There doesn’t have to be screaming or distress. Likely this kid had been groomed for some time. Probably this wasn’t the first time this type of thing happened to him.
A point I had not gotten around to, but thanks for making it. Retard assumes that this was the first, as opposed to, sadly, the hundredth, rape by Sandusky of this boy. Only common decency precludes me from asking Mr. Dibbs the question to which I know the answer – after it’s been going on for a long time, isn’t it the case that it becomes accepted if not acceptable?
(And, yes, I guess I’ll go there: I have to admit it seemed telling that SA’s post seemed to presume that if there were no distressed noises, then there must be at least distressed signs on the face or else there is no rape. In other words, no distress, no rape… which is of course a really dangerously wrong way to think about sex with children!)
Or with anyone, really. Drunk chicks, passed out chicks, chicks you might have slipped a roofie to, don’t necessarily show any particular level or degree of distress when you fuck them.
You’re still not supposed to fuck them.
They’re still not obligated to evince resistance, distress, dismay, in order for your fucking them without informed consent (which a child can never give) to be a criminal sexual assault.
There was an element of common law rape that required that the victim show “resistance.” This has been more or less globally rejected as pernicious policy, and indeed, the Pennsylvania statutes (Secton 3107, as I know SA likes to base his arguments on rigid (heh) statutory authority) explicitly repeals this element of common law.
Your whining earlier about being falsely accused of being a pedophile looks completely mendacious with your false accusations of Huerta88 being a Nazi - in 2 or 3 posts IIRC.
When you are able to somehow completely and unreservedly retract that accusation, then you can have the moral high ground on that point.
BTW, this is yet another nail in the coffin of SA being a tremendously huge pedophile enabler. His posts, if compiled, would constitute a virtual FAQ for pedophiles on how-to-get-away-with-it.
Q. I was caught with a child I was raping in the shower. What’s my defense.
A. Don’t be silly, tall men can’t rape shorter boys, it’s a scientific fact! And besides, just tell them you were playing hide the soap, it’s an ages old game.
Q. How do I ensure that no outcry from my child victim will alarm outsiders?
A. That’s easy peasy! Just rape him and others often enough beforehand that they’re resigned to it and don’t think to yell out about it.
The link below best describes how SA views himself.
That’s similiar to accusations against rape victims. “Well, she didn’t fight back, so she must not have been raped.”
Both my rapes were one-offs, and the first one (the standing-up one) I had a knife on me at first, so no, I didn’t scream or anything. I cried throughout, but quietly.
The second time, I was gagged with a sock or something.
Thank you and I am sorry for invoking this, though it seems you have done better (certainly than I would have) at coping and moving beyond this horror than would most.
The retard will now no doubt claim that because McQueary did not report whether the victim was crying quietly, no rape occurred.
Such is life, and you and the rest of us are bigger than his disgusting PedoApologia.
Thanks/sorry again.
I am so sorry that you endured such horror. When I hear stories such as yours, it makes sick to know that there are grown adults in the world that would enable, deny, or minimize such atrocities against children. 
Yep. There’s a reason the “resistance” element of common law rape has been removed in every civilized jurisdiction of which I’m aware.
In ambiguous he-said-she-said situations between adults, there is a somewhat-compelling impulse to suggest that lack of resistance implies consent-at-the-time, which makes a little to a lot of sense in the case of a drunk-college-hookup-gone-awry. However, even there, the law no longer requires that the alleged victim prove that she resisted, even when circumstances support the notion that her lack of resistance was part of a pattern of consent. That’s the law.
Of course a child can never lawfully consent to sex, and (alleged, not proven – SA is, we must remember, fabricating testimony on this point) lack of resistance is exponentially more legally and morally irrelevant to a charge that an adult in a position of authority who had groomed the child over a prolonged period was, in fact, abusing the child who (allegedly/fictitiously) looked superficially hunky dory with the abuse.
Not to mention that the boy might have gone into shock due to trauma.
Also, I note that, in the bit from McQueary quoted by SA, he says that the boy might have been 10 or 12. Now, I suppose by SA reasoning, since McQueary didn’t know precisely, that means the boy was neither? And he didn’t exist? (cf. how something sexual or fondling means that neither could have occured)
But if the boy was 12, that puts his likely height, based on averages, some 7-11 inches higher than that of a 10 year old. I suppose now he’ll resort to saying that Sandusky couldn’t possibly have squatted/spread his legs far enough to lower his crotch the mere inches required :rolleyes:
Yeah, me; a couple of pages ago, in fact.
