3 Chicago teens ? 12 year old girl... at gunpoint... post video on facebook
Options
Comments
-
I love women too much to be degrading towards them like that..? don't seem right b..I might say a couple ? or a few hoes but for the most part, I got too much respect for women in general to be into some ? like thatpelle pelle wrote: »
My whole point was violence begets violence.. Real or simulated..The Lonious Monk wrote: »pelle pelle wrote: »? , simulated ? /abuse and actual ? /abuse are no different and affects the parties involved mentally on many levels...
Whether it's two consenting adults playing out a sick fantasy or some sick individual actually ? someone, when the lights go out and it's time for bed, minds are being warped..
Foh u sensitive ass ?
You going to have to explain this to me dog. I get the point you're trying to make, but at the same time everyone knows the porn ? is consensual and that there are no victims. Neither of those can be said about a real ? . And everyone has sick fantasies, but that is not the same as victimizing someone else.
You saying that it's wrong for someone to enjoy abuse porn but attack an instance of real ? is like saying it's wrong to play a violent video game but speak out against mass murder. That's not logical.
True a rational adult can watch some foul ? and know it's make believe but we talking about kids here.. Who knows what type of ? they've been exposed to in order for them to exhibit such brutal behavior..
I don't ? with that abusive/violent porn bcuz to me that ? is a bunch of hateful in the closet ? ? .. So for a ? to be cool with that but have a problem with actual ? seems like hypocrisy..
Simulated or real, the ? seems wrong to me..
how did you reach this conclusion
Only ? I know that go hard on broads like that are ? that hate women..? may not be ? but still..it's some issues that aint resolved for a man to want to do some of the disgusting ? they do to those chicks in those type of pornos..the women that consent to that ? are evn worse bcuz they allow it to happen..
-
With a 12 year old child, yes. It's called statutory ? and filming child porn....
If an adult had sex with a 12 year old - yes. Age of consent in Illinois: 16.
And only one of them was 16, not a "bunch" of them.
She is not 16 though so she can't give constent, so it's still statutory ? and they still taped the ? so they filmed child porn. Crimes were commited and they need to fo to jail. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »pelle pelle wrote: »The ? that bothers me is how easily ya'll ? are quick to condemn a bunch of kids..lol
The homie @7figz made good points tho..
Word. It's a little alarming how quick ? on here are to run with just allegations. ? ain't sayin' "If it's true", asking questions, or any of that ? - just hang'em, castrate 'em, etc...
I expect that from Yahoo and CNN commenters but I ain't know the IC was so quick to trust the words of the cops, prosecutors, media, etc...
Makes you wonder what would happen to ya' own black ass if you they was sittin' on your jury, and you're pleading your innocence.
Dog, this is a internet forum, not a courtroom. Some ? should just be understood. Of course people in here aren't saying the kids should be strung up if they really didn't do anything. For the basis of conversation, it is being discussed under the assumption that what is being reported is true. I hate when people come with the well you didn't say "If true" or "sometimes" BS. Anybody with sense knows that ? should go without saying for circumstances like this.
Really ? Keep believing that ? .
I won't assume people are thinking fairly when I see ? like this -Even if she did give her constent, why are a bunch of 16 year olds ? a 12 year old girl and then taping it?? The ? is still disgusting and all 3 need to go to jail.
In other words, it doesn't even have to be ? for her to want them to go to jail.
Not the first time ? like that's been said on here by the way. The term ? is gettin' stretched real broad lately.
So if motherfuckas is just saying shoot'em, castrate'em, lock'em up, etc... and not questioning the obvious, just gonna go on ahead and believe that's what they mean.
She's clearly talking about it being a case of statutory ? . And there is nothing wrong with calling for the punishment of a crime. -
pelle pelle wrote: »
I love women too much to be degrading towards them like that..? don't seem right b..I might say a couple ? or a few hoes but for the most part, I got too much respect for women in general to be into some ? like thatpelle pelle wrote: »
My whole point was violence begets violence.. Real or simulated..The Lonious Monk wrote: »pelle pelle wrote: »? , simulated ? /abuse and actual ? /abuse are no different and affects the parties involved mentally on many levels...
Whether it's two consenting adults playing out a sick fantasy or some sick individual actually ? someone, when the lights go out and it's time for bed, minds are being warped..
Foh u sensitive ass ?
