About a month ago, I wrote about a New Hampshire family in a bit of legal trouble. The father had discovered that his 15-year-old daughter had had sex with her 17-year-old boyfriend, and confronted the boy at the school -- "confronted" meaning "beat the crap out of," leaving him bruised and needing stitches. The father was charged with assault, and later the boy was charged with statutory rape.
It turns out now that the girl -- naturally scared at being caught -- had told her parents that the boy had forced her to have sex. Only after her father was tossed in the clink and the boy was stitched up did she finally admit she had been a willing participant.
I tend to be a law-and-order sort of guy, but in this case I think that the best interests of justice would be served if all the charges were dropped. The boy did have sex with a minor, but he got the snot beaten out of him by her father. The father did assault the boy, but he was provoked -- and acting as most any father would, in similar circumstances. And the girl has to live with the knowledge that she got her boyfriend beat up and her father arrested -- and I bet neither is in an overly forgiving mood. Plus, with both the boy's name and her father's name public now, she's gotta be severely humiliated.
We have enough real problems going on in New Hampshire right now. Our courts have far more important issues to address than this silliness.



Comments (18)
What dumbass parents let a ... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Lee | October 21, 2007 9:26 AM | Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
What dumbass parents let a 15 year old girl have a a boy friend in the first place, let alone one that is 2 years older. They didn't see this coming? Gimme a break.
Idiot parents absent from the job.
10 bucks says she gets knocked up before she turns 17.
1. Posted by Lee | October 21, 2007 9:26 AM |
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
Posted on October 21, 2007 09:26
2. Posted by kim | October 21, 2007 10:01 AM | Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Well, no, they didn't let her have a boyfriend. She was turning adult and making her own decisions. Choice is wonderful.
===================
2. Posted by kim | October 21, 2007 10:01 AM |
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Posted on October 21, 2007 10:01
3. Posted by Herman | October 21, 2007 10:03 AM | Score: -6 (6 votes cast)
"We have enough real problems going on in New Hampshire right now. Our courts have far more important issues to address than this silliness." -- Jay Tea
Uh, Jay, don't you yourself have far more important issues to address instead of this silliness?
Think about it.
3. Posted by Herman | October 21, 2007 10:03 AM |
Score: -6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on October 21, 2007 10:03
4. Posted by MagicalPat | October 21, 2007 10:42 AM | Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
I do find this story interesting. You have a 17 year boy old by acting like a 17 year old boy. You have a father acting like a protective father. And you have a teenage girl acting like a Democrat. No personal responsibility, lying to avoid consequences and wanting someone else to pay for her mistakes.
4. Posted by MagicalPat | October 21, 2007 10:42 AM |
Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
Posted on October 21, 2007 10:42
5. Posted by civildisobedience
| October 21, 2007 11:04 AM | Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Just wait until New England is under sharia law. The daughter would be killed for being a whore and the men would get off scot-free. There are some great advantages for men under Islamic law, one is having sex with whoever you want that is not already married and not having to be responsible for anything, including rape. LOL, stupid liberals...
5. Posted by civildisobedience
| October 21, 2007 11:04 AM |
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Posted on October 21, 2007 11:04
6. Posted by db | October 21, 2007 11:05 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
I would say that this case might be dismissed after everyone has gone through counseling. The father emotions may have gotten the better of him in this case but since his daughter is 15 he still has 3 more years to deal with other issues he might as well get help starting now.
Maybe it was just "Love (or lust)" maybe not.
Teenage girls sometimes they do not know the difference between rape and regret because of how sex is presented to them. Other times rape is rape but because they LOVE the boy they will retract it to protect him. Other time is jealously finding out that the love of their life is hooking up with other girls and sometimes their best friends. Other times boys can be predators going after younger girls knowing dating an older boy acts as status symbol.
The boy should know that having sex with 15 year old is against the law and he might prosecuted. Having sex as teenager can have consequences aside from pregnancy, STD and psychological impact. There also legal consequences these can be brought not only by the parents but by the state(usually only done when their is pregnancy and they want child support payments made). The old saying ignorance of the law is no excuse. So he should know about this and the affects having a relationship with girls under 16 and or 3 years younger than him. I just wonder if when they are teaching kid how to put condoms on Bannas if they go over these legal aspects of this?
They did when I went to grammar school. Back in the 80's when I went to school they explained this as part of Sexual Education along with the finical cost of raising a child. We learnt that the act has many consequences but maybe that is because it was a Catholic school.
6. Posted by db | October 21, 2007 11:05 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on October 21, 2007 11:05
7. Posted by marc | October 21, 2007 2:21 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
herman:
Uh, Jay, don't you yourself have far more important issues to address instead of this silliness?
