Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

from blabbermouth.net

Ken Serrano and Chris Jordan of New Jersey's Asbury Park Press have issued the following report:

He told the 14-year-old Sayreville girl he was "T-Rex" and he liked to impersonate the guitarist for the heavy metal band they both liked, STATIC-X, authorities said.

But the 39-year-old man accused of meeting the girl through the Internet, driving from Pennsylvania and sexually assaulting her in an Old Bridge shopping center in January was no impersonator, police said.

Tod Rex Salvador, who goes by the stage name Tripp Eisen, a guitarist for STATIC-X, was apprehended Thursday in Orange County, Calif. by two detectives from New Jersey, authorities said.

Salvador, of Burbank, Calif., was charged with kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, luring to entice a minor through the Internet and endangering the welfare of a child. If convicted, he faces a maximum of 30 years in prison on the kidnapping charge alone.

When Det. Scott Crocco of the Old Bridge Police Department and Det. Sgt. David Jones of the state police encountered Salvador, he had just gotten out of jail.

Police in California arrested Salvador on Feb. 10 after finding him sleeping in a parked car with a girl with whom he had just had sexual intercourse, said Jon Fleischman of the Orange County Sheriff's Department.

Salvador was charged with committing a lewd act with a child and was released after posting $100,000 bail, Fleischman said.

Following his arrest Thursday technically on a fugitive warrant from New Jersey, Salvador was turned over to the Central Men's Jail in Santa Ana, Calif. He is being held there without bail while he awaits extradition to New Jersey, authorities said.

"We've confiscated several computers to examine them to see if there are other victims," Lt. Kevin Rehmann of the New Jersey State Police said. "We suspect there may be in several other states."

STATIC-X is one of the most popular groups to emerge from what's known as the nu-metal scene of the late 1990s that spawned bands like KORN.

The band released its debut album, "Wisconsin Death Trip", in 1998. The album went gold, selling half a million copies. A new album is scheduled for release later this year.

A call placed to the band's publicist at Warner Bros. was not returned. A management company, The Firm, referred calls to Salvador's Los Angeles-based attorney, Mark Werksmen, who did not return calls.

Police said the Sayreville girl met Salvador on a web site where he used the screen name "groverygodadat" under the heading "never married male looking for female."

"He tells the girl he's a fan of the band and portrays himself to look like the guitarist in (STATIC-X)," Rehmann said.

He drove out to Old Bridge on Jan. 7 from Pen Argyl, Pa., in a truck belonging to a Pennsylvania relative, said Lt. Robert Weiss of the Old Bridge Police Department. Salvador, who once lived in New Jersey, was back in Pennsylvania from the West Coast on an extended holiday visit.

Police said he had consensual sex with the Sayreville girl in the truck in the parking lot of the shopping center. The girl's mother found out about the assault and went to Old Bridge detective Thomas Montagna, Weiss said.

Jesus..

So it was consentual?

-AC

if your consider the age of consent to be 14 years old

stupid little girl i say

df02 im confused
so its ok to molest 14 year old girls if their stupid.

no lol. she's stupid for agreeing to be molested

oh ok i think he an idiot to gonna through his whole carreir away cause of this

Static-X sucked anyways.

yea no doubt he's an idiot aswell...but c'mon, it says in the thread that the girl went to meet him after meeting him on the internet... thats just stupid

but obviously im not saying what he did is justified, he's sick and should be locked away.

hes gonna have some fun when he gets locked up not a big enough star to keep out of general population

Wait.

So her parents let her meet a man off the internet and blame HIM? She consented so it wasn't rape, technically. She had underaged sex.

-AC

Her parents sound like a couple of retards.

All parties involved sound like retards.

I think the next post will say HE'S A RETARD. Which he is. I like Static-X tho. Just not him now...

i also like static x i wonder what the rest of the band think

Oh well, Tripp represented the end of the band anyway. Static-X made one good album (Wisconsin Death Trip), then decided for some reason to bring in this idiot Murderdolls guitarist turned child molester.

That is so sick

the poor girl

Poor girl? Dumb girl you mean.

What person in their right mind, especially at 14, goes to meet someone off the net alone?

Sick of this child worship BS. She made the stupid decision and paid the price. Damn. I'm not condoning what he did but lets not overlook that there are other guilty parties here.

-AC

^Agreed. People think that just because she's a girl, she's automatically innocent.

No, people just think that because it's a sex assault that he's automatically a paedophile and carries all the blame, as usual.

-AC

I just realised, this isn't music discussion at all is it..

Was just about to suggest taking it to GDF.

Anyone?

-AC

That's what happens when you're part of a shitty band. Linkin Park, beware.

still the fact remanins that even if he had her consent she is still a minor , and her parents should be forced to go a couple of rounds with tyson

That's the main thing. She thought it was ok to go meet the guy, her parents didn't stop her.

I'm sick of parents being crap parents and then pinning everything on the guy, AFTER they made the f*ck up.

Very annoying.

-AC

yeah the parents have aresponsibility here

It's so hypocritical and selfish.

The parents automatically use the fact that it involved sex, to hide behind.

They made the **** up. Bottom line: What can a sex offender do without someone to offend? Nothing.

-AC

i didnt say that i thought it was ok for her to meet someone off the net alone, i said poor girl because she got assulted jesu

Dirty perverted internet predators - creepy.

She was NOT assaulted, she wanted this to happen, but since she got caught it's been turned in to rape, kidnapping, and more.

I agree with everyonce else though, all parties involved are dumbasses.

But seriously...how is it that this is being called kidnapping? She went to meet him, and they did the unmentionable nasty. It's not like he was dragging her to his truck kicking and screaming.

I agree with Lil in the sense that it's weird to think anyone can be anyone on the net but what harm can they do through a screen? Nothing.

If she was stopped from going, there wouldn't be a problem.

-AC

And also Ken, this girl is 14years old. 14 year olds are easely persuaded...not all, but some are.

It takes an idiot to actually meet someone off the net without any thought.

It takes more idiotic parents to just let her go.

-AC

Yes that's true Milla, but she still needs to take responsibility for HER actions. And this pervert guitarist needs to take the full responsibility for HIS actions.

She gets in trouble with her parents, he gets thrown in prision for the maximum amount of time.

(And you know what happens to child rapists in prison, right? Full blown murders hate these pedophiles. He stands no chance in there.)

Even so, you're immediately wishing him the worst.

He's not a child rapist, he's not a paedophile. He had sex with an underage girl. It wasn't non-consentual.

Calm down. Every crime that involves sex, people fly off the chair. Chill.

He has his part to play and yes it was wrong but more irresponsibility and fault lay in the hands of the parents and the girl. He couldn't commit the crime without their irresponsibility.

-AC

I'm not wishing him the worst, but that's what he more than likely will get. We'll see if he can pull some strings and get out of this one. I doubt it though.

I'm not saying get out of anything.

Just saying, people get cloudy vision whenever there's sex in a crime.

He's not the most at fault here.

-AC

I really liked Tripp Eisen - its so hard to believe (ok, maybe not that hard) I thought he had wife and kids - this is kinda creepy.

Also, 14 year old might have sneaked out? Tons of girls do that to meet some old perverts from the internet - tragic.

I know that, I'm just saying everyone needs to take the blame here.