You going to have to explain this to me dog. I get the point you're trying to make, but at the same time everyone knows the porn ? is consensual and that there are no victims. Neither of those can be said about a real ? . And everyone has sick fantasies, but that is not the same as victimizing someone else.
You saying that it's wrong for someone to enjoy abuse porn but attack an instance of real ? is like saying it's wrong to play a violent video game but speak out against mass murder. That's not logical.
True a rational adult can watch some foul ? and know it's make believe but we talking about kids here.. Who knows what type of ? they've been exposed to in order for them to exhibit such brutal behavior..
I don't ? with that abusive/violent porn bcuz to me that ? is a bunch of hateful in the closet ? ? .. So for a ? to be cool with that but have a problem with actual ? seems like hypocrisy..
Simulated or real, the ? seems wrong to me..
how did you reach this conclusion
Only ? I know that go hard on broads like that are ? that hate women..? may not be ? but still..it's some issues that aint resolved for a man to want to do some of the disgusting ? they do to those chicks in those type of pornos..the women that consent to that ? are evn worse bcuz they allow it to happen..
men are superior to women in every way though except child birth.
so they should be treated as less than us. -
With a 12 year old child, yes. It's called statutory ? and filming child porn....
If an adult had sex with a 12 year old - yes. Age of consent in Illinois: 16.
And only one of them was 16, not a "bunch" of them.
She is not 16 though so she can't give constent, so it's still statutory ? and they still taped the ? so they filmed child porn. Crimes were commited and they need to fo to jail.
That's not what you said at first though, but even with that premise - that's a controversial law. Kids in the same school getting locked for having sex with each other. It sounds to me from reading that they're highlighting that he "had a gun" and is "in a gang" to make the case more compelling.
And it probably took so long to charge them because they know the defense is going to be poking holes in the case like why exactly she went over there (and not that "to talk" ? ) and whether or not they really did force her to have sex.
I doubt the charges are simply going to be "statutory ? " and child porn. I'm sure it will be something related to the gun.
I just try to look at this ? with logic and rationale instead of emotion. -
With a 12 year old child, yes. It's called statutory ? and filming child porn....
If an adult had sex with a 12 year old - yes. Age of consent in Illinois: 16.
And only one of them was 16, not a "bunch" of them.
She is not 16 though so she can't give constent, so it's still statutory ? and they still taped the ? so they filmed child porn. Crimes were commited and they need to fo to jail.
That's not what you said at first though, but even with that premise - that's a controversial law. Kids in the same school getting locked for having sex with each other. It sounds to me from reading that they're highlighting that he "had a gun" and is "in a gang" to make the case more compelling.
And it probably took so long to charge them because they know the defense is going to be poking holes in the case like why exactly she went over there (and not that "to talk" ? ) and whether or not they really did force her to have sex.
I doubt the charges are simply going to be "statutory ? " and child porn. I'm sure it will be something related to the gun.
I just try to look at this ? with logic and rationale instead of emotion.
You don't think him having a gun when this went down makes a difference. Hell, in some states simply brandishing a weapon can be a crime called Menacing. That's what ? C went to jail for. -
lol men and women are built to compliment each other bpelle pelle wrote: »
I love women too much to be degrading towards them like that..? don't seem right b..I might say a couple ? or a few hoes but for the most part, I got too much respect for women in general to be into some ? like thatpelle pelle wrote: »
My whole point was violence begets violence.. Real or simulated..The Lonious Monk wrote: »pelle pelle wrote: »? , simulated ? /abuse and actual ? /abuse are no different and affects the parties involved mentally on many levels...
Whether it's two consenting adults playing out a sick fantasy or some sick individual actually ? someone, when the lights go out and it's time for bed, minds are being warped..
Foh u sensitive ass ?
You going to have to explain this to me dog. I get the point you're trying to make, but at the same time everyone knows the porn ? is consensual and that there are no victims. Neither of those can be said about a real ? . And everyone has sick fantasies, but that is not the same as victimizing someone else.
You saying that it's wrong for someone to enjoy abuse porn but attack an instance of real ? is like saying it's wrong to play a violent video game but speak out against mass murder. That's not logical.
True a rational adult can watch some foul ? and know it's make believe but we talking about kids here.. Who knows what type of ? they've been exposed to in order for them to exhibit such brutal behavior..
