3 Chicago teens ? 12 year old girl... at gunpoint... post video on facebook
Options
Comments
-
Everybody in chicago is gang affiliated in some form or another lol especially in englewood..Halfabrick wrote: »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.
I agree with you..thats one of the reasons why I think it took so long for the charges to be brought up..shortie started feelin that facebook shame and ran to the cops..
Do I think it was aggravated ? ? Nahh i think it was a bunch of ? ass kids that didnt think about the consequences of their actions and now they all have a ? hand to work with
-
pelle pelle wrote: »
Everybody in chicago is gang affiliated in some form or another lol especially in englewood..Halfabrick wrote: »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.
I agree with you..thats one of the reasons why I think it took so long for the charges to be brought up..shortie started feelin that facebook shame and ran to the cops..
Do I think it was aggravated ? ? Nahh i think it was a bunch of ? ass kids that didnt think about the consequences of their actions and now they all have a ? hand to work with
? in this thread are like those racists that post on new sites when black people have commited a crime. People are not even reading ? properly -
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 why bother ?
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 ?
I didn't say you can't question both sides. Again, that's probably why they took 5 months to charge them, because they did question both sides and it took time for them to come to the conclusion that the boys were at fault.
I'm pointing out that some of the ? you're questioning is stupid.
Who cares if she knew they had a gun in the house or not? I know plenty of people with guns, that doesn't mean I expect them to be brandishing those guns when I go to talk to them.
Who cares if she knew whether or not they were in a gang? I know plenty of females that know guys in gangs. They don't expect to be gangraped every time the visit those guys.
Why are you even questioning that she just went over there to talk? Even if she went over there to ? all three of those guys, if she got there and reconsidered but felt like she had to go through with it anyway because a gun was being waved around, those dudes were at fault.
It's funny because you're so pressed to wonder way people are trying to convict those boys, but why are you so pressed to stick up for them. Why is it that you're so convinced that two 16 y/os and one 15 y/o are innocent in a case where a 12 y/o wound up having ? with a gun present? Is it possible they are somehow innocent? Maybe, but under those circumstances, it certainly doesn't seem like the side a reasonable person would bet all their money on.Halfabrick wrote: »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
Come on dog are you serious? I know the world is ? up, but are you really saying that a 12, not 21, but 12 year old girl can't visit some boys she knows without expected to have a train run on her. You guys are on some other ? . -
that's the i.c.Halfabrick wrote: »pelle pelle wrote: »
Everybody in chicago is gang affiliated in some form or another lol especially in englewood..Halfabrick wrote: »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.
I agree with you..thats one of the reasons why I think it took so long for the charges to be brought up..shortie started feelin that facebook shame and ran to the cops..
Do I think it was aggravated ? ? Nahh i think it was a bunch of ? ass kids that didnt think about the consequences of their actions and now they all have a ? hand to work with
? in this thread are like those racists that post on new sites when black people have commited a crime. People are not even reading ? properly
these ? are like sharks ready to pick apart any and everything before actually understanding what's being said..half the time I post just to see who gon bite..this is one big fish tank
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »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 why bother ?
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 ?
I didn't say you can't question both sides. Again, that's probably why they took 5 months to charge them, because they did question both sides and it took time for them to come to the conclusion that the boys were at fault.
I'm pointing out that some of the ? you're questioning is stupid.
Who cares if she knew they had a gun in the house or not? I know plenty of people with guns, that doesn't mean I expect them to be brandishing those guns when I go to talk to them.
Who cares if she knew whether or not they were in a gang? I know plenty of females that know guys in gangs. They don't expect to be gangraped every time the visit those guys.
Why are you even questioning that she just went over there to talk? Even if she went over there to ? all three of those guys, if she got there and reconsidered but felt like she had to go through with it anyway because a gun was being waved around, those dudes were at fault.