I don't see how everyone can overlook the possibility that the girl never intended on sleeping with him in the first place? You don't even know the variables.

Put yourself in her shoes. 14 year old girl goes to meet the guitarist of one of her favorite bands. When they "meet", he, being a 39 year old man with multiple past offenses and a jail record, she being a supposedly innocent 14 year old, do you think she honestly had a say in the matter?

Probably not. My arguement has nothing to do with "blame", but everything with intimidation. I doubt there was anything morally consentual about it. He more than likely gave her an ultimatum.

If they met under the pretense that they were hooking up, it's a totally different story. But, given the charges, that doesn't seem to be the case.

You overlook that she was allowed to go alone.

Could have been prevented.

-AC

Cool, Maybe they'll get Koichi Fukuda back on guitar.

You can't speculate on the circumstances in which they met, given she could have snuck out, said she was going elsewhere, etc. Not that that has anything to do with the situation, and the all but apparent fact she was compromised. You want to blame a girl for wanting to meet an idol with absolutely no clue what else would transpire?

No I blame her for assuming that nothing else would transpire and not having the sense to question whether A) It was really him or B) It was going to be safe.

You say I can't speculate but then you make the assumption there was nothing consentual. If it wasn't consentual he'd be getting done for rape. He's just getting prosecuted for sexing a minor.

-AC

She's in the 8th grade. You honestly, honestly think she'd know any better? Christ.

Besides, according to the report, she knew it wasn't him, since he claimed to be an impersonator, so I'd assume she'd think it was cool to meet him anyway. She finds out it really IS him, she's compromised/forced into a situation. Take into account, again, a 14 year old girl and a 39 year old multiple offender/drug addict. Who's going to prevail in this sort of encounter?

I think your speculation is off. I'm not making any speculation, really, since the police reports clearly stated he was guilty of aggrevated sexual assault, which by definition means he used physical violence/or weapon(s) with an intent to cause bodily harm in the obtainment of sexual gratification. On top of THAT, the intentional enticement of a minor for sexually deviant purposes, the kidnapping, which he wouldn't be charged with unless she was taken against her will, unless there's such a thing as a consensual abduction? Maybe the cops weren't fans of Dope/Murderdolls/Static-X, and were just looking to pin these allegations on him without proof?

They aren't going to convict him of rape, since the "consent" was for nothing more than a rendevouz. They would have to have had transcripts documenting anything other than a rendevouz to nab him on said charge. That's why he's getting a wrap for aggravated sexual assault.

Like I said, again, pretend you're a 14 year old girl standing infront of a 6'0 drug addicted felon. You have no choice BUT to consent to something when you don't have any other options.

Like I already said - shes a child - and she acted like a child, since thats all she is.

She is not guilty one here - she is just a child.

Back to the "she's just a child" theory.

She's a teenager. Legally, she's a child. Mentally she should know that meeting up with people on the net isn't safe.

I understand what you're saying, it's not like she could say "sorry mate, don't wanna have sex." I completely agree, hence me saying he was wrong. However, I don't believe he is totally to blame. You're saying she may have snuck out, well then there you go. Why is there ultra defense? She should have been more careful. If I was going to meet someone I idolised the FIRST thing I'd do is tell my parents, if I was of illegal age.

-AC

Thing is, Tripp CAN be convicted for rape -- statutory rape, at least, because she's only 14 and in the US, age of consent ranges between 16-18. Legally, the girl CAN'T consent if she's under that age.

I must say, though, all involved in this are idiots. Tripp for meeting and having sex with a 14 year old, the girl for going to meet someone on her own, and her parents for not know what she was doing.

Let me say this again - she is a child!

But she is 14 years old, and for that reason she doesnt think like you do. If YOU were meeting someone YOU would tell your parents. Shes 14 and she doesnt think like that - if she did, she would see the stupidity of her actions and thus she wouldnt have done what she has.

He is totally to blame - he knew what he was doing - he knew she was 14.

Thats like saying a rape victim is guilty for being raped because she wore mini skirt.

Jesus Christ, im sat here listening people defending a pheadophile. Unbeliavable!

Yep a peadophile IS what he is, if this girl was only 14. He is 38 right..?
That is disgusting. A fourteen year old and a Fourteen year old...
Well, still technically illegal but not as morally reprehensible and sicking as a 38-year-old... Hence the term peadophile- A sick fu**er who takes advantage of kids, preying on them.
Regardless of who was "stupid", regardless of how "willing" the girl may have been, the fact that this arsehole is into sleeping with kids and uses seemingly premeditated deceptive net pervery to do this too already makes it clear IMHO along with the other charges that this guy has combined with the guys alledged prior form, id say its time for jail time and a bloody good kicking in my book. HE could've averted this by not arranging a meeting. HE could've not shown up. He was ultimately in control by the sound of it, and should be held accountable.

"But she is 14 years old, and for that reason she doesnt think like you do. If YOU were meeting someone YOU would tell your parents. Shes 14 and she doesnt think like that - if she did, she would see the stupidity of her actions and thus she wouldnt have done what she has."

So her actions were stupid yet they are in no way relevant to this case? It's in no way, her fault? Despite her actions being stupid? Funny that.

Your rape comment is completely irrational. Nothing I am saying is as drastic as saying a woman deserves rape for wearing a mini skirt. Once again you blow everything out of proportion WHILE missing my point entirely. Way to go Milla, seems to be quite a habit.

I'm not saying she deserves what she got, nor am I defending him. Get that right.

As for calling him a paedophile, give me a goddamn break. The guy did something wrong and I'm by no means defending him. However, he doesn't pray on underaged kids all the time does he? He doesn't make it his habit, it's not his aim. I'm sure if she were legal he'd have done the exact same thing. The thing that makes me crack up is that due to this ONE case, you and Sadako brand the man a serial paedophile. Who do you think you are?

Don't throw around the label of paedophile, once attached it can't easily be removed. Michael Jackson's reputation is absolutely obliterated now because of people like you branding him something that he probably isn't, before taking into consideration that you might be wrong.

"HE could've averted this by not arranging a meeting. HE could've not shown up."

She could have done both of the same things. Oh but wait, she's 14, she's a "child". She's got the get out of jail free card.

Pfft.

-AC

"However, I don't believe he is totally to blame"


Yes he is. He knowingly broke the law and took advantage of a young, underage girls admiration she had for him. He is entirely to blame.


"The guy did something wrong and I'm by no means defending him. However, he doesn't pray on underaged kids all the time does he?"

Doesn't matter if he does it all the time, he did it one time, that's all it takes to become a bonified pedophile.

"She could have done both of the same things. Oh but wait, she's 14, she's a "child". She's got the get out of jail free card."

Yes, children can't be held accountable for all of their actions, their minds aren't developed fully and thus are going to make bad decisions. There is a reason children get special priviledges when it comes to laws and punishments, their minds aren't capable of constant rational thought.

Bottom line, he took blatant advantage of this girl and he is soley to blame.

As a result of her admiration she blindly met up with someone in an OBVIOUSLY dangerous situation without informing anyone. It wasn't like her parents said "No meeting guys on the net" and as a result she snuck out.

People need to stop using her age as an excuse.

-AC

Why? Age is completely relevent here, your logic is flawed to the point of being silly AC.