Hell, I don’t care if he liked it! I don’t care if he sat on Santa’s lap and asked for jolly good rogering from a nasty old man! It makes no goddam difference!
I’ve never claimed to be a lawyer, and I welcome any corrections from legally-qualified posters (i.e. not Starving Artist) if anything below is off the mark.
-
The grand jury document report regarding Victim No. 2 (which I’ve just reviewed for about the third time) is a summary of the testimony on which the charges against Sandusky were based, not a verbatim transcript. It’s true that the presence of, or lack of, distress on the child’s face indeed does not appear to be mentioned as a point of discussion anywhere in the report. This does not mean it was never discussed; simply that it is not included in the summary report. Note: Summary. Not vebatim testimony. Absense of mention of a particular invented point in a summary report is not ‘convincing evidence’ of anything at all, especially if the point is irrelevant to the legal issue (see 2) below).
-
Point one, in any event, doesn’t matter, because whether or not the child appeared to be distressed has nothing whatsoever to do with how the law views sexual contact betweed adults and minors. If, during the upcoming trial, the jury decides that unlawful sexual contact did indeed occur, it would be foolish indeed if Sandusky’s defense team were to attempt to argue the mitigating circumstance that the child was enjoying, or even begging for it, would it not?
Of all the numerous bizarre and ill-informed arguments put forward by SA, his continued harping on whether or not the child appeared to be in distress is perhaps the strangest. As explained above, from both a legal standpoint and as a means of exonerating Paterno from his moral obligations it is completely irrelevant, and there really is no need to address this particular point any further.
Nothing is even slightly off the mark legally (or morally). Well played.
The game is explained by (a) SA’s desire to create multiple cutouts, safe havens, defenses for pedophiles; and (b) a foolish attempt to argue against direct and eyewitness testimony of “intercourse” by straining to invent allegedly-contradictory circumstantial facts that would countermand the direct and clear evidence of rape. Also part and parcel of the uber-creepy there’s-lots-of-benign-situations-for-naked-old-men-to-be-touching-naked-boys-in-the-shower meme that this retard pervert so dearly believes in.
Apologies for and by pedophiles follow this pattern. From the RCC scandal of coverup for homosexual boy-rapists, here are a couple of examples of eerily-similar rationalization:
Well, of course you’re not a lawyer, we don’t allow lawyers on the Boards! Well, except for Bricker, but he’s a pet…
It’s not at all surprising.
A defining trait of pedophiles is a willingness to test boundaries of what is appropriate or acceptable. They will push and push and push and create as many false rationales for why X might not be okay but (pretty much X) is a-okay.
This is why he stands accused of being a pedophile-enabler and pedophilically-inclined himself. He is a natural at formulating what’s-the-big-deal exceptions to the rule of boundaries that end up swallowing (heh) any boundaries at all.
On the flip side, bright-line boundaries are the mortal enemy of boundary-testing would be pedophiles and their enablers. It is never acceptable or normal for an old man to be in a shower touching a naked unrelated boy – full stop? Oh Hell nos, that can’t be a rule, gotta have a lot of fact-specific carveouts for acceptable intergenerational showering (am I the only one just utterly astonished that someone could come up with such a phrase and still be a marginally functional member of society?), which is most intergenerational showering, which really effectively proves that rape in a shower is impossible.
Everything in the GJ indictment about Sandusky’s gradual grooming of the victims is in complete parallel with SA’s fevered claims that what happened was almost certainly “naked hugs” or “hide the soap,” because that is almost inevitably how pedophiles operate – start with a borderline innocent “hug” or “just an innocent kiss on the stomach.” Test the child’s non-resistance or confusion in the face of this “benign” conduct. Escalate, all the while telling yourself and the kid that it’s all pretty normal between friends, nothing to get worried about or report up the chain for God’s sake.
SA thinks and rationalizes exactly the way classic pedophiles do. What conclusions to draw from that, other than that such a person is a deeply disgusting abortion of humanity, I leave to you.
I suspect most of you have drawn your own conclusions.
It was really dark with the lights off in that shower, so I was completely unsure whether SA was a pitcher or more of a catcher.
But thanks.