Former US Policeman Held In Bangkok Over Sex Crimes And People Smuggling

[rodcourt49]

Some serious charges there, but one thing to keep in mind. Rape is a legal term meaning different things. For examples, there is the violent assault kind of rape and then there is rape because of sex with anyone underage, which is not necessarily a violent assault. There is no info here about what kind of rape he is charged with, whether it was violent, and also the specific age of the victim at the time of the crime.

..most Westernised countries define rape, in part, as 'penetration to the least degree of any orifice without consent'.

Use of any violence is an 'aggravating' part of rape, assault etc. and is considered by the court whereever the matter is heard.

One should also bear in mind that legal definitions can differ from most countries and even states, counties, provinces within those countries.

By that definition;

If I stick a finger in your nose or mouth and it's rape.

I suspect that is missing a few phrases of clarification.

If I stuck a finger in your nose that MIGHT be assault, but never rape.

..I'm referring to penetration by a penis..anything else is an indecent assault ie. a finger, tongue, toe..as stated depends on the countries' legal definition..this is in broad terms and as stated the definition was 'in part'..not the full definition.

[hammered]

Some serious charges there, but one thing to keep in mind. Rape is a legal term meaning different things. For examples, there is the violent assault kind of rape and then there is rape because of sex with anyone underage, which is not necessarily a violent assault. There is no info here about what kind of rape he is charged with, whether it was violent, and also the specific age of the victim at the time of the crime.

I think most people who have been raped will say that it is a crime of violence.

When it comes to RAPE of MINORS the rapist will argue that it is LOVE and that the minors actually enjoying it and just the law is 'raping' their happy age gap relationship.

That is an arguement I have on occasion overheard some expats out here talking about in bars but one which I dont buy. If that had ever been heard in the poor neighborhood I can only think of one outcome for the person who spoke it. It is a kind of sick arguement imho

[TAWP]

If an adult has sex with even a consenting child then it goes into pedophilia, which is a different kind of power abuse. I hope we arent going to find this thread turns into a defence of Polanski or something. While kids having sex and one being just over and one just under age of consent is one thing, this is dangerous arguement to start raising in general terms.

Um, no, a 19 year old having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend is neither having sex with a child nor being a pedophile. But in some states in the US it is still 'rape'.

Pedo's first of all target pre-pubescent children, not teenagers.

[Hakuchi]

Some serious charges there, but one thing to keep in mind. Rape is a legal term meaning different things. For examples, there is the violent assault kind of rape and then there is rape because of sex with anyone underage, which is not necessarily a violent assault. There is no info here about what kind of rape he is charged with, whether it was violent, and also the specific age of the victim at the time of the crime.

I think most people who have been raped will say that it is a crime of violence.

When it comes to RAPE of MINORS the rapist will argue that it is LOVE and that the minors actually enjoying it and just the law is 'raping' their happy age gap relationship.

That is an arguement I have on occasion overheard some expats out here talking about in bars but one which I dont buy. If that had ever been heard in the poor neighborhood I can only think of one outcome for the person who spoke it. It is a kind of sick arguement imho

Never came across them in the Internet? They are allover the place and have always the same or similar defense and apology lines.

When some 55+ year old get arrested for rape of a minor they will start to hint that 'rape' not always means violence or will come up with examples of some 19 years old dude and his girlfriend who becomes 18 in a week.

Or they start to talk like a "biologist", arguing with "science", that calling them pedo is the wrong. because pedophile refers to pre-pubescent. what most 13,15,16 years old aren't anymore. so adults who "loving" them cannot be pedos.

I agree with you, sick arguments.

[TAWP]

Pointing out facts is 'sick'?

Pre-pubescent - pedophile

Under age, not pre-pubescent, oft. 11-14 - hebephile

But 'permanent_disorder' keeps having issues with facts.

[Hakuchi]

Pointing out facts is 'sick'?

Pre-pubescent - pedophile

Under age, not pre-pubescent, oft. 11-14 - hebephile

But 'permanent_disorder' keeps having issues with facts.

yes, and a "age gap relationship" of a 15 years old minor with a 55+ years is called LOVE and not pedo or rape anymore, right? I know these arguments and heard them before.

some of us think that are sick arguments. face it.

[whybother]

Pointing out facts is 'sick'?

Pre-pubescent - pedophile

Under age, not pre-pubescent, oft. 11-14 - hebephile

But 'permanent_disorder' keeps having issues with facts.

yes, and a "age gap relationship" of a 15 years old minor with a 55+ years is called LOVE and not pedo or rape anymore, right? I know these arguments and heard them before.

some of us think that are sick arguments. face it.

Are you both agreeing that excuses and arguments made by some people for their "age gap relationships" with those under 15 (or 16 or 17) is sick?