Speaking of silly. Here is why my age argument stands because people, as you are, get carried away.

"Yes, children can't be held accountable for all of their actions, their minds aren't developed fully and thus are going to make bad decisions. There is a reason children get special priviledges when it comes to laws and punishments, their minds aren't capable of constant rational thought."

She's 14. Not 4....14.

How many people here can truly say that at 14 their minds were "not developed properly". She's not mentally handicapped, nor an infant. She's 14. I've never met a 14 year old as incapable as you are making them out to be.

You're acting as if she could make none of her own decision. 14 is only two years away from being of consentual age in England. At 14 your body is already well into the maturing stages, how can you claim that minds aren't developed enough at 14, to make decisions?

-AC

Well if your theory of a 14 year old being completely able to make constant rational decisions was sound, then the age of consent would be 14 -- It isn't, it's 18 or 16 for the most part, and there's a reason for that. HOwever, this took place in America so the age of consent is 18, thus she is 4 years away from being legal, 4 years is a long time for a mind to develop into adulthood.

At 14 people are still developing, both mentally and physically and are more likely to make bad decisions because of said developments.

If at 14 I'd met Angelina Jolie on the internet and she wanted to meet up with me... for a start completely doubt it was her, but after confirmation I'd be bloody ecstatic and tell all my friends, and damn why wouldn't I wanna **** her, though underage, at the time I wouldn't have thought "no, I'm too young to have sex with my idol"

difference being she probably wouldn't wanna have sex with a 14 year old... he musta been desperate

I never said she was capable of constant and impeccable rationality.

I said at 14 you are conscious ENOUGH to know danger when it's slapping you in the face.

The fact that it's 18 there and 16 here doesn't mean her mind is gonna take longer to develop. She's still 14 with a healthy mental structure. She's not mentally handicapped, she's not insane. You talk about 14 year olds like they've just shot out of pre school. More likely to make bad decisions, yes. Undeveloped brains? Come off it.

Idol or not, you should know that you don't meet with people on the net, by yourself at that age. Or without telling people where you're going.

-AC

"I said at 14 you are conscious ENOUGH to know danger when it's slapping you in the face."

Not always. She was obviously naive and didn't come to grips with the possible consequences of her actions. This is likely a reprocussion of her age, and the mentallity of a star struck 14 year old who is going to meet someone she admires who is in a rock band she likes.

"The fact that it's 18 there and 16 here doesn't mean her mind is gonna take longer to develop."

No, it means it's not deveoped to the point of full maturity yet, and isn't as capable as it would be if she was 18 years old.

"She's still 14 with a healthy mental structure. She's not mentally handicapped, she's not insane."

Yeah? I never said she was.

"You talk about 14 year olds like they've just shot out of pre school. More likely to make bad decisions, yes. Undeveloped brains? Come off it."

I talk about them as if they're kids, which they are. And as such, their minds aren't as capable of rational and reasonable decisions as an 18 year old mind. Especially when it comes to sexual activity and consequences of such.

I think BF pretty much hit the nail on the head. He is solely to blame and he is a peadophile having taken an advantage of a 14 year old child - girl in this case.

My point was exactly apropriate seeing as this is VERY drastic situation of a 38 year old man getting a 14 year old over the internet - as already meantioned her mind is not developed well and enough for her to make decisions like an adult - if she was, she would have been an adult not a child.

On an unrelated note - to you im not Milla, im lil bitchiness. Please respect that

One thing I'd like to bring up...WTF were her parents doing? I cannot believe that they'd actually allow their 14 year old daughter to meet someone off the internet by herself...

Didnt she sneak out? Because that would make more sense to me. That or she lied to them where she's going.

You know, all this "blame the parents" stuff is based soley on guesswork. We don't know how she got out of the house. I doubt her parents knew about it. She probably sneaked out of the house, or lied to them and told them she was going to a friends house or something. I'm almost sure that they didn't just go "oh, you're going to meet an someone you met on the internet who claimed they were in a band you like? Okay, take your coat." Come on.

If she snuck out or lied to her parents about what she was doing, though, don't you think that shows that she knew that what she was doing was wrong? I dunno about you guys, but the only time I ever lied to my parents about where I was going is when I knew I wouldn't be allowed to do it.

And this is a 14 year old. A 14 year old child who is easely persuaded!

If he told her ''dont tell your parents, they probably wont allow it, but i want to meet you, you know i care about you, we're friends'' and the rest of the bullshit those weird internet preditors tell children, then of course she will sneak out.

He has built up a trust - made her trust her - its how internet preditors work.

"He is solely to blame and he is a peadophile having taken an advantage of a 14 year old child - girl in this case."

There's a difference between a sex offender and a paedophile.

Did he specify that he wanted to meet an underaged girl? Nooooo. Would he have done what he did had the girl been 15, 16, 17 or 18? Most likely. If he preyed on younger kids purposefully, he would be a paedophile. Paedophila by definition is having a sexual attraction specifically to underaged kids.

No your point WASN'T appropriate. Saying that what I am implying is just as bad as saying a woman in a mini skirt deserves to be raped is absolutely ridiculous.

Also Backfire, guesswork? I was unaware you were watching the man have sex with the girl. Unless any of us were there, it was all guesswork.

What Lana says is right. If she snuck out then she obviously proves Backfire right in some ways, but also wrong and proves what I'm saying right. She IS making a bad decision BUT she's also aware of it being a bad decision and knowing that her parents would stop her, did so anyway.

EDIT: and one other thing...

"If he told her ''dont tell your parents, they probably wont allow it, but i want to meet you, you know i care about you, we're friends'' and the rest of the bullshit those weird internet preditors tell children, then of course she will sneak out."

Backfire mentioned a word beginning with G and ending in uesswork. Which is what you're doing here. You're assuming a direct course of action which for all we know, might have not happened. You are just going by one age old theory. Which is faulty.

-AC

If he had, indeed, told her not to tell anyone and sneak out, then she CERTAINLY should have realized that this is something she shouldn't be doing. But you're assuming a lot with that argument.

Another thing that hasn't been touched upon, which really surprises me...how do we know that he knew she was only 14? I mean, people all the time lie about who they are on the internet, we don't know if she pretended to be older than she really is.

Yeah, because he never saw a picture of her, and couldnt tell a differance between the 14 year old and an 18 year old in the way she looked and the way she conducted herself and if he couldnt then hes a retard beyond any fixing.

AC > Of course, because sex offender is sooo much better than peadophile. Silly me for implying he was a peadophile, when being a sex offender is ever so better.

To you maybe, to the rest of us its appaling.

Another thing thats truly appaling in this thread is people making up the excuses for a 38 year old man who took advantage of a 14 year old child.

It's not ok for us to say "What if?" Lana.

All that matters clearly is that sex was involved with a girl. As always in these cases.

The fact of the matter is, "oh she snuck out." Then she knew she was doing something wrong and did so anyway. Is the man still to blame? No, not for her actions.

MORE TO THE POINT....and don't skip this:

If he told her "Your parents won't let you" and she didn't stop and think "Hmmm...wait a sec. Why won't my parents let me go? Maybe this IS a bit dodgy", then how can you say she ISN'T to blame? She made a shitty decision. He's in the wrong but she isn't in the clear.

