James Barbour Arrested- Page 9

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 12:11am

If you are 39 and want to have sex with my minor daughters - I have friends and you will regret it!

[sanda]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 12:33am

I am a huge James Barbour fan. I wish him best. If he go to jail because of this, while, it is really a waste of talent. Anyhow, there are always hot actors that I can appreciate.

Edit:If he really broke the law, he is stupid and should pay the price. If he is innocent, he will be cleared. I don't understand how you guys have so much to say about such a simple thing. Who are you? the judge?


Updated On: 4/7/06 at 12:33 AM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 12:56am

As *I* have pointed out Sanda (and something tells me you're commenting without actually having read the whole thread) it's not "such a simple thing." It's a very, very complicated thing, with many facets, all of which need to be taken into consideration.

[sanda]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 1:08am

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.

[MaronaDavies]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 2:48am

It takes two to tango? Not when one is not old enough to even go to a prom, and the other could be her father! Perhaps if you are talking about two teenagers, you might have a point. But, when you are talking about a middle-aged man and a 15 year old girl, I just shake my head in bewilderment.

If this was a teacher and a HS girl would you feel the same way? A priest and a child in his Parrish? Or, are all of these attacks because you happen to like the man accused of statutory rape?

Statutory rape laws are on the books because courts and legislatures have held that people under a certain age lack the capacity to completely understand what they are doing, and thus lack the capacity to consent to the act itself.

I don't know who did what. I don't know whether she is telling the truth. All I know is that this girl is not old enough to consent to entering into a contract, she cannot rent an apartment on her own, she cannot vote, she cannot drive on her own legally, there are many things she cannot do legally. Under the law, she is determined not to have the capacity to consent to having sex.

The response of many on this Board is one reason that people do not come forward when things like this happen.

Well said. I'd also add that a lot of the time, victims of assault do not come forward for years. Some never publicly speak of their experiences. It's not at all unusual that she would come forward 5 years later. It's possible she didn't even really come forward directly, but told someone who was legally obligated to report the incident.

Also, for what it's worth, reporting a sexual assault is not a walk in the park. The investigation process can be very traumatic: repeating the story to many, many people; invasive questions; attacks from the defendant's lawyer. It's not the sort of thing someone would do just for the heck of it, or to further their career.

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 6:08am

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.

[Brodybaby03]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 7:38am

Does anyone happen to have a link to this new LA times story.
I think what's sad is how these "laws" ...expecially the ones dealing with statituory (sorry too early to spell) make it easy for someone like this "victim" to come forward 5 years later eventhough I fully believe she knew what she was doing when she was 15....it's sad that he has to pay for it...with supposed jail time. Someone on this thread had a FANTASTIC point earlier..something like, so if she was 15 @ 11:59pm on the eve of her 16th birthday its rape but at 12:00am it's conesntual? It's total BS.

But someone else said she's not old enough to go to the prom? boo hoo. She was old enough to "wrap her mind" around going back for more , more than once. She was MORE than old enough to wrap her mind around realizing WHAT she was doing.
Again, this is my opinion. And for the record I have had a personal experience with Date rape, so save the trouble in the "You don't know what my victims feel" lectures. I'm just giving an opinion

[MaronaDavies]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 7:59am

Way to blame the victim.

The crux of the issue here is that HE knew what HE was doing. As the adult, it was HIS responsibility to STOP whatever the situation was before it got out of hand. I don't want to hear that he couldn't control himself, or he was seduced, or anything else. He's the adult. He should have known not to mess around with a fifteen year old.

Yes, fifteen year olds do have sex, and they do know what they're doing--as far as they are able, as teenagers with perhaps less maturity and judgement. The catch is that they're usually having sex with other teenagers, in mutual relationships.

And was it consensual? An adult that goes after a teenager is usually abusing their power and status. Have you ever met a teenage Broadway fangirl? These actors are their gods. They trust in them, they hero-worship them, they spend hours thinking about them, they'd probably walk on broken glass for them. If the actor says hello at the stage door they go home and write emails about it. The actor has some measure of power over these kids. It's the same power a rock star has, or a teacher, or a coach, or, yes, a priest. They didn't ask for the power, they didn't ask to be a role model or an object of worship--but they are.

So we have a fifteen year old, and ohmigod! Her hero is paying attention to her! Doesn't that make her feel special? He's invited her home? How cool! She can tell all her friends about it! Is she going to do whatever this person asks her to do? Probably. Is it right? NO. Is the "hero" abusing his position and taking advantage of a minor? YES. Should he be penalized for this? YES.

Adults and teenagers are not considered equal in the eyes of the law. It's up to the adult to make the right decision.
Updated On: 4/7/06 at 07:59 AM

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 8:10am

If we are punishing people for using their celebrity to get sex, then 98% of Hollywood should be in jail.

If we are punishing people for having sex they later regretted, then 98% of us would be in court trying to put people in jail.

