James Barbour Arrested- Page 10

[Craig]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 10:07am

Which story are you reading..??

"A 19-year-old aspiring actress has accused a veteran Broadway actor of luring her into performing sex acts offstage when she was just a star-struck kid visiting the Great White Way.

The 40-year-old actor, James Barbour, who appeared in the Broadway musical "Assassins" three years ago, was arrested yesterday by Los Angeles police on a New York warrant charging sex abuse and sodomy, sources here said.

The unidentified woman came forward in February and told NYPD cops she first met Barbour through her high-school drama coach in 2001 when she was 15. "

[Calvin]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 10:08am

That's why I was confused. If it was 1990, then James Barbour wasn't much more than a teenager himself at the time.

[VonTussleGirl]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 10:11am

....just watch, this is going to be an episode of Law & Order: SVU in about two months.

[sanda]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 10:14am

"Sanda wrote:

Of course I didn't read the whole thread. I am not interested in "complicated" facets which cannot be found on the real report. I mean the public, legal reportC not spittle.

Well, someone always can have fun in spittle. That's for sure. And hell, they can even be quite serious.

It always amazes me when someone insists on making a strong comment about something they haven't bothered to read, totally oblivious of just how superficial and ignorant they sound. "

Oh,well, I said that your opinion didn't deserve my attention, so I am superficial and ignorant. Honey, but truly, your words really didn't.

I prefer believing someone is innocent before conviction. You have problem with that?

[Brodybaby03]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 10:19am

It's funny...I've been relaying this story to me work colleagues and I tell them..."SO this guy was supposedly sleeping with a 15 yr old when he was 35..." and they go "ewww"
and I say, "wait wait.."
and then tell them that she returned to her "rapest" more thank once and is NOW coming forward (as an "aspiring actress") FIVE years later, and they say, "That's insane..."
and again, I'm just relaying my opinion and the opinion of others... I'm not a judge.

[Craig]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 10:19am

Sanda not to cross your t's and dot your i's.. but I believe semantically it's you're PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty.

Because you can be guilty as hell and never be found guilty. You can also be innocent as hell as be found guilty.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 10:30am

"The unidentified aspiring actress told New York police she met Barbour in 1991 through her high school drama coach when she was 15."

That's from United Press International. The Post says they met in 2001.

But, wait...the UPI must be wrong because it says later that year she met him at Jane Eyre -- which was SO not 1991.

Okay, I was TOTALLY wrong. The girl is 19. So, this could be a felony case, then.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 10:35am

Under the law, a statute of limitations is tolled while the the alleged victim is under the age of majority. Hence, so long as after turning the age of majority, the period to file a claim has not ended, there is no issue with the lapse of time.

This recognizes that many time people under a certain age may not have the capacity to realize that they were taking advantage of or that something wrong actually took place.

Again, how many students go back for more from their teachers. How many children were repeatedly molested by Priests?

The mere fact that she went back again is irrelevant to the legal discussion because she was under the legal age to consent to having sex.

This is not saying that she may have had the subjective capacity to know what she was doing, maybe in her mind she did "want" it. It does not matter, because the law says that she does not have the capacity to really know what she was doing. Statutory rape laws are not designed to get to each party's intent. All they care about is whether the person was a minor.

Again, I do not know what happened, whether there was even sex between the two. He may well be innocent.

But, if they did have sex, she may have "wanted it", she may have come back for more. She may have "known" what she was doing . . . none of that matters one rats ass. All that matters is that she was under age and he was not. The law says that by default, she is saying "No" to sex until she is of legal age to say yes.

[Brodybaby03]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 10:46am

I truely think some of these laws need to be re-evaluated. Not just because of this case but in general.

[sanda]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 10:49am

Craig,

Thank you for correcting my grammar. I confess I am guilty as hell for my terrible grammar. If you can explain it to me more clearly I may have a little hope to redeem myself in future.

And Craig, we are talking about law aspect, aren't we? You said the only issue was about whether he broke the law or not. So only the guilty or not guilty conviction in legal aspect count, right?
Updated On: 4/7/06 at 10:49 AM

[Craig]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 10:53am

indeed

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 11:02am

What TONY did Jane Eyre win anyway?

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 11:03am

Bordy, you may be right.

Sometimes, laws are not fair, impartially applied, or really appropriate to the crime committed.

Look at mandatory sentencing guidelines for first time drug offenders? Inconsistent application of the death penalty (which I am opposed to for the record) just to start.

[Brodybaby03]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 11:05am

it didn't win did it?
That set up they had on the actual tele-cast was a little...ridic.
But he was really hot.

[EganFan2]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 1:10pm

>>....just watch, this is going to be an episode of Law & Order: SVU in about two months.

You're right. It probably will be. Has all the makings for it.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 1:15pm

Somebody would have to die. I would hope they would keep the cult element, but look what happened to South Park.

[Brodybaby03]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 1:35pm

This just ruins flirting with the handsome straight men @ Opening Night Parties for everyone! Now they;re never going to flirt back....whats an opening night party without a quick tumble behind the open bar!

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 1:39pm

I'd just like to point out something rather nefarious (but is it really?) here: I know TONS (well, not literally) of straight guys involved in musical theatre who have used their status to, in a nutshell, get some.
The only difference is they've "gotten some" from legal girls/women. Take that for what it is but it happens on Broadway more than you would think.

[Brodybaby03]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 1:44pm

Ehh I've had them when I was legal but I liked it better when I was a minor, it was hotter.

[robbiej]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 1:52pm

And that wins as the most shocking post of the day!

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 1:53pm

Jealous, Robbie?

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 1:55pm

Well, that explains some of the logic behind your posts.

ETA - nice salt. Updated On: 4/7/06 at 01:55 PM

[Brodybaby03]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 1:55pm

well now I can exhale...I shocked robbiej
Thank you God for this most joyous day

[Brodybaby03]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 1:59pm

Youwantitwhen.....don't assume, and try and take things with a grain of salt...if you don't find it ammusing then just sit back...but don't pressume you know me or the definitions of my "logic"
thanks

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 2:04pm

OK - I will do my best to never draw any conclusions made by your statements.

Each shall be taken with a grain of salt and not presumed to have any relationship to any prior comment you have ever made.