James Barbour Arrested — Page 10

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

"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?

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.

---

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.

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

What TONY did Jane Eyre win anyway?

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.

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

---

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.

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

---

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

ETA - nice salt.

Updated On: 4/7/06 at 01:55 PM

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