The issue here is whether or not the girl knew what she was doing -- not whether she grew up and regretted it, or whether he used his power over her.

And THAT is what the law should be protecting against -- a conscious manipulation OR a man who raped a girl (who didn't know any better).

[MaronaDavies]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 8:24am

98% of Hollywood isn't having sex with minors. Therein lies the difference.

A minor is not capable, in the eyes of the law, of making informed consent about having sex with an adult. It does not matter in the least if she "knows what she is doing." In the eyes of the law, she doesn't. It could be argued that psychologically, she doesn't.

The burden is on the adult to abide by the law, which clealy states that you don't have sex with fifteen year olds. Even if the girl threw herself at him, it makes no difference. It was his responsibility as the adult to avoid initiating or furthering such contact.
Updated On: 4/7/06 at 08:24 AM

[Khashoggi]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 8:27am

Wah wah wah.
Eugh. I'm sick of this story already. Next.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 8:32am

Marona, I think you completely and fully missed the point of my post. I am not questioning whether the law sees it that way (I, of course, know the law sees it that way).

I am questioning whether the law's vision is flawed.

[Katurian2]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 8:43am

They haven't heard all the stories from the case yet, there are not any assumptions to be made.

Updated On: 4/7/06 at 08:43 AM

[Craig]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 8:54am

I'll reiterate what I said earlier. The "issue" at the end of the day is whether or not an adult engaged in sexual behavior with a minor. All other facts, emotions, speculation, opinions, etc are moot. If an adult engages is sexual behavior with a minor, a law has been broken.

Updated On: 4/7/06 at 08:54 AM

[MaronaDavies]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 9:01am

Marona, I think you completely and fully missed the point of my post. I am not questioning whether the law sees it that way (I, of course, know the law sees it that way).

I am questioning whether the law's vision is flawed.

No, I understood what you were getting at. I disagree with you, but that's fine.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 9:34am

I do think it's interesting that people seem to be far more up in arms simply because of the age differential and not just in the simple fact that it's a breach of the statutory rape laws.
If he had been 18, would people be quite as crazy?
I'd like to reiterate the question of where the parents were during this? The original story suggests the girl met Barbour again at the stage door of Jane Eyre WITH her mother and was given a backstage tour which resulted in sex there in the dressing room. Was mom busy going through her third pack of Merits outside?
And, what business does a 15 year old have going into the city again alone? I realize she could lie and say she wasn't and then hop a train or something, but it's highly suspicious.
Again, though, I'll trust an actual investigation has given the authorities the legal grounds they need to prosecute this case, but it reeks of people scrambling for a flashy case.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 9:39am

...but it reeks of people scrambling for a flashy case.

please, bway, like anybody not posting on these boards has any idea who he is. hell, i post here and i didn't even know who he was.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 9:44am

"Does anyone happen to have a link to this new LA times story."

There doesn't appear to be any link to any such article. Perhaps Dame would be so kind as to scan it in and post it here for us to look at. You know, the article with all the new details that he had in his hand from his magical early edition of the paper.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 9:47am

oh, but Papa, it's a great thing to use. "Broadway star (define that hwo you will) and Tony nominee busted for sodomizing young girl."
As Namo has pointed out, sodomy (aside: a GREAT book called "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality" challenges the ancient sin of sodomy and points out what it likely was as opposed to sex or, specifically, gay sex) is such a hot-button word and a great, flashy crime to try. After all, as pointed out (again by Namo), this instance of sodomy could just as easily be fellatio or cunnilingus as anything involving insertion. It all plays on "fears."

[Calvin]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 9:47am

Oh, papa, the Daily News can take care of that, once they finish with their "Demon Barbour of 47th Street" designation or whatever else they come up with.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 9:53am

Keep in mind, this girl is now 30 years old. James is 40.

When this happened (if it did), James was 25 and she was probably 16 (we don't know for sure, but it seems likely).

The issue for the law has A LOT to do with how old the people are. It is not as simple as an adult and a minor. In fact legal adults can legally sleep with minors (and do, regularly). 20 year old boy can sleep with 17 year old girl with no problem in any of the 50 states. In quite a few states, 25 and 16 is legal, as well. NY state is not one of those states, but, that does make this case probably not a felony case.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 9:53am

And in the same basic UPI report with the details that most of this discussion has been based upon, it says that during the first visit to the backstage and dressing room area, there was a "sexual encounter." THAT could be just about anything. A grope. A caress. Like that one thing that one fireman did to me that one time in a hallway.

[Craig]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 9:56am

"When this happened (if it did), James was 25 and she was probably 16 (we don't know for sure, but it seems likely). "


Based on the NY Post info, it happened in 1990 (is that right) and she was 15. She's 19 now, not 30

[Calvin]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 9:58am

My non-math-minded brain is very confused now.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 10:04am

1991 is when they first met. The encounter happened "later that year". 1991 was 15 years ago (2006-1991=15). She was 15 then. 15+15=30.