the correct one.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Nope. Your response is a perfect example of the bs and double standard at play. Whenever some police officer or some fine upstanding citizen (usually of a certain race) shots someone in self defence, the usual suspects line up with the "presumption of innocence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" arguments while taking the killer's story as verbatim truth even when the killer's story is not consistent with the evidence (George Zimmerman's killing of Trayvon Martin is a good example). Notice that no one has made the argument of "beyond a reasonable doubt" here - it is "likely".

You apparently pretended to but didn't read my initial response above. I made these same points.

Here is another example in this thread. Derec pointed out that a jury found her guilty. However, whenever a jury (or a judge) delivers a verdict with which he disagrees, then juries are unreliable or they cannot be trusted.

Derec does appear to have a bias here. Are you going continue to pretend there isn't also a bias in the opposite direction?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The age of consent in Tennessee is 18. She was a rape victim the night she killed her trick—who was committing statutory rape against her. The fact that she was working as a prostitute does not excuse the rape nor does it provide any cover to presume that the John did not know her age. In fact, he was in all likelihood looking to have sexual with an underage girl.

That's an interesting point, the statutory rape, if true. But this throw away line about him in all likelihood looking to have sex with an underage girl is a bold and unjustified statement unless you've got something to back that up?

It is absolutely unsurprising that Derec would be outraged at a prostitute killing a John who she feared or out of fear for her pimp.

Somebody killed somebody, apparently while robbing them, shooting them in the back while they may have been sleeping. That's a thing to be upset about, isn't it? Do you excuse it because she was abused by somebody else?

It is 100% unsurprising that Loren and Derec would be outraged st a 16 year old black teenager killing a white man.

Aren't you?

White men are allowed to kill black children on any pretext but no black teen is allowed to defend himself or herself against any threat from a white man, however credible the threat.

I don't think you really believe that, Toni. You're better than that.

In fact, Allen was such a creep that waitresses would avoid having to serve him because he made them so uncomfortable. He had a habit of pursuing underage girls and is accused of raping at least one other girl.

Is this so? Do you have a link for this? Where did you learn this?

 

[laughing dog]

Nope. Your response is a perfect example of the bs and double standard at play. Whenever some police officer or some fine upstanding citizen (usually of a certain race) shots someone in self defence, the usual suspects line up with the "presumption of innocence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" arguments while taking the killer's story as verbatim truth even when the killer's story is not consistent with the evidence (George Zimmerman's killing of Trayvon Martin is a good example). Notice that no one has made the argument of "beyond a reasonable doubt" here - it is "likely".

You apparently pretended to but didn't read my initial response above. I made these same points.

Perhaps you could point them out because they are hidden so well as to be non-existent.

Derec does appear to have a bias here. Are you going continue to pretend there isn't also a bias in the opposite direction?

I am sure there is a bias in the opposite direction somewhere on this planet, but there does not appear to be on in this thread.

Still waiting for you to address
The real issue here is whether it is fair or just for this convicted felon to be serving a sentence that she would not receive now if she were convicted. Neither you, nor Derec nor LP address this pertinent issue. For someone who proclaims he stands for fairness and justice, your silence is a telling as your whiteknighting of LP and Derec.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Dog, your selective reading is showing again. Post 3 and 11 show exactly what you denied existed in the thread.

Still waiting for you to address
The real issue here is whether it is fair or just for this convicted felon to be serving a sentence that she would not receive now if she were convicted. Neither you, nor Derec nor LP address this pertinent issue. For someone who proclaims he stands for fairness and justice, your silence is a telling as your whiteknighting of LP and Derec.

That's a much bigger question on the principle of whether or not new laws should retroactively pardon offenders under the previous law. I believe that they should. So yes, she should be excused from a life sentence for that reason alone. And so should all drug convictions be overturned if the drug is no longer illegal (ie, Marijuana)

 

[Toni]

That's an interesting point, the statutory rape, if true. But this throw away line about him in all likelihood looking to have sex with an underage girl is a bold and unjustified statement unless you've got something to back that up?

As I wrote, multiple other young girls/women have spoken out against him. Waitresses avoided waiting on him because of his creepy and unwelcome attentions; at least one 17 year old girl has accused him of raping her. Multiple young women expressed a desire to avoid being near him. It's enough that one begins to suspect that he was a creep who specifically looked to have sex with young girls.