"AC > Of course, because sex offender is sooo much better than peadophile. Silly me for implying he was a peadophile, when being a sex offender is ever so better."

Hahahahaha. Shhh....

When did I say it was better? Go and look through my posts, find where I said it was better. No seriously, please do.

Secondly, I'm making excuses for no one. You are.

As for that complete BS about her conducting herself, laughable.

Infact, why don't you tell me WHY he might not have been able to tell the difference between a 14 year old an an 18 year old. Is it not possible that she........lied?! To impress her idol?! Is it not possible that she dressed it up in the pic?! Or is she an uncontrollable, unaccountable, totally unblameable teen?

Yes.

-AC

Lil -- we don't KNOW if he saw pictures of her, though, because nowhere does it say that he did!!! And I don't know what you're saying about not being able to tell a 14 year old from an 18 year old, because I've seen plenty of 14 year old girls who look several years older. Hell, for all we know, she could have used a fake pic!!! Point is, WE DON'T KNOW. You are making a LOT of assumptions about this. Don't get me wrong, I am in no way condoning what he did, because it WAS wrong. What I am arguing is that the girl should have known better.



Apparently not...

"What Lana says is right. If she snuck out then she obviously proves Backfire right in some ways, but also wrong and proves what I'm saying right. She IS making a bad decision BUT she's also aware of it being a bad decision and knowing that her parents would stop her, did so anyway."

Doesn't prove anything.

It's still very possible (and likely) that, while knowing her parents wouldn't allow her to go, she, at her young, naive age thought she knew better then her parents (something every teenager is guilty of) and figured it was the RIGHT thing to do, regaurdless of her parents thoughts, because SHE wanted to meet this person.

Now, IF the parents did say "okay, you have fun meeting this stranger you met on the internet, get an autograph for your brother" then they are just as much to blame as the man.

Nooooo, dont attach a label of peadophile, attach the one of the sex offender!! If you attach a label of peadophile, you'll ruin a peado, i mean sex offenders reputation!!

Holly shit, how could i!?!

"It's still very possible (and likely) that, while knowing her parents wouldn't allow her to go, she, at her young, naive age thought she knew better then her parents (something every teenager is guilty of) and figured it was the RIGHT thing to do, regaurdless of her parents thoughts, because SHE wanted to meet this person. "

You're just making excuses for her ill judgement. Which it was. You are assuming she had a train of thought that puts her out of the blame. She made the bad call, that's what happened. Is them condoning the meeting not as bad as ignoring it? Hmm.

"Nooooo, dont attach a label of peadophile, attach the one of the sex offender!! If you attach a label of peadophile, you'll ruin a peado, i mean sex offenders reputation!! Holly shit, how could i!?!"

The law states a difference between sex offenses and paedophila.

We both know I didn't say or imply any of what you are saying. Stop making an ass of yourself Lil.

-AC

Sorry to say this, but it appears like you're looking for an excuse for this man - it is solely his fault.

I would be really amazed (and appalled frankly) if you could be the one to go up to that 14 year old girl and tell her ''what has happened to you is partly your fault''

But you know, everyone's different.

"You're just making excuses for her ill judgement. Which it was. You are assuming she had a train of thought that puts her out of the blame. She made the bad call, that's what happened."


Yes, she did. My argument this whole time has been that she wasn't able to recognize the bad decision because of her immature mind. Never said her decision wasn't bad.

Backfire: Then she isn't out of the blame is she? No.

She quite clearly knew that there was a right and wrong way, she chose the wrong way. Immaturity is a factor but it doesn't mean she isn't at fault.

You can only make a wrong decision by ignoring the right decision. There can never be just one side of a coin.

Lil Bitchiness: Why are so you hellbent on saying we're making excuses when we've both openly said that he's wrong?

Yes it was partly her fault. We're not saying she deserved it.

-AC

I am also not arguing that decision was bad - that shouldnt even be argued as decision WAS bad.

Just like if a person offerers a chocolate or ice cream to a child and asks the kid to go into the truck where there is more sweets, child follows. The decision of a child was bad, but the child doesnt see it that way, it doesnt look at it as bad - its persuaded and conditioned.

The girl was persuaded and conditioned as well as manipulated, just in more complex and sophisticated matter.

Excuse me? When was I EVER making excuses for him? Thanks for twisting my posts to read what you want them to. I straightout said, in the post you quoted, no less, that was he did was wrong. What my POINT is, is that the girl is not 100% in the clear for what happened. SHE decided to meet a stranger she had met online, which she must have known was not the right thing to do. You're making all sorts of assumptions with your arguments, and when I bring up relevant points in response, mentioning things that could have possibly happened but we don't know about (in other words, pointing out that you're making assumptions and are entirely basing your argument on things we don't know about), I get jumped on. Nice.

"Then she isn't out of the blame is she? No."

Yes, she is. According to anyone that matters children that age are less likely to recognize a bad situation or decision.

"She quite clearly knew that there was a right and wrong way, she chose the wrong way. Immaturity is a factor but it doesn't mean she isn't at fault."

The law says otherwise.

"You can only make a wrong decision by ignoring the right decision. There can never be just one side of a coin."

Well, we're not talking about a coin, we're talking about a teenage girls bad decision that she legaly, technically and logically isn't accountable for. That's all that matters.

She's 14, not 4.

Let's stop making her out to be some infantile, idiot uncapable of tieing her own laces.

-AC

So what are you saying then? What is your point...?

If you argued in front of a judge that it is partly her fault, then you are saying that it wasnt entiraly his responsibility, which as an adult who knew what he was doing, id say it was his responisibility. You would argue against this man's full sentance because it was kid's fault too??

Wow...

Poor analogy AC, never said she was 4 and no ones treating her as such.

She is a child, and that's what we're treating her as.

One VERY important point: THE GIRL CONSENTED TO HAVING SEX WITH HIM. While not being old enough to legally do so, she still did agree to having sex, she was not forced into it.

And I'm not saying that he doesn't deserve to go to jail...but this all could have not happened if the girl didn't decide to meet up with him.

Backfire: The law also says that he isn't technically a paedophile but that doesn't seem to matter here.

"Well, we're not talking about a coin, we're talking about a teenage girls bad decision that she legaly, technically and logically isn't accountable for. That's all that matters."

Why did you just make a completely irrelevant comment when you obviously knew what I meant? Of course we're not talking about a coin. She made a wrong decision. Can wrong exist without right? No. If you know of wrong, you know of right. To make a wrong decision, you ignore or disregard the right one. It's not rocket science.

"Yes, she is. According to anyone that matters children that age are less likely to recognize a bad situation or decision."

According to me that's an assumption. Since when are we going by the opinions of "anyone that matters"? I'm forming my own opinion. You can argue someone elses point all you want if it helps.

She's a child? Despicable. She's LEGALLY a child. Not MENTALLY. Which is what counts. At 17, you are a child by law. Does that mean if it happened to a girl of 17, she'd be off the hook? No. It's all coming down to your assumption that she was irrational.

-AC

"So what are you saying then? What is your point...? If you argued in front of a judge that it is partly her fault, then you are saying that it wasnt entiraly his responsibility, which as an adult who knew what he was doing, id say it was his responisibility. You would argue against this man's full sentance because it was kid's fault too?? Wow..."