It's funny because you're so pressed to wonder way people are trying to convict those boys, but why are you so pressed to stick up for them. Why is it that you're so convinced that two 16 y/os and one 15 y/o are innocent in a case where a 12 y/o wound up having ? with a gun present? Is it possible they are somehow innocent? Maybe, but under those circumstances, it certainly doesn't seem like the side a reasonable person would bet all their money on.Halfabrick wrote: »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
Come on dog are you serious? I know the world is ? up, but are you really saying that a 12, not 21, but 12 year old girl can't visit some boys she knows without expected to have a train run on her. You guys are on some other ? .
At the bolded - simply put, the law is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
There seems to be plenty of reasonable doubt if you look at this with an open-mind and any type of common sense.
It's not enough to assume, "there was a gun and they are in a gang, therefore it was ? ." The burden of proof is on them, and I believe that if they did have better proof that she was forced to do it, it would've been more obvious. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »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 why bother ?
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 ?
I didn't say you can't question both sides. Again, that's probably why they took 5 months to charge them, because they did question both sides and it took time for them to come to the conclusion that the boys were at fault.
I'm pointing out that some of the ? you're questioning is stupid.
Who cares if she knew they had a gun in the house or not? I know plenty of people with guns, that doesn't mean I expect them to be brandishing those guns when I go to talk to them.
Who cares if she knew whether or not they were in a gang? I know plenty of females that know guys in gangs. They don't expect to be gangraped every time the visit those guys.
Why are you even questioning that she just went over there to talk? Even if she went over there to ? all three of those guys, if she got there and reconsidered but felt like she had to go through with it anyway because a gun was being waved around, those dudes were at fault.
It's funny because you're so pressed to wonder way people are trying to convict those boys, but why are you so pressed to stick up for them. Why is it that you're so convinced that two 16 y/os and one 15 y/o are innocent in a case where a 12 y/o wound up having ? with a gun present? Is it possible they are somehow innocent? Maybe, but under those circumstances, it certainly doesn't seem like the side a reasonable person would bet all their money on.Halfabrick wrote: »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
Come on dog are you serious? I know the world is ? up, but are you really saying that a 12, not 21, but 12 year old girl can't visit some boys she knows without expected to have a train run on her. You guys are on some other ? .
Cant you read the gun was never POINTED at HER. it was HELD and she could see it in one of the guys POCKET not once does it say they POINTED a gun HER directly.
-
Fam you not understanding how hot these lil girls are outchea..my neighbors daughter is the lil hoe on the block and she 13..all types of lil ? be posted up at her crib when her momma aint home..her big brother try to play his role as big brother but everybody knows there is no stoppin a wet ? from gettin ? ..The Lonious Monk wrote: »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 why bother ?
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 ?
I didn't say you can't question both sides. Again, that's probably why they took 5 months to charge them, because they did question both sides and it took time for them to come to the conclusion that the boys were at fault.
I'm pointing out that some of the ? you're questioning is stupid.
Who cares if she knew they had a gun in the house or not? I know plenty of people with guns, that doesn't mean I expect them to be brandishing those guns when I go to talk to them.
Who cares if she knew whether or not they were in a gang? I know plenty of females that know guys in gangs. They don't expect to be gangraped every time the visit those guys.
Why are you even questioning that she just went over there to talk? Even if she went over there to ? all three of those guys, if she got there and reconsidered but felt like she had to go through with it anyway because a gun was being waved around, those dudes were at fault.
It's funny because you're so pressed to wonder way people are trying to convict those boys, but why are you so pressed to stick up for them. Why is it that you're so convinced that two 16 y/os and one 15 y/o are innocent in a case where a 12 y/o wound up having ? with a gun present? Is it possible they are somehow innocent? Maybe, but under those circumstances, it certainly doesn't seem like the side a reasonable person would bet all their money on.Halfabrick wrote: »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
Come on dog are you serious? I know the world is ? up, but are you really saying that a 12, not 21, but 12 year old girl can't visit some boys she knows without expected to have a train run on her. You guys are on some other ? .
These hoes out there aka thots
-
She went there knowing she was going to ? all three of them talk, they bring out a gun to impress her, they ? , she get ashamed and cries ?