Since he picked her up after seeing her and did not pick her out on line, he saw what she looked like and surely knew that she was young. I am certain that you are aware that there are men who specifically wish to have sex with underage girls. In my area, there are annual stings conducted by local law enforcement where a 15 year old 'girl' is advertising her services to men who are arrested when they show up and it's actually a cop. The men are always at least late 30's, usually in their 40's and up to in their 80's.

Come on. You know this. And please let's not pretend that men don't have an obligation to perform due diligence when they pick up someone for sex--unless you are willing to acknowledge that men specifically go looking for underage, 'fresh' girls. We both know that is true.

Somebody killed somebody, apparently while robbing them, shooting them in the back while they may have been sleeping. That's a thing to be upset about, isn't it? Do you excuse it because she was abused by somebody else?

Depends on who you believe. She said she feared for her life--he had showed her his guns. Her pimp had given her a gun to protect herself, so she was expected to work in life threatening conditions and to defend herself if necessary.

Also, she did not kill him during the commission of a robbery. Yes, she robbed him after she shot him but that's not the same thing as killing him WHILE robbing him. There are obviously extenuating circumstances: a history of sexual abuse, the fact that she was just raped (again) as she had been who knows how many times, that she was afraid for her life either from the john or from her pimp or both, the fact that she has extensive mental illness and also substance abuse. She was a minor who was being trafficked. It is unreasonable to expect her to respond as an adult would or as an adult would in a normal sexual encounter.

It is 100% unsurprising that Loren and Derec would be outraged st a 16 year old black teenager killing a white man.

Aren't you?

I'm outraged that any child is raped, is trafficked, is kept by a pimp in a cheap hotel, is expected to sell her body to supply her pimp with drugs, is expected to do a job so dangerous that she is armed in order to be able to do her job and then is given an exorbitant sentence when she defends herself. Frankly, she was in quite a bit more danger than was George Zimmerman, who was heartily defended by Derec and Loren and perhaps yourself (don't remember you in the discussion so...)

White men are allowed to kill black children on any pretext but no black teen is allowed to defend himself or herself against any threat from a white man, however credible the threat.

I don't think you really believe that, Toni. You're better than that.

Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice and too many others seem to support my assertion. It's wrong. It's not legal, but it's exactly what happens too often.

In fact, Allen was such a creep that waitresses would avoid having to serve him because he made them so uncomfortable. He had a habit of pursuing underage girls and is accused of raping at least one other girl.

Is this so? Do you have a link for this? Where did you learn this?

https://heavy.com/news/2017/11/johnny-allen-cyntoia-brown-murder-nashville/

But Brown’s attorneys during the trial aimed to tarnish the reputation that Allen had established within the community. They brought forth two witnesses for questioning. One of them was a 17-year-old Jessica Snyder, who worked at a restaurant in the area. Allen was a regular there, and Snyder said during her court testimony that many waitresses would often fight over who had to serve him because he made them so uncomfortable. Snyder said that one time, he handed her his business card and wrote a personal message on the back.

“You’re gorgeous,” Snyder said the card read. “I’d love to take you out sometime, so let me know.”

However, the judge labeled her testimony irrelevant, and he didn’t allow the jury to hear it. The second witness was another woman who had contact with Allen. She said that the two met at a Mexican restaurant after he winked at her from the table he was sitting at. They ended up having a conversation, she said in court, and Allen recommended a new church for her to attend, the same one he was affiliated with.

The woman told the jury that she attended a few of his classes at the church, and agreed to go out with him. She claimed that instead of going to a movie, like had been planned, he picked her up from her place and invited her into his home. Once inside, she claimed that Allen started kissing her inside his bedroom. The woman claimed that she resisted Allen’s advances and said she feared for her safety.

“After he gave me the look, and I can’t explain that look because — today I can still see it,” she said in court, according to Hargrove, adding that Allen proceeded to rape her.

 

[laughing dog]

Dog, your selective reading is showing again. Post 3 and 11 show exactly what you denied existed in the thread.

In post 3, it is so well-hidden that it does not exist. And if post 11, you mention "reasonable doubt", but you are not among the usual suspects.

D

Still waiting for you to address
The real issue here is whether it is fair or just for this convicted felon to be serving a sentence that she would not receive now if she were convicted. Neither you, nor Derec nor LP address this pertinent issue. For someone who proclaims he stands for fairness and justice, your silence is a telling as your whiteknighting of LP and Derec.

