Unicycle Teacher Arrested On Sex Charges

[leo]

The article sounds like he is guilty before proven, and reveals the ID and picture of the suspect;
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/l...?storyid=98444

Either way an ugly story.

[Spoonthumb]

Originally Posted by leo

The article sounds like he is guilty before proven, and reveals the ID and picture of the suspect;
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/l...?storyid=98444

Either way an ugly story.

it does sound like he was guilty for proven so...(unicyclist are very kinky tho)

JK JK JK JK JK JK JK JK JK JK JK JK JK JK JK JK JK JK JK JK

[ivan]

Hmm, sounds strange to me. And he doesn't have the pedophile smile.

I think they need to investigate before jumping to conclusions.

Also, isn't strange how people below the age of consent are said to be unable to make the decision whether or not they should have sex, but can testify in court on whether or not someone was sexually abusing them, the outcome of which can be years of jail and public ostricising for the accused?

[Triball]

Who would hire a man to teach his children to unicycle? That's just money thrown away if you ask me

[Spoonthumb]

[QUOTE=ivan]Hmm, sounds strange to me. And he doesn't have the pedophile smile.QUOTE]

someones got a sick sense of humor

[cathwood]

Originally Posted by ivan

Also, isn't strange how people below the age of consent are said to be unable to make the decision whether or not they should have sex, but can testify in court on whether or not someone was sexually abusing them, the outcome of which can be years of jail and public ostricising for the accused?

No

[ivan]

Originally Posted by cathwood

No

Please explain. I'm sure I'm missing a point somewhere, but I'm not sure exactly where.

[maestro8]

Originally Posted by Spoonthumb

it does sound like he was guilty for proven so...

The man in the article has yet to face trial, therefore, he is still considered innocent.

[Brian O.]

Originally Posted by ivan

Also, isn't strange how people below the age of consent are said to be unable to make the decision whether or not they should have sex, but can testify in court on whether or not someone was sexually abusing them, the outcome of which can be years of jail and public ostricising for the accused?

No, thats not strange at all. Are you freaking kidding me?

Thats like asking "isnt it stange that a minor can't go to jail for stealing but yet they are able to report that they've been mugged?"

[johnfoss]

Originally Posted by Triball

Who would hire a man to teach his children to unicycle? That's just money thrown away if you ask me

Lots of people have money to throw away. Some people like to learn from someone who knows what they're doing rather than spend a lot of time figuring it out the hard way. Everyone has to teach their own body how to ride, but if you have someone coaching you onsite, it can eliminate a lot of wasted effort and help you focus on what works.

In other words, people have hired me to teach their children (or themselves) to ride. As have schools.

As for the guy in the article, yes if he's innocent his reputation (as a person, not as a unicycle teacher) is already forever tarnished. But on the other hand if he's not incarcerated I would rather have his picture out there if I were a parent of small children to know to keep any eye out.

[ivan]

Originally Posted by Brian O.

No, thats not strange at all. Are you freaking kidding me?

Thats like asking "isnt it stange that a minor can't go to jail for stealing but yet they are able to report that they've been mugged?"

A minor can go to jail. A rehabilitation facility for minors, which is basically a kid's jail. And I don't understand your analogy at all, I'm sorry.

[mscalisi]

There's definitely degrees.

A nine year old being sexually abused by a middle-aged man isn't the same as a sixteen year old having consentual sex with his/her 19 year old lover.

[ivan]

Originally Posted by mscalisi

There's definitely degrees.

A nine year old being sexually abused by a middle-aged man isn't the same as a sixteen year old having consentual sex with his/her 19 year old lover.

Yes, but why do they say that the 16-year old can't decide for him(her)self? And what exactly changes once he/she turns 18(or whatever?). Why does it suddenly become okay to have sex, whereas before the partner could go to jail for it?

And I'm not trying to protect child abuse anything, I'm just trying to work out how it's defined and why it's defined like that.

[cathwood]

Originally Posted by ivan

Yes, but why do they say that the 16-year old can't decide for him(her)self? And what exactly changes once he/she turns 18(or whatever?). Why does it suddenly become okay to have sex, whereas before the partner could go to jail for it?

And I'm not trying to protect child abuse anything, I'm just trying to work out how it's defined and why it's defined like that.

There has to be an arbitrary age for this. People who make the laws have decided (in the UK) that it is illegal for people under the age of 16 to have sex because they are unable to weigh up the risks and consquences (both physical and emotional). It is an arbitrary and socially constructed age. It sounds like where you come from it's even older. A hundred years ago in the UK the age was 14.

It is further complicated in the UK by a thing called 'Gillick competence' (although it may have a different name now) by which young people between the ages of 14 and 16 can be deemed to be capable to consent to such things (like taking contraception without thier parents permission) if someone in authority deems them to have the capacity to weigh up the riskes and consequences. Also, interestingly (at least to me) young people of this age can consent to having operations but cannont refuse. They are deemed incompetent as soon as they refuse.

Also children may give evidence regarding thier being abused but the perpetrator will not be convicted unless there is some supporting evidence. Hence a lot of them get away with it.

[ivan]

Originally Posted by cathwood

There has to be an arbitrary age for this. People who make the laws have decided (in the UK) that it is illegal for people under the age of 16 to have sex because they are unable to weigh up the risks and consquences (both physical and emotional). It is an arbitrary and socially constructed age. It sounds like where you come from it's even older. A hundred years ago in the UK the age was 14.

It is further complicated in the UK by a thing called 'Gillick competence' (although it may have a different name now) by which young people between the ages of 14 and 16 can be deemed to be capable to consent to such things (like taking contraception without thier parents permission) if someone in authority deems them to have the capacity to weigh up the riskes and consequences. Also, interestingly (at least to me) young people of this age can consent to having operations but cannont refuse. They are deemed incompetent as soon as they refuse.

Also children may give evidence regarding thier being abused but the perpetrator will not be convicted unless there is some supporting evidence. Hence a lot of them get away with it.

This gives me a lot to think about, thank you. Especially the operations thing. That's just total dictatorship... Take it and smile or not take it and we give it to you anyway.

And that Gillick competence sort of makes sense, I guess. I don't know much about it, but I know that different people develop at different rates, and that law accounts for it which is good. But then again, difficult to decide. How can someone say what the other person is capable of and if their decisions are right or not? But I suppose it's easy to criticise, this system is the only thing that lets us punish child molesters(and lets others get away with it(and punishes the innocent ones sometimes)). Hmm...