Why don't you try reading what I post instead of quoting one line and interpreting them how you see fit? Such a childish debater.

She went to meet him. If she didn't could he have committed the act? No. She left herself completely open to the consequences of an internet meeting with a 34 year old. How can you say she's void of responsibility? She isn't. She consented sex.

-AC

Im shocked and appalled - i wonder if the person wasnt from Dope/Static X band, but some filthy trailer trash fat greasy guy, the people would be saying the same...hmm, something to ponder about.

Im amazed at how people think...then im amazed at how im still amazed at the way people think.

But yeah, sure whatever you think is right...in normal circumstances id say ''more power to you'' but now i will say ''less power and less people like you''.

AC - childish debater? You should perhaps learn to attack the idea, or the point thats being made - not the person whos making it. Or perhaps learn the differance between those two.

"Why did you just make a completely irrelevant comment when you obviously knew what I meant? Of course we're not talking about a coin. She made a wrong decision. Can wrong exist without right? No. If you know of wrong, you know of right. To make a wrong decision, you ignore or disregard the right one. It's not rocket science."

Unless she didn't recognize the decision she made as bad. Which, by using logic you can deduce is likely the case. No one advertantly makes a bad decision. I doubt she said "oh, this is a bad decision! I shouldn't do this, I might be taken advantage of by an older man who may be an internet predator". She made her decision obviously thinking it was the right decision, and I believe this is because of her age and lack of mature reasoning.

"According to me that's an assumption. Since when are we going by the opinions of "anyone that matters"? I'm forming my own opinion. You can argue someone elses point all you want if it helps."

My opinion would be the same regaurdless, it's not my fault that the people who make the law, psychologists and experts in child mentallity feel the same way. If experts and people who make the law agree with what you're saying, it would be stupid not to use that fact to your advantage in an argument.

"She's a child? Despicable. She's LEGALLY a child. Not MENTALLY. Which is what counts. At 17, you are a child by law. Does that mean if it happened to a girl of 17, she'd be off the hook? No. It's all coming down to your assumption that she was irrational."

Yes, she is mentally still a child. Fact is 14 year olds don't have the same mentality as an adult, which makes her, yes, that's right, mentally a child.

"Im shocked and appalled - i wonder if the person wasnt from Dope/Static X band, but some filthy trailer trash fat greasy guy, the people would be saying the same...hmm, something to ponder about."

I don't even like Static X, I think they're shit. Oops, what's that? Oh it's another one of your incredibly invalid, silly and downright overblown comments coming crashing to earth.

"But yeah, sure whatever you think is right...in normal circumstances id say ''more power to you'' but now i will say ''less power and less people like you''."

Less people like you. Says the girl who hates opinions that conflict her own, hates things that she can't understand and hates anyone that doesn't 100% agree with her. You go girl, as you would say. Attack the idea not the person? Look at what I just quoted please. You always try to pick stuff out when we're in debates and every time I spank you. Purely because you never think and you never read my posts. Hence why I have to explain things to you more than 3 times, you never pay attention.

Backfire: If you believe it's because of her age then you can also accept that it's a big assumption because I know loads of 14 year olds who would never get into that situation. Infact, she said she was a massive fan, she would have known how old he was then. It's not like she thought she was meeting with a kid.

"If experts and people who make the law agree with what you're saying, it would be stupid not to use that fact to your advantage in an argument."

Experts are just people who give opinions as a profession. Nothing more or less.

"Yes, she is mentally still a child. Fact is 14 year olds don't have the same mentality as an adult, which makes her, yes, that's right, mentally a child"

Ridiculous. So a 17 year old is still mentally a child incapable of making their own decision? It seems to me that you've singled out her age to make it work for you. 18 year olds are "adults", so you're not proving anything by saying "adults" as if they're all 40 with a sane mind. I know 14 year olds who don't suck at making decisions. I know 30 year olds who do.

-AC

poor girl....if a bit on the stupid side...bad things happen to anyone

"Backfire: If you believe it's because of her age then you can also accept that it's a big assumption because I know loads of 14 year olds who would never get into that situation. Infact, she said she was a massive fan, she would have known how old he was then. It's not like she thought she was meeting with a kid."

Too cut back on the repetition in this thread, let me say that everything is saying assumptions, so no need to continue pointing that out constantly. You're making assumptions, I'm making assumptions. Time to move on.

"Experts are just people who give opinions as a profession. Nothing more or less."

Lets not trivialize a persons expertise here, a person is an expert because their opinion has more validity in the particular subject they are an expert in, because they are more educated in said subject then most people. So, their opinion is more valid.

"Ridiculous. So a 17 year old is still mentally a child incapable of making their own decision? It seems to me that you've singled out her age to make it work for you. 18 year olds are "adults", so you're not proving anything by saying "adults" as if they're all 40 with a sane mind. I know 14 year olds who don't suck at making decisions. I know 30 year olds who do."

That's nice, however it's more likely that a 14 year old will make a poor decision then an 18 year old, there is a reason for this, and it's because of their mentality.

experts....just what we need , more experts *rolls eyes*, BTW HEy backfire

It's still conflictable though. Being an opinion and all that jazz.

I could still have a debate with a psychologist, we all could.

Irrelevant though.

-AC

So? You'd lose that debate becuase they know more then you about their subject.

You love your assumptions.

Depends what the debate is about, what aspect.

If I'm debating them in psychology about their chosen field and they know more, of course they'll win. Rather silly comment.

It's like saying "You're fast but Maurice Greene will beat you." Doesn't mean I can't race him does it? Yes, I know we're not discussing runners, before you get all literal on me. It was an example.

-AC

Well, considering we are discussing the psyche of a 14 year old girl, and rather or not it's comparable to an adult, I think it's fair to assume your comment of....

"It's still conflictable though. Being an opinion and all that jazz.

I could still have a debate with a psychologist, we all could."

...would be relevent and in reference to the current discussion about the psyche of a 14 year old girl.

I just pulled out one of my psych textbooks, and according to it, by the age of 13-14 people ARE capable of telling right from wrong and knowing what is a bad decision to make.

There is a reason why, in many cultures, at the age of 13 you are considered an adult...

"There is a reason why, in many cultures, at the age of 13 you are considered an adult..."


What cultures are these?

And again, I never said people that age are purely incapable of making good decisions, merely that they are more likely to make a bad decisions.

Why are you assuming what I was referring to instead of asking me?

I was speaking generally about psychologists. Hence my following and also ignored line of "Irrelevant though."

To add to Lana's comment: The age of consent in some European countries is 12.

-AC

"Why are you assuming what I was referring to instead of asking me?"

Because, I was sticking to the topic at hand, I assumed others would be reasonable enough to do the same.

You broadened it out by referring to psychologists and their opinions. I stuck on topic by saying that regardless of profession, it is an opinion.

I wasn't and haven't strayed from topic. Except that one time when I clearly stated that it WAS irrelevant and therefore needed to be discussed no longer.

-AC

I was reading some of this thread and I must say what her mentality was and is totally irrelevant..she could have the mind of the sagest wise men in the world and it won't mean squat.

the adult in question and who is in America should be very aware of the laws of this country..and if he was even considering the thought of intercourse with a minor he should have damn well known the law on statutory rape.

just for the record, consent of the victim and belief that the victim is of the age of consent are usually considered immaterial.
and when AC mentioned that in some country's the age of consent is much lower ,thats true, but if someone was to go that country to have sex with a minor from a country which the age is older,they can be prosecuted upon their return.

my 2 cents he deserves whats coming to him..