That's a much bigger question on the principle of whether or not new laws should retroactively pardon offenders under the previous law. I believe that they should. So yes, she should be excused from a life sentence for that reason alone. And so should all drug convictions be overturned if the drug is no longer illegal (ie, Marijuana)

Took awhile, but thank you for addressing that issue.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Since he picked her up after seeing her and did not pick her out on line, he saw what she looked like and surely knew that she was young.

No, I wouldn't be so quick to leap to that conclusion just based on that alone.

I am certain that you are aware that there are men who specifically wish to have sex with underage girls. In my area, there are annual stings conducted by local law enforcement where a 15 year old 'girl' is advertising her services to men who are arrested when they show up and it's actually a cop. The men are always at least late 30's, usually in their 40's and up to in their 80's.

Come on. You know this.

Sure. I'm quite aware of this.

And please let's not pretend that men don't have an obligation to perform due diligence when they pick up someone for sex--unless you are willing to acknowledge that men specifically go looking for underage, 'fresh' girls. We both know that is true.

SOME men do that, absolutely. It is a very small percentage of men who pick up prostitutes, and something that legal and regulated prostitution could help filter out. And of course, I hope it doesn't need to also be pointed out that men who take prostitutes are themselves a very small percentage of men generally. As to the due diligence that is required to figure out if she is of age or not, that's always a gamble. A lot of working girls who are underage fake it, lie about it, even forge false IDs for this purpose. And of course criminalizing prostitution makes it far less likely that a guy who does discover an underage prostitute will report that to the authorities. He'd fear them questioning how he found this out.

Depends on who you believe. She said she feared for her life--he had showed her his guns. Her pimp had given her a gun to protect herself, so she was expected to work in life threatening conditions and to defend herself if necessary.

She killed a guy. That much is clear. She stole from him. That much is also clear. She took a gun with her when meeting with him. These three facts alone are enough to alarm me.

Also, she did not kill him during the commission of a robbery.

We don't know that for sure either way, but you seem to be correct. She appears to have killed him while he was sleeping prior to the robbery according to the articles links to above.

Yes, she robbed him after she shot him but that's not the same thing as killing him WHILE robbing him.

Fair enough. But I don't see why that matters so much, unless he shot him in self defence because he was lunging at her, say with one of his guns he showed her. At first reading the thread, I thought that may have been the case (as you see in my early responses to Derec). The evidence appears to say otherwise though.

There are obviously extenuating circumstances: a history of sexual abuse, the fact that she was just raped (again) as she had been who knows how many times

I agree with Tom here, that these do not make this not murder, but may be considerations for sentencing (especially the statutory rape you are alleging).

that she was afraid for her life either from the john or from her pimp or both

This I don't buy a reason to kill somebody, as I noted regarding the police officers who have used the same excuse, unless it passes a reasonable person test. I especially say this regarding if the fear is of her pimp moreso than the john.

the fact that she has extensive mental illness and also substance abuse. She was a minor who was being trafficked. It is unreasonable to expect her to respond as an adult would or as an adult would in a normal sexual encounter.

Again, that's no excuse for the murder. Maybe it is something that can be considered in sentencing.

It is 100% unsurprising that Loren and Derec would be outraged st a 16 year old black teenager killing a white man.

Aren't you?

I'm outraged that any child is raped, is trafficked, is kept by a pimp in a cheap hotel, is expected to sell her body to supply her pimp with drugs,

Me too. I'll be surprised if anybody here isn't.

is expected to do a job so dangerous that she is armed in order to be able to do her job

That's debatable. The job is so dangerous that she is armed? Or she was armed because she was going to rob a guy? How many prostitutes are armed in that area? Is it common? Johns accept it? It wouldn't turn away most the customer base as soon as they realized she has a gun? And Derec's question was a good one too. Why would a pimp who is abusing this girl arm her? What was stopping her from shooting him? She apparently had it in her to shoot somebody.

and then is given an exorbitant sentence when she defends herself.

Highly questionable if she was defending herself. The facts don't seem to line up with that story. But the sentence was exorbitant I agree.

Frankly, she was in quite a bit more danger than was George Zimmerman, who was heartily defended by Derec and Loren and perhaps yourself (don't remember you in the discussion so...)

No, I didn't defend Zimmerman.

Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice and too many others seem to support my assertion. It's wrong. It's not legal, but it's exactly what happens too often.