I don't ? with that abusive/violent porn bcuz to me that ? is a bunch of hateful in the closet ? ? .. So for a ? to be cool with that but have a problem with actual ? seems like hypocrisy..
Simulated or real, the ? seems wrong to me..
how did you reach this conclusion
Only ? I know that go hard on broads like that are ? that hate women..? may not be ? but still..it's some issues that aint resolved for a man to want to do some of the disgusting ? they do to those chicks in those type of pornos..the women that consent to that ? are evn worse bcuz they allow it to happen..
men are superior to women in every way though except child birth.
so they should be treated as less than us.
Some broads like to get walked over and treated like ? but most won't tolerate it..men are the same way exept they won't admit it..
Great men do great things when they have a great woman beside them, not behind or underneath them b
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
With a 12 year old child, yes. It's called statutory ? and filming child porn....
If an adult had sex with a 12 year old - yes. Age of consent in Illinois: 16.
And only one of them was 16, not a "bunch" of them.
She is not 16 though so she can't give constent, so it's still statutory ? and they still taped the ? so they filmed child porn. Crimes were commited and they need to fo to jail.
That's not what you said at first though, but even with that premise - that's a controversial law. Kids in the same school getting locked for having sex with each other. It sounds to me from reading that they're highlighting that he "had a gun" and is "in a gang" to make the case more compelling.
And it probably took so long to charge them because they know the defense is going to be poking holes in the case like why exactly she went over there (and not that "to talk" ? ) and whether or not they really did force her to have sex.
I doubt the charges are simply going to be "statutory ? " and child porn. I'm sure it will be something related to the gun.
I just try to look at this ? with logic and rationale instead of emotion.
You don't think him having a gun when this went down makes a difference. Hell, in some states simply brandishing a weapon can be a crime called Menacing. That's what ? C went to jail for.
You two are talking about the legality of it.
I'm talking about the common sense of it -
- This ? ain't know they had a gun - really ?
- This ? ain't know they were in a gang - really ?
- This ? went over there just to talk - really ?
- They took 5 months to charge them - really ?
- The articles make no mention of them physically threatening her in the video, but clearly mentions them being in a gang - really ?
All I do is ask the questions that should be asked. (if you're trying to be impartial that is). -
the stupidity in people coming out in this thread
-
More details needed.
Age of consent is a ? law -
With a 12 year old child, yes. It's called statutory ? and filming child porn....
If an adult had sex with a 12 year old - yes. Age of consent in Illinois: 16.
And only one of them was 16, not a "bunch" of them.
She is not 16 though so she can't give constent, so it's still statutory ? and they still taped the ? so they filmed child porn. Crimes were commited and they need to fo to jail.
That's not what you said at first though, but even with that premise - that's a controversial law. Kids in the same school getting locked for having sex with each other. It sounds to me from reading that they're highlighting that he "had a gun" and is "in a gang" to make the case more compelling.
And it probably took so long to charge them because they know the defense is going to be poking holes in the case like why exactly she went over there (and not that "to talk" ? ) and whether or not they really did force her to have sex.
I doubt the charges are simply going to be "statutory ? " and child porn. I'm sure it will be something related to the gun.
I just try to look at this ? with logic and rationale instead of emotion.
The whole point of my first post was to say even if she went along with it willingly, what they did was still stupid, wrong and imo gross. -
Not saying she didnt get ? but alot of chick have trains ran on them and later pull the ? card when they are ashamed. You can have CONSENSUAL LEGAL SEX with a chick one night and in the morning the day after she can pull the ? card on you and you're ass is going to jail
-
With a 12 year old child, yes. It's called statutory ? and filming child porn....
So first it's "even if she did consent" and cuz they taped it, then it's because of their ages?
If an adult had sex with a 12 year old - yes. Age of consent in Illinois: 16.
And only one of them was 16, not a "bunch" of them.
Actually it's 17............ -
Throw them in jail.
-
With a 12 year old child, yes. It's called statutory ? and filming child porn....
So first it's "even if she did consent" and cuz they taped it, then it's because of their ages?
If an adult had sex with a 12 year old - yes. Age of consent in Illinois: 16.
And only one of them was 16, not a "bunch" of them.
Actually it's 17............
Well ? , then it's not even statutory ? -
Lonius Monk, @taeboo ? -
You're actually an idiotAjackson17 wrote: »Throw them in jail.
-
Halfabrick wrote: »
You're actually an idiotAjackson17 wrote: »Throw them in jail.