He absolutely does deserve what's coming to him. Never argued otherwise.

Knowing the law doesn't mean people automatically think "Oops. Better not do that." Hence why there are criminals.

What I don't see the point of, if someone sleeps with a 12 year old in a country where that is LEGAL and have NEVER committed acts of underage sex and/or paedophilia in their OWN country, then they should not be prosecuted there for they have broken no law.

It's a bit stupid to say "You broke OUR law in another country" coz that matters jack shit. Weed is illegal in the US, you're telling me that everyone who goes to Amsterdam to smoke it, gets arrested for drug use when they come back? No.

He deserves what's coming to him, which is a sentance. I don't see where people get off on becoming Judge Dredd everytime sex is involved in a crime. You want that authority? Become a judge or a cop.

-AC

"It's a bit stupid to say "You broke OUR law in another country" coz that matters jack shit. Weed is illegal in the US, you're telling me that everyone who goes to Amsterdam to smoke it, gets arrested for drug use when they come back? No."

I agree with you there, AC.

The guy is obviously a predator. The 14 year old girl may have agreed to the sex, but she was still enticed and manipulated by a 39 year old man. This guy carried on a decietfull character to lure in an underage girl more than twice his age in youth. He drove from P.A to California to meet with this girl. In most cases i would say both parties would be equally as responsible here, but this guy is a predator who if given the chance would manipulate little girls in situations like this again and again. This guy had major forethought, of what he was doing.

You know the band is shitty when an actuall memeber cannot be reconized, by a fan.

If it was a 14 year old boy there'd be a different vibe.

-AC

You mean a 14 year old boy and a 39 year old woman? If thats the case then your right. It would be looked at differently. The charges probably wouldnt be any where near as severe as they will be in this case. That doesnt mean the actions would have been less wrong. then again, there was that case not that long ago where a thirty somthing old teacher slept with her 16 year old student, and was put away for 7 years.

Yes but that's one case.

The fact that it's a 14 year old female drastically alters the proceedings doesn't it?

A 14 year old boy has no better chance of handling himself against a 38 year old man than a girl does, but there'd be no bigger fuss would there? Of course not.

The point I was making is this:

He commited a sex offense and after looking at all the evidence and what not, should be given a sentance accordingly. He deserves what any sex offender deserves, which is what the law states they deserve. I am not, contrary to Lil's consistant and rabid belief, condoning nor defending the man. I am saying he's wrong. What I am ALSO saying is that people shouldn't be blinded that it was a girl who had sex with a much older man. She is at fault also. We can go into "to what degree was she at fault?" all day. The point is, she carries some fault. Backfire and Lil believe she does not because they also happened to believe that she had an "undeveloped brain" that caused "irrational decisions and couldn't "think for herself" because she was 14. Which I believe to be tripe, by experience.

He deserves what a sex offender deserves, no more or less. The beef I have with calling the man a/implying that the man is a serial paedophile is that....he isn't. He committed a sexual act with an underaged girl and probably would have done so if she was legal. If he continually preyed on and targeted underaged people, yes. Lil, Sadako and others have no proof that he has done such. YES this was an ACT of paedophilia, but by definition. A paedophile is someone who does it continuously.

The reason why I picked this out is because in today's society where everyone is so Flash Gordon fast about labelling someone even remotely tied to a kid, a paedophile, there's hardly any fact there. Matthew Kelly, a gay TV presenter from the UK. He was "linked" by rumour to child porn. What did the nation do? Labelled him a paedophile. He got cleared of all charges and was found innocent. He got off the charges but he will forever be synonymous with the paedophilic (if you will) label attached to him.

It's a damaging thing and it's not something to be drastically thrown around because it's a serious case.

In closing and in relevance:

Were Tripp's actions wrong? Yes.
Did he take advantage? Yes.
Did she consent? We can if and but about why or how she consented all day, but yes she consented.
Did she make the bad/stupid decision and as a result end up in a dangerous situation? Yes.

So does she carry fault? Yes. Well, the fact that you treat her as a preschool mind not withstanding here.

-AC

I have not quoted anyone, if you have a look, nor have i specifficaly said anything about you, but if you identify with it, then apperantly i was right.

My criminology professor explained this kind of crime women/men recently - an adult sleeping with a minor is not a 'male' crime (like for exaple rape - woman cannot be accused of the actual rape because its so strictly defined, they can be charged with being an accomplice to the rape, but the actual act)

Sleeping with a minor, sex offending or paedophilia are just as bad for women as they are for men (and by that i mean the sentances are the same, or should be if you like).

How the trial is conducted though...i dont know makes differance i guess, but the actual law (again, in UK at least) recognises both male and female as equaly being able to offend in those types of crimes.

Man he is going to be spending a long time in the slamer.JM

Actually the reason everyone seems to think he is a paedophile is because it would seem he is:
http://www.undercover.com.au/news/2005/feb05/20050228_staticx.html

http://www.antimusic.com/news/05/feb/item47.shtml

It appears that he has done this more than once.

"I have not quoted anyone, if you have a look, nor have i specifficaly said anything about you, but if you identify with it, then apperantly i was right."

Sigh...

Where did I say you HAD quoted anyone Lil? Do yourself a favour girl, read what I write.

The sentances may be the same, the crimes are not. Manslaughter sentance can be the same as murder, different crime though.

"It appears that he has done this more than once."

It says he was caught sleeping in a car with an underaged girl.

You homosapiens and you're assumptions. Too quick off the mark that's your problem.

-AC

In another article I read it said he had just had sex with her, if true thats at least two different underage girls he's had sex with. Thats before they've even checked his computer for more evidence.

*Goes to find the article.*

Here it is: http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=33435

More: http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/02272005_ent_sexassault.html

AC. Look mate.
1) As far as im concerned, this guy (In reference to you saying earlier that "Once doesn't make you a paedo..." IS a paedo. Thats my just-as-valid-and-respectable-as-anyone-else's-POV.

2) How do you know that this isn't either a first time offender, having had paedo issues fro years and then the guy suddenly couldn't contain it any longer....? Or worse still, that this guy is being done for just his latest offence....

3) In regards to the personally attacking "Who do you think you are...?" Again someone with a well valid opinion that is a legitmate argument also, someone who is ten years older than you and who feels that even someone of MY age (29) having sex with a 14-yr old is well well well WELL dodgy. Now this guy was almost forty.

4) When you are the father of a 14yr old girl and if she comes home after having had sex with a 38 year old after hes groomed her on the web and lied about his identity because even HE(knows its statutory rape because its sex with a minor (A paedo act) and she comes home to you, would you just turn away saying -

"Ah... Thats alright, It's your fault. Besides, its actually legal in some countries..and no hes not a paedophile hes a sex offender....!!!!! now go to bed..."? If so then what father material you would be...
But im sure you wouldn't say that though .....

It just baffles me why you are so blind to it my and other's POV on this.

5) The Matthew Kelly thing. I agree that he shouldn't be labelled as a Paedo neccessarily.... After all, he doesn't seemed to have screwed any kids... Unlike this fella.