And using a police officer's fear (or Zimmerman's) is no excuse for it, right? That's what I wrote above. It applies to everyone.

- - - Updated - - -

but you are not among the usual suspects.

Wait. What? When did that happen?

 

[Toni]

No, I wouldn't be so quick to leap to that conclusion just based on that alone.



Sure. I'm quite aware of this.

And please let's not pretend that men don't have an obligation to perform due diligence when they pick up someone for sex--unless you are willing to acknowledge that men specifically go looking for underage, 'fresh' girls. We both know that is true.

SOME men do that, absolutely. It is a very small percentage of men who pick up prostitutes, and something that legal and regulated prostitution could help filter out. And of course, I hope it doesn't need to also be pointed out that men who take prostitutes are themselves a very small percentage of men generally. As to the due diligence that is required to figure out if she is of age or not, that's always a gamble. A lot of working girls who are underage fake it, lie about it, even forge false IDs for this purpose. And of course criminalizing prostitution makes it far less likely that a guy who does discover an underage prostitute will report that to the authorities. He'd fear them questioning how he found this out.

Depends on who you believe. She said she feared for her life--he had showed her his guns. Her pimp had given her a gun to protect herself, so she was expected to work in life threatening conditions and to defend herself if necessary.

She killed a guy. That much is clear. She stole from him. That much is also clear. She took a gun with her when meeting with him. These three facts alone are enough to alarm me.

Also, she did not kill him during the commission of a robbery.

We don't know that for sure either way, but you seem to be correct. She appears to have killed him while he was sleeping prior to the robbery according to the articles links to above.

Yes, she robbed him after she shot him but that's not the same thing as killing him WHILE robbing him.

Fair enough. But I don't see why that matters so much, unless he shot him in self defence because he was lunging at her, say with one of his guns he showed her. At first reading the thread, I thought that may have been the case (as you see in my early responses to Derec). The evidence appears to say otherwise though.

There are obviously extenuating circumstances: a history of sexual abuse, the fact that she was just raped (again) as she had been who knows how many times

I agree with Tom here, that these do not make this not murder, but may be considerations for sentencing (especially the statutory rape you are alleging).

that she was afraid for her life either from the john or from her pimp or both

This I don't buy a reason to kill somebody, as I noted regarding the police officers who have used the same excuse, unless it passes a reasonable person test. I especially say this regarding if the fear is of her pimp moreso than the john.

the fact that she has extensive mental illness and also substance abuse. She was a minor who was being trafficked. It is unreasonable to expect her to respond as an adult would or as an adult would in a normal sexual encounter.

Again, that's no excuse for the murder. Maybe it is something that can be considered in sentencing.

It is 100% unsurprising that Loren and Derec would be outraged st a 16 year old black teenager killing a white man.

Aren't you?

I'm outraged that any child is raped, is trafficked, is kept by a pimp in a cheap hotel, is expected to sell her body to supply her pimp with drugs,

Me too. I'll be surprised if anybody here isn't.

is expected to do a job so dangerous that she is armed in order to be able to do her job

That's debatable. The job is so dangerous that she is armed? Or she was armed because she was going to rob a guy? How many prostitutes are armed in that area? Is it common? Johns accept it? It wouldn't turn away most the customer base as soon as they realized she has a gun? And Derec's question was a good one too. Why would a pimp who is abusing this girl arm her? What was stopping her from shooting him? She apparently had it in her to shoot somebody.

and then is given an exorbitant sentence when she defends herself.

Highly questionable if she was defending herself. The facts don't seem to line up with that story. But the sentence was exorbitant I agree.

Frankly, she was in quite a bit more danger than was George Zimmerman, who was heartily defended by Derec and Loren and perhaps yourself (don't remember you in the discussion so...)

No, I didn't defend Zimmerman.

Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice and too many others seem to support my assertion. It's wrong. It's not legal, but it's exactly what happens too often.

And using a police officer's fear (or Zimmerman's) is no excuse for it, right? That's what I wrote above. It applies to everyone.

Waiting for an appointment and don’t have time to separate everything out while on my phone so I will hit high points.

There is no dispute that she was 16 while working as a prostitute, meaning that all of her johns were committing statutory rape. That’s simply a fact. It’s also pretty well established that her childhood was filled with abuse and that her life with her pimp was filled with violence, including sexual violence as well as substance abuse. That’s established.