Clearly.
Dude's a ? . In his dreams, he's a white male.
(Actually let's just hope it's a male) -
I just read the article this is exactly what the media want people to believe about black people that they are all thugs and criminals.
-
Ajackson been flaggin the ? outta this thread tho lmao
Cool it fam..you ? up my reaction points b -
THIS IS WHAT MOST LIKELY HAPPENED. THE GIRL WENT THERE KNOWING THE GUYS WANTED TO RUN A TRAIN ON HER SHE GOT ASHAMED AND STARTED FEELING GUILTY AND CRIED ? . I DO NOT BELIEVE SHE DIDN'T KNOW THE GUYS ARE GANG MEMBERS.
-
texasdaking88 wrote: »? is disgusting... and ? be talking bout them ? hard... nah, them ? ? that hide behind a gun.. theyll get sodomized in prison tho
Woooo my boy did a bid in Louisiana....(Angola) smmfh,nh@what he told me......2 of the worse things you don't wanna do before being sent to tha pen...? /sexually assault kids/? women....yea dem boys in for a ruuuuuuude awakening.
There's a reason majority of prisons have a separate living space for sex offenders and don't put them in GP....they pretty much marked for any and everything to happen o them
Evidently not in Angola... -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
With a 12 year old child, yes. It's called statutory ? and filming child porn....
If an adult had sex with a 12 year old - yes. Age of consent in Illinois: 16.
And only one of them was 16, not a "bunch" of them.
She is not 16 though so she can't give constent, so it's still statutory ? and they still taped the ? so they filmed child porn. Crimes were commited and they need to fo to jail.
That's not what you said at first though, but even with that premise - that's a controversial law. Kids in the same school getting locked for having sex with each other. It sounds to me from reading that they're highlighting that he "had a gun" and is "in a gang" to make the case more compelling.
And it probably took so long to charge them because they know the defense is going to be poking holes in the case like why exactly she went over there (and not that "to talk" ? ) and whether or not they really did force her to have sex.
I doubt the charges are simply going to be "statutory ? " and child porn. I'm sure it will be something related to the gun.
I just try to look at this ? with logic and rationale instead of emotion.
You don't think him having a gun when this went down makes a difference. Hell, in some states simply brandishing a weapon can be a crime called Menacing. That's what ? C went to jail for.
You two are talking about the legality of it.
I'm talking about the common sense of it -
- This ? ain't know they had a gun - really ?
- This ? ain't know they were in a gang -really ?
- This ? went over there just to talk - really ?
- They took 5 months to charge them - really ?
- The articles make no mention of them physically threatening her in the video, but clearly mentions them being in a gang - really ?
All I do is ask the questions that should be asked. (if you're trying to be impartial that is).
SMH @ you acting as if any of that is far fetched. So now its out of the way that a young girl went to visit a guy she knew and didn't realize that he was going to have friends over there waiting on her with a gun in plain view. And since when is 5 months a long time to charge. Some times it take twice that time to sort through ? and build a case. And again, who cares if she was overtly threatened? If she got in there, and they told her that's what she was going to do and made sure she saw the weapon, that's all the intimidation that's necessary. This was not some 30 y/o chick. It was a 12 y/o girl. It's not that crazy that she went into a spot, they started pushing up on her with the gun in clear view, and she felt she either had to go along or would be shot. That's ? . You can't do ? like that. It's crazy that I even have to say that. -
With a 12 year old child, yes. It's called statutory ? and filming child porn....
So first it's "even if she did consent" and cuz they taped it, then it's because of their ages?
If an adult had sex with a 12 year old - yes. Age of consent in Illinois: 16.
And only one of them was 16, not a "bunch" of them.
Actually it's 17............
Well ? , then it's not even statutory ? -
Lonius Monk, @taeboo ?
http://age-of-consent.findthedata.org/m/l/14/Illinois
Please read. A person under the age of 17 can still be charged with statutory ? of one is between the ages of 9 and 17... -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »
With a 12 year old child, yes. It's called statutory ? and filming child porn....
If an adult had sex with a 12 year old - yes. Age of consent in Illinois: 16.
And only one of them was 16, not a "bunch" of them.
She is not 16 though so she can't give constent, so it's still statutory ? and they still taped the ? so they filmed child porn. Crimes were commited and they need to fo to jail.