"In another article I read it said he had just had sex with her, if true thats, at least, two different underage girls he's had sex with."

Well why post the articles that you know are wrong then? He has probably had sex with may more overaged girls than underaged. 18 year olds sleep with 15 year olds, they're not paedophiles.

This is what it says on the link you sent:

"As reported by the Asbury Park Press, police in California arrested Salvador on Feb. 10 after finding him sleeping in a parked car with a girl with whom he had just had sexual intercourse, said Jon Fleischman of the Orange County Sheriff's Department."

On what grounds do they know this? It's more than possible they are making the connection that sleeping next to equates to intercourse. Two other sites have done so.

There's many IF'S here and no concrete fact. Like I said, by definition it is an act of paedophilia but so are many things. By definition any adult with an attraction on a minor is an act of paedophila. However, unless he has some provable, factual record, there's no reason to go slapping him with the label.

-AC

Well. Dna testing etc would tell pertaining to the statement you've just
posted form... The girl's testimony....? other Witnesses...? could be a lot of things. Speculation city....Granted....

If this is a case of not guilty, then quite right, I will apologise and withdraw my assessment of the guy.
But if hes banged up for it.... Then it all stands... As do my principles on the subject which stand regardless.

Exactly.

It has been said that he was just found sleeping next to her more times than it's been said he had sex with her. Tests would have been done and it'd be on the net by now if he had done anything.

Again, speculation, so we can neither confirm nor deny he did anything.

-AC

Not if an on going legal case was happening.
(The release of test results etc....)

How do you know she didn't tell them they just had sex?
What articles are wrong?
I'm just pointing out that there may well be more to this than meets the eye, this may not be a one of incident.
I'm not saying he is definately a paedophile just saying that its looking highly likely.
What would a 39 year old man be doing sleeping in a car with an underage girl anyway? That in itself is worrying.

Firstly to Sadako:

1) By definition, he is. Never doubted it. You are labelling him as some rampant serial paedophile though.

2) I could say the same to you. You don't know any more than I do. So thanks for proving my point there .

3) Yes I'm well aware of the article. Not quite sure what you meant by all that but whatever bubbles your bath.

4) Assumption City. If I had a daughter she wouldn't even be in that situation. That's a judgement call that I am making about myself. So don't try to debate this. If you feel you would be a bad enough parent to let that thing slip under your Bat-Parent radar, so be it. I wouldn't.

5) Now we're getting somewhere. Chances are, many of us are paedophiles by definition, fault or not. I have NO reason to believe, and neither do any of you, that he is a serial paedophile. Correct?

Now....deet de deeee...oh Sadako again.

Show me the test results please.

Daron: I completely agree. Here's why...

"How do you know she didn't tell them they just had sex?
What articles are wrong?
I'm just pointing out that there may well be more to this than meets the eye, this may not be a one of incident."

I don't, neither do you. Why assume any different? Just because sex is implied? What happened to innocent till proven guilty?

I never implied the articles are wrong. I'm saying why post two and claim that they show factual paedophilia when they do not?

There may be more to this than meets the eye, hence why I am debating.

*Does the Alpha Mambo*

-AC

1) Show me a quote from my posts where I call him "A rampant serial Paedophile"

2) Absolutely. I agree 100%. I've never seen this as a whos-right-whos-wrong-competion.. I merely stated my opinion as have you.
We all have our own. This of course is the main asset of debate.

3)Radox bubbles my bath (Occasionally) But dude if if you see my point on that as unreasonable or wrong, then each to there own,but man! You wont ever be allowed near MY daughter.....! Seriously though..
I would find someone with such a defense of Paedos (Citing various arguments as 'Well the kid concented' and 'Well, its legal in some countries' as a little disconcerting....

4) Glad to hear it. And neither would I of course in principle.But Im not debating the parents role in that point I made really, and was trying to accertain whether or not there was any way that compassion for the kid in question would override your "blame" judgement, and giving that you still haven't replied to that aspect of the post, then to use a particularly ironic phrase given the debate topic, "The jurys still out on that one..."
Besides which Will you be the first ever parent then (in this hypothesis)
to ever not make a mistake...? Or the first one never ever to have been
neglegent...?

5) Dummm-de-dummm de dummmmmmm....
Read Point no 1 of this post again.....

1) I never said you called him those exact words. I said you are labelling him as one, making him out to be one. Don't try and out smartass a smartass .

2) Good, goooood.

4) Firstly I don't plan on having kids. Secondly, I'm sure as a parent I would make mistakes because it's inevitable. Would letting my 14 year old daughter go running out of the house to meet a random 34 year old stranger be one of them? Hahahahaha no, it wouldn't and yes I would know if she was up to anything because I happen to have a knowledge of computers so I would be more than able to see what she's up to on there.

4A) To cover your OTHER point about compassion, you missed MY point. It would still be my daughter's bad choice if she thought it was OK to go and meet a man like that. The key factor is that she wouldn't get the chance to see it through, thus? My daughter would not be subject to his robopleging. Killing a bird with an abortion, no need for the stone. Metaphorically speaking.

5) Note where I said "any of you" and not "Sadako of Birth, this is aimed at you."

Bada ba badaaaa, I'm lovin' it.

-AC

But I didn't say they showed actual paedopilia I said that they show that it would seem he is, not that they show he definately is a paedophile.

I'm saying that people are calling him a paedophile, because based on what the news reports say, it would seem that he has had sex with more than one underage girl, therefore he probably is a paedophile, not definately, probably.

Yes most opinions are based on assumptions, so they may well be wrong, but the guy had sex with one underage girl and was found sleeping in a car with another underage girl, naturally people are going to arrive at the conclusion that he is a paedophile, they may be wrong but based on what has been reported its the most obvious conclusion.

Like I said I'm not saying he is a paedophile, just that I understand why people think he is. I also understand what you are saying that he is innocent until proven guilty.

Whatever, you're trying to put words in my mouth (I never said he was a paedophile), I'm simply saying that I see why people think he is a paedophile, not that he is.

"But I didn't say they showed actual paedopilia I said that they show that it would seem he is, not that they show he definately is a paedophile."

I never said you did.

Everyone needs to stop assuming that I'm being specific. I try to speak in general so as to cover more points.

"I'm saying that people are calling him a paedophile, because based on what the news reports say, it would seem that he has had sex with more than one underage girl, therefore he probably is a paedophile, not definately, probably."

Yes, where was I saying any different? Again, making the assumption that I'm specifically aiming it at you.

As for the waking in the car, people can arrive at whatever conclusion they like as long as they realise that they are doing so. Someone arriving at a conclusion, however obvious, doesn't make it fact until proven so.

Last point: I see why people are saying it too and if you look, I've agreed he's a paedophile by definition, but so are many people. Big difference to having a dossier on kids.

-AC

There it is -in the paragraph that starts with "As for falling him a paedophile".

1) Already have.

4) good for you. But then maybe the parents in question weren't so clued up... A lot parents of her parent's age probably aren't as a rule...

Because that's how he's commonly known in this thread is it not?

Did I refer to him before as a paedophile by definition?

Did I deny he was a paedophile or guilty of paedophilia.

Answers to each:

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Thanks.

"1) Already have. "

Haven't really. I can be such a party crasher.