-
The gun dont even make a damn bit of difference unless they threatened to use it
-
The gun dont even make a damn bit of difference unless they threatened to use it
they never did it's just journalists trying to stir up ? . And guess what the readers are gonna think when they read this ? ? That black people are nothing but thugs
-
So wait..the same ? sayin don't assume the boys ? her are filling this thread with the repeating of the assumption that they just know for a FACT she went there with the intent to ? everybody? thats pretty stupid
-
So wait..the same ? sayin don't assume the boys ? her are filling this thread with the repeating of the assumption that they just know for a FACT she went there with the intent to ? everybody? thats pretty stupid
We aren't we are just sugesting what could have possibly have happened and what makes sense. -
one of the best things about this site b..So wait..the same ? sayin don't assume the boys ? her are filling this thread with the repeating of the assumption that they just know for a FACT she went there with the intent to ? everybody? thats pretty stupid
I can choose a side and debate with a cat that will not rest until he proves he's right..even if I agree with his points, I can disagree and have that much more fun..why be a sheep and c/s everything when going against the grain makes for better entertainment value?
-
So wait..the same ? sayin don't assume the boys ? her are filling this thread with the repeating of the assumption that they just know for a FACT she went there with the intent to ? everybody? thats pretty stupid
^ incendiary post ^
Nobody claimed facts to anything. ? go over to ? ' houses to ? ery'day - sometimes multiple ? .
It's called common sense. Contrary to IC logic, It doesn't have to be one extreme or another. She could've not went over there to ? and they could've not forced her into it. A reasonable person would question it though.
What I can say though is that usually when someone threatens somebody with a gun, it's more obvious than "posing and throwing gang signs". -
The media can control sheep people like you guys and this is living proof of it. About a month a go a black 15 year old got stabbed to death on a bus in east London by another teenager same age. about a 1-2 months before that a WHITE BLONDE hair school girl got stabbed to death on a bus in Birmingham people were going ape ? saying the killer should get hanged and ? ( he was black) the black teenager stabbed in london hardly even made the national news and people did not give two ?
-
Decriminalize ? .
-
the word gets thrown around waaay too much. Like i said before a girl can have CONSENSUAL LEGAL sex with you one day and regret it the day after and cry she got ?Gold_Certificate wrote: »Decriminalize ? .
-
News articles are not a substitute for truth. That is all.
-
Halfabrick wrote: »The media can control sheep people like you guys and this is living proof of it. About a month a go a black 15 year old got stabbed to death on a bus in east London by another teenager same age. about a 1-2 months before that a WHITE BLONDE hair school girl got stabbed to death on a bus in Birmingham people were going ape ? saying the killer should get hanged and ? ( he was black) the black teenager stabbed in london hardly even made the national news and people did not give two ?
Well east london wouldn't make national news in america -
At the end of the day all 3 of these dudes were dumb. Having sex with a 12 yr.old, taping it and putting it on the internet is a crime period. Now they have to deal with the consequences....
-
-
At the end of the day all 3 of these dudes were dumb. Having sex with a 12 yr.old, taping it and putting it on the internet is a crime period. Now they have to deal with the consequences....
Not really, but ok. -
Word. The problem is ? has a special status as a crime; so that things like evidence, intent, victims, and witnesses aren't needed for someone to be found guilty.Halfabrick wrote: »
the word gets thrown around waaay too much. Like i said before a girl can have CONSENSUAL LEGAL sex with you one day and regret it the day after and cry she got ?Gold_Certificate wrote: »Decriminalize ? .
Only way around it is to decriminalize it, and file it under battery or something similar; while requiring the same burden of proof that regular battery does.
It can be differentiated from other battery charges in its sentencing; it can also be elevated in the same manner that regular battery can. -
This is the truth but journalist know what they are doing they know certain words will capture the emotions of peopleNews articles are not a substitute for truth. That is all.
-
its seems more logical that she went and got atrain ran on her and felt ashamed when it got posted.
why ? simping the hoe for being a hoe