Congratulations on becoming new editor-in-chief at Wizbang! (If by editor-in-chief you mean asshatted buffoon)
7. Posted by marc | October 21, 2007 2:21 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on October 21, 2007 14:21
8. Posted by pennywit | October 21, 2007 3:16 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
I disagree with you, Jay Tea. Crimes are crimes, and resolution of these offenses needs to be according to the relevant laws. I have no idea how the state of New Hampshire treats statutory rape, but at least a few states take into consideration the age difference between the participants when both are close to the legal age of consent.
On the first point, perhaps the charges should be dropped, but I don't know.
On the point of father's assault -- the charges should remain. Yes, he acted on the same IMPULSE that many fathers would act on ... but the very definition of civilized, adult behavior is setting aside those impulses. Failing to do so, in turn, can be a crime.
--|PW|--
8. Posted by pennywit | October 21, 2007 3:16 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on October 21, 2007 15:16
9. Posted by Matt | October 21, 2007 7:57 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
C.O.,
You are right, under some interpetations of Sharia law the girl would of been killed for besmirching the families name. In the tribalism that often goes along with Sharia, there could of also been a nice little blood-feud between the two families for the 17 year olds attack upon their honor.
I believe the father did the right thing under the circumstances. More parental direct-action like that would do wonders for teenagers deportment towards each other.
9. Posted by Matt | October 21, 2007 7:57 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 21, 2007 19:57
10. Posted by Brian | October 22, 2007 3:06 AM | Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Good one, Jay. Just a few days ago you were so adamant that being wrong in a judgment call is no excuse for avoiding the consequences of that call. That doing something you BELIEVE is the legal and right thing to do doesn't get you off the hook when it turns out you were wrong and it WASN'T.
But now you're saying that this adult who beat up a teen should be let off the hook for what he (wrongly) BELIEVED was justified.
Actually, this goes far beyond your previous point, as there's no way that this dad BELIEVED that was he was doing was legal. He just decided to do it anyway.
It's interesting to see that you're a supporter of vigilante justice.
10. Posted by Brian | October 22, 2007 3:06 AM |
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Posted on October 22, 2007 03:06
11. Posted by kim | October 22, 2007 7:37 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Illustrating the point, pw, that laws are generally good, and it is right to have them, but they can be specifically bad and spark a consideration for change. That was neither ordinary rape nor assault.
==============================
11. Posted by kim | October 22, 2007 7:37 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 22, 2007 07:37
12. Posted by kim | October 22, 2007 7:39 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
There are better ways to resolve this situation. In an era before laws, well written ones anyway, this event might well have been the origin of a strong nuclear family. Personally, I'm not sure anyone did anything wrong in this situation.
Why didn't the young animal beat the old one's ass?
============================
12. Posted by kim | October 22, 2007 7:39 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 22, 2007 07:39
13. Posted by kim | October 22, 2007 7:46 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Can she bake a cherry pie,
Charming Lil, Charming Lil?
Can I beat her Daddy's ass,
Charming Lillie?
======================
13. Posted by kim | October 22, 2007 7:46 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 22, 2007 07:46
14. Posted by Steve L. | October 22, 2007 8:15 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
What dumbass parents let a 15 year old girl have a a boy friend in the first place, let alone one that is 2 years older. They didn't see this coming? Gimme a break.
Actually, had you read the article, you would have found that the reason that the girl lied was because her arents did not like the boy and the girl was not allowed to be dating anyone. She wass sneaking around behind her parents back, engaging in the bad behavior. Short of chaining her to her bed, there is little different the parents could have done to prevent her seeing the boy.
14. Posted by Steve L. | October 22, 2007 8:15 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 22, 2007 08:15
15. Posted by kim | October 22, 2007 9:29 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Well, Steve, the Dad could have beat up the boyfriend to test his intentions. There are ancient solutions to these problems.
Law. Too much ego in its cosmos.
================================
15. Posted by kim | October 22, 2007 9:29 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 22, 2007 09:29
16. Posted by Brian | October 22, 2007 11:31 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Short of chaining her to her bed, there is little different the parents could have done to prevent her seeing the boy.
It's the lefties' fault. Always encouraging dating, claiming "everyone does it". Instead, they should be preaching "absence".
16. Posted by Brian | October 22, 2007 11:31 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 22, 2007 11:31
17. Posted by Tammy | October 22, 2007 12:45 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
This is not silliness. This is our future generation, America!! Parents, do you know where your teenagers is, whom he or she is with and what they're doing? Well, do ya?
17. Posted by Tammy | October 22, 2007 12:45 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 22, 2007 12:45
18. Posted by kim | October 23, 2007 7:14 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Brian went to school to learn to make acute and telling points as above. This kind of problem predated political ideology, and to apply it to the problem makes you seem as educated as Brian.
=================================
18. Posted by kim | October 23, 2007 7:14 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 23, 2007 07:14