Let's not get irrelevant as a result of my impeccable skill shall we? .

I agree on your 4th point by the way. Parents aren't clued up. Just helps me.

-AC

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh yes I haaaaaaaaaveeeeeeeeeee.....
"Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh no you haven't hhhhhhhhaaaaaavvvvveeent"
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh yes I haveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee......!!!
"Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh no yoooouuu havvvvvvvveennntt....."
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh yes I have...............
"Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh yeeeeesssssssss you haveeeeeeeeee"
Hah........!!! Gotcha.

Goddamit.

You used the old pantomime thing.

Bastard.

-AC

'Just going to meet a man off the internet, be back soon.'

What for?

'Talk and that. Then come home.'

Ok, byeee.

Wait until you are a parent, then you'll eat your words.

You'll be the first parent in the world who can completely control their teenage child, in order to know where they are at any given moment, which you would need to in order to know that they aren't sat in a car with 39 year old man, without using violence to control the teenager in question and those kind of people generally get locked up.

Therefore you can't possibly know that your child would never end up in that situation.

I know people who've brought up numerous children the exact same way, and they can turn out totally different, its something you really don't have much control over.

Many parents try their absolute best to bring up their child the best way possible, but the truth is, that you really don't have that much control over what kind of person your child will turn out to be.

I should know I have a sixteen year old son, who by the way has given me almost no trouble at all , he's turned out to be a lovely young man. Of course I know I had something to do with the person he is now, but to be honest I never really knew what I was doing. I think most people just hope they are doing the right thing.


Alpha Centauri: "I'm saying why post two and claim that they show factual paedophilia when they do not?"

We've covered this already. We all know that this is mostly just speculation. Its still extremely disturbing.

What the hell is this? You know as well as I do that when people are called paedophiles that people are referring to individuals who specifically like having sex with children. If he purposely goes on the internet to find underage girls to have sex with, then he's a paedophile, in the sense that pretty much everyone besides you (and the dictionary) think of a paedophile.

Not quite the dictionary definition, but that would ruin the point, so carry on.

The whole first part of your post, with all due respect, was just pretentious "I'm a parent, you're not."

Not being a parent doesn't equate to not knowing what it entails. I've been through this whole "Wait till you're a parent". Thankfully I won't have to deal with kids, should I have however, I am merely stating that I wouldn't let my daughter go strolling off in that situation. Never stated I'd completely control.

"Alpha Centauri: "I'm saying why post two and claim that they show factual paedophilia when they do not?"

That was actually an unedited mistype. Meant to says "That claim they show factual paedophilia." Apologies for the confusion.

"If he purposely goes on the internet to find underage girls to have sex with, then he's a paedophile, in the sense that pretty much everyone besides you (and the dictionary) think of a paedophile."

Has this been proven though? I'm sure he's had sex with alot of legal people.

-AC

No, I didn't mean it like that at all.

I'm just saying that there are too many variables to the situation for you to be able to say that you wouldn't let your child go wondering off, how would you stop her, if she wanted to go, some parents have absolutely no control of their children what-so-ever. There's a TV series on over here in the UK called 'brat camp', some of those parents have other children who are just like most kids and then there are those who are completely out of control.

I guess what I'm saying is that your child could sneak out, make you think she's going somewhere else how would know otherwise. What if she said she was going to meet some friends, but went to meet some 39 year old guy she met on the internet instead or met in a shopping center or well anywhere?


Ok.

No, I'm just taking issue with your definition of paedophile, it might be the dictionary definition, but you and I both know that people use "paedophile" to describe certain types of people.

"What if she said she was going to meet some friends, but went to meet some 39 year old guy she met on the internet instead or met in a shopping center or well anywhere?"

None of the parents I know have gone through shit like that. The fact that they are intelligent, responsible parents isn't coincidence.

"No, I'm just taking issue with your definition of paedophile, it might be the dictionary definition, but you and I both know that people use "paedophile" to describe certain types of people."

Dictionary definition is anyone with an attraction to young children or those underage. So he is a paedophile by definition. There's been one, possibly two cases, provable. Doesn't make him a serial paedogeddon.

-AC

Consensual sex or not he is old enough to know that is illegal to be sleeping with teens. Unless he really is very stupid or mentally challenge he might have an excuse. Great! Now it seems we have another MJ trial coming soon.

what a moron both of them...

Technically you cannot legally consent when underage.

However, if she did actually consent, I don't think she should be walking around like a victim. (Not implying she is, don't know the girl)

As I've said...oh, 3-4 times already? Heh...

(not picking on you here, just pointing out that that's been said already and people seem to have not noticed it)

I should've known you'd say something like that.

I just told you that the same parents can have children who are totally different, it happens all the time. Why do some parents have children who never get into trouble and other children who are totally out of control?

This is basically the nature/nurture debate, I happen to believe that its a mixture of both, and quite a lot of it depends on the child's personality.

If you really believe that there is a way to bring up children that will guarantee that they will be totally well behaved, then you know even less about bringing up children than I initially gave you credit for.


If the accusations are true then IMO he is just as bad as the worst paedophile.

But, isnt this a contradiction?





If she cannot legally consent when underage (like she cant) then she is a victim, no?

On the topic of kids Daron, we're getting into how we'd raise kids. Which is slightly irrelavent. I'm not saying it has to be controlled or rebel, stating that some mistakes should NEVER come about if you're even a half decent parent.

I never doubted the girl was a victim, I was just saying she was at partial fault. It wasn't ALL the guy. That's my opinion.

-AC

In a legal sense, yes.

Not quite a contradiction, more...what I was actually saying.

'As I've said...oh, 3-4 times already? Heh...

(not picking on you here, just pointing out that that's been said already and people seem to have not noticed it)'

Sorry, didn't read it. Even so, it was relevant to my point so I would have still said it.

I agree, there are definately mistakes that should never be made.
I'm just saying that a parent can do their very best, but sometimes no matter what there really is no way to know for sure how your child will turn out.

You make it sound like it wasn't all the evil guitarist's fault...

I'm not talking about this case.

I'm saying that if Alpha thinks he/she can bring his/her child up in such a way that that child would never go off and meet a 39 year old man she met on the internet, then they are wrong.

I'm not talking about either of the girls involved in this case, since I don't know them.

Sneaking out or lying to go meet a 39 year old man she met on the internet, doesn't necessarily signify that the girl in question is a bad person or anything like that, just that she is an impressionable teenager.

"I'm saying that if Alpha thinks he/she can bring his/her child up in such a way that that child would never go off and meet a 39 year old man she met on the internet, then they are wrong."

What I'm saying is, she can make the attempt all she wants. A responsible parent isn't gonna let it happen.

Is your girl capable of sneaking out Daron?

Even so, all this is irrelavent. My point has been made really. This is for a parental thread.

-AC

Of course you can. It's hardly routine behaviour. It's like saying you can't bring up a child not to jump out the window.

Yeah, this is for a different thread.

I don't have a daughter, I have a son, and if he wanted to he could, he is sixteen, but I doubt he would, he's never given me any problems. He does pretty much everything I tell him to, besides stuff like leaving his bag on the floor instead of putting it away or going out after school with his school uniform on.

I just don't understand how you'd stop her, I guess you could call the police or something, like I said nothing to stop her lying. *shrugs*