I understand the argument that legalized prostitution would reduce the risk of violence and underage prostitution but that logic does not seem to be borne out by real world events. As I stated earlier, in my area there are annual prostitution stings where middle aged and older men specifically try to have sex with girls they believe to be 15 but who are in fact police officers posing as young girls. Backpage was shut down specifically because it advertised ‘fresh’ girls— too young to be legal. You know as well as I do that young girls are trafficked because they are easier to control and because there is a good market for their bodies. Please don’t pretend otherwise.

Re: Zimmerman —he was the one who was armed, who was trying to apprehend a teenager walking home with some snacks for younger siblings. He was the one who was dangerous. Not the unarmed teenager he murdered. Nor was Tamir Rice armed. He was a twelve year old child playing on a playground. The police officers who killed him had no reason to be afraid. They were not beaten or abused. They were armed, and roared up in a police car and killed a child within 3 seconds. There was no reason for them to fear for their life.

Prostitution is a dangerous job. She had reason to fear for her life and for her safety. There are no allegations that she attacked any other John, so why that guy? What happened? It is hard to believe that it was simply in order to rob him of his guns and pants.

Moreover the sentence was excessive even if she had been an adult. She was a minor who could not vote, sign a contract, purchase cigarettes or alcohol, marry without parental permission—or have sex.

 

[laughing dog]

Wait. What? When did that happen?

You are an unusual suspect.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Being a coerced abused frightened child is a defense.

I don't think many can imagine a life of serving some sadistic pimp.

Especially as a child that doesn't know anything else.

It's a strong reason against the death penalty. However, this is someone who knows nothing but crime, who has no job skills. What are the chances of going straight when she gets out?!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The age of consent in Tennessee is 18. She was a rape victim the night she killed her trick—who was committing statutory rape against her. The fact that she was working as a prostitute does not excuse the rape nor does it provide any cover to presume that the John did not know her age. In fact, he was in all likelihood looking to have sexual with an underage girl.

Everything about this case from every source however unfavorable to the girl tells the story of a girl who was the victim of a great deal of sexual abuse. It is absolutely unsurprising that she would also use drugs, lie, suffer mental illness and have a host of emotional problems.

It is absolutely unsurprising that Derec would be outraged at a prostitute killing a John who she feared or out of fear for her pimp. It is 100% unsurprising that Loren and Derec would be outraged st a 16 year old black teenager killing a white man. White men are allowed to kill black children on any pretext but no black teen is allowed to defend himself or herself against any threat from a white man, however credible the threat.

In fact, Allen was such a creep that waitresses would avoid having to serve him because he made them so uncomfortable. He had a habit of pursuing underage girls and is accused of raping at least one other girl.

Defend herself against what? The crime scene says there was no threat, her story of self defense is totally bogus.

I perfectly well accept that a prostitute could need to defend herself against a trick, it's just I do not believe that she did so.

Furthermore, a prostitute is not going to carry a gun on their person. The clothes come off, it's going to be pretty much useless for self defense. Weapons are going to be where he won't find them--her purse.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's a much bigger question on the principle of whether or not new laws should retroactively pardon offenders under the previous law. I believe that they should. So yes, she should be excused from a life sentence for that reason alone. And so should all drug convictions be overturned if the drug is no longer illegal (ie, Marijuana)

Pardon, no. Immediately nullify any remaining sentence for acts which are no longer illegal, yes. I would also modify their criminal record to note acts which are no longer illegal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Since he picked her up after seeing her and did not pick her out on line, he saw what she looked like and surely knew that she was young. I am certain that you are aware that there are men who specifically wish to have sex with underage girls. In my area, there are annual stings conducted by local law enforcement where a 15 year old 'girl' is advertising her services to men who are arrested when they show up and it's actually a cop. The men are always at least late 30's, usually in their 40's and up to in their 80's.

Of course they're older--how many men in their 20's have the money to pay for sex?

 

[Toni]

Since he picked her up after seeing her and did not pick her out on line, he saw what she looked like and surely knew that she was young. I am certain that you are aware that there are men who specifically wish to have sex with underage girls. In my area, there are annual stings conducted by local law enforcement where a 15 year old 'girl' is advertising her services to men who are arrested when they show up and it's actually a cop. The men are always at least late 30's, usually in their 40's and up to in their 80's.

Of course they're older--how many men in their 20's have the money to pay for sex?

How does having money entitle a 50 year old to sex with a 15 year old—who is underage???

FFS