That's not what you said at first though, but even with that premise - that's a controversial law. Kids in the same school getting locked for having sex with each other. It sounds to me from reading that they're highlighting that he "had a gun" and is "in a gang" to make the case more compelling.
And it probably took so long to charge them because they know the defense is going to be poking holes in the case like why exactly she went over there (and not that "to talk" ? ) and whether or not they really did force her to have sex.
I doubt the charges are simply going to be "statutory ? " and child porn. I'm sure it will be something related to the gun.
I just try to look at this ? with logic and rationale instead of emotion.
You don't think him having a gun when this went down makes a difference. Hell, in some states simply brandishing a weapon can be a crime called Menacing. That's what ? C went to jail for.
You two are talking about the legality of it.
I'm talking about the common sense of it -
- This ? ain't know they had a gun - really ?
- This ? ain't know they were in a gang -really ?
- This ? went over there just to talk - really ?
- They took 5 months to charge them - really ?
- The articles make no mention of them physically threatening her in the video, but clearly mentions them being in a gang - really ?
All I do is ask the questions that should be asked. (if you're trying to be impartial that is).
SMH @ you acting as if any of that is far fetched. So now its out of the way that a young girl went to visit a guy she knew and didn't realize that he was going to have friends over there waiting on her with a gun in plain view. And since when is 5 months a long time to charge. Some times it take twice that time to sort through ? and build a case. And again, who cares if she was overtly threatened? If she got in there, and they told her that's what she was going to do and made sure she saw the weapon, that's all the intimidation that's necessary. This was not some 30 y/o chick. It was a 12 y/o girl. It's not that crazy that she went into a spot, they started pushing up on her with the gun in clear view, and she felt she either had to go along or would be shot. That's ? . You can't do ? like that. It's crazy that I even have to say that.
Bruh, you're irrational.
If you're not going to question ? on both sides, then you might as well say that.
We already got the statutory ? out of the way so if it comes to light that the gun and the gang ? weren't at all relevant to the girl, and that she actually did go over there to have sex, then what ?
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »
With a 12 year old child, yes. It's called statutory ? and filming child porn....
If an adult had sex with a 12 year old - yes. Age of consent in Illinois: 16.
And only one of them was 16, not a "bunch" of them.
She is not 16 though so she can't give constent, so it's still statutory ? and they still taped the ? so they filmed child porn. Crimes were commited and they need to fo to jail.
That's not what you said at first though, but even with that premise - that's a controversial law. Kids in the same school getting locked for having sex with each other. It sounds to me from reading that they're highlighting that he "had a gun" and is "in a gang" to make the case more compelling.
And it probably took so long to charge them because they know the defense is going to be poking holes in the case like why exactly she went over there (and not that "to talk" ? ) and whether or not they really did force her to have sex.
I doubt the charges are simply going to be "statutory ? " and child porn. I'm sure it will be something related to the gun.
I just try to look at this ? with logic and rationale instead of emotion.
You don't think him having a gun when this went down makes a difference. Hell, in some states simply brandishing a weapon can be a crime called Menacing. That's what ? C went to jail for.
You two are talking about the legality of it.
I'm talking about the common sense of it -
- This ? ain't know they had a gun - really ?
- This ? ain't know they were in a gang -really ?
- This ? went over there just to talk - really ?
- They took 5 months to charge them - really ?
- The articles make no mention of them physically threatening her in the video, but clearly mentions them being in a gang - really ?
All I do is ask the questions that should be asked. (if you're trying to be impartial that is).
SMH @ you acting as if any of that is far fetched. So now its out of the way that a young girl went to visit a guy she knew and didn't realize that he was going to have friends over there waiting on her with a gun in plain view. And since when is 5 months a long time to charge. Some times it take twice that time to sort through ? and build a case. And again, who cares if she was overtly threatened? If she got in there, and they told her that's what she was going to do and made sure she saw the weapon, that's all the intimidation that's necessary. This was not some 30 y/o chick. It was a 12 y/o girl. It's not that crazy that she went into a spot, they started pushing up on her with the gun in clear view, and she felt she either had to go along or would be shot. That's ? . You can't do ? like that. It's crazy that I even have to say that.
The gun was not pointed at her it was held. we do not know the whole situation so we can only assume but it does sound far fetched. i do not believe she went to some other dudes house to just "talk" the guys are probably popular in school or some ? and she wanted to ? them