[Jingthing]

This isn't even worth arguing. There is a technical definition for pedophilia. Look it up. If some people want to call pedophilia what isn't pedophilia, they are welcome to indulge their delusions but it doesn't change the FACTS. An example I have mentioned before, in the USA marijuana is legally classified as a narcotic but it is NOT a narcotic. So which is correct, the law or the actual chemical reality of the drug?

[Hakuchi]

This isn't even worth arguing. There is a technical definition for pedophilia. Look it up. If some people want to call pedophilia what isn't pedophilia, they are welcome to indulge their delusions but it doesn't change the FACTS. An example I have mentioned before, in the USA marijuana is legally classified as a narcotic but it is NOT a narcotic. So which is correct, the law or the actual chemical reality of the drug?

Yep, a "age gap relationship" of a 13, 14 ,15 years old minor with a 55+ years is called LOVE and not pedo anymore.

Can be compared to harmless things like smoking some joints, not really like a a hard crime like dealing heroin, right?

That is a topic about a 55 years old man with an arrest warrant for raping a minor.

First you start to hint the legal term 'rape' doesn't have to mean 'violent assault', next step is that you talking about that a pedo isn't a pedo. Start to talk about it without that even somebody had asked for getting these explanations.

That are exactly the arguments you can hear from NAMBLA or similar so called "age of consent reform activists". Nothing more than pedo advocacy groups. Code speech of pedos to establish new contacts and looking for like-minded people.

What are you up to? Don't be naive and fall for that pedo propaganda nor do repeat it.

Edited August 30, 2010 by Hakuchi

[Jingthing]

What are you up to? Don't be naive and fall for that pedo propaganda nor do repeat it.

Look up the definition of pedophilia first and then maybe we can have an intelligent conversation about this. Otherwise, your hysterical inflammatory rant is not worth any further comment.

To more rational readers, if you are not familiar with this, people legally charged with underage sex crimes are SOMETIMES pedophiles and SOMETIMES they are not. However, in both instances they have indeed broken the LAW (if convicted, of course). The law about underage and pedophilia are NOT the same thing. Again, just look up the word and please stop with the hysteria and ignorance.

Edited August 30, 2010 by Jingthing

[Hakuchi]

There are different definitions of pedophilia, what the common man on the street thinks about, how the laws and legal text books define it and how it could be described with a biological approach.

the latter has nothing to do woth the legal definition and why the common man thinks these pedos should be put in jail and take their fingers off from minors.

To challenge and weaken that legal definition the pedos hide behind this biological approach and have maverick academics as their spokesperson to propagate their pseudoscience and desire intergenerational love (sex with minors).

A scientific debate about this condition is not the goal, but advocating and define down what is know as pedophilia to the common man and the book of law. with tossing some euphemism around and do hard core lobby work allover the internet disguised as "science".

You can look it up and will find some pedo M.D., Ph.D. explaining to you it isn't that disgusting as it sounds, and rape isn't rape and a pedo isn't a pedo.

And that is the way how pedos looking for like-minded people, signalizing 'hello here i am'. If certain keywords come up in a internet forum they use their chance.

[Buchholz]

This is not a situation of a bf/gf within 2 years of each other and both being teens, which is, in the defendant's home state of CA (and state laws determine the specifics), classified as Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Person Under 18, and most often dealt with as a misdemeanor. This defendant is well past the ages of the victims and he is not charged with the above, but instead that of felony rape. An altogether different ballgame.

AFAIK, there is no legal charge of "pedophilia" in CA and therefore its discussion is only academic and not a legal one.

As fara as the actual legal charges and nomenclature that are used in California, it is specifically those two given in the preceding paragraph.

To reiterate, most of the circumstances surrounding the specifics of this case are unknown due to the dearth of any news on them.

Edited August 30, 2010 by Buchholz

[TAWP]

And that is the way how pedos looking for like-minded people, signalizing 'hello here i am'. If certain keywords come up in a internet forum they use their chance.

Wait, you basically just called anyone that wishes people to use the correct terms a pedo...you are a witch-burner of the highest degree. Shame on you.

[asiawatcher]

The question of rape is just as bad as human trafficking - cop or retiree from justice? Get him back where he belongs - as the wife of a 300lb inmate!

[Hakuchi]

And that is the way how pedos looking for like-minded people, signalizing 'hello here i am'. If certain keywords come up in a internet forum they use their chance.

Wait, you basically just called anyone that wishes people to use the correct terms a pedo...you are a witch-burner of the highest degree. Shame on you.

I am calling "intergenerational love" between a minor of an age of 13,14 or 16 (a minor, understand?) and an adult of 55+ years RAPE and label it "sick". And I don't look for any arguments to defend it or define down.

What is your agenda here when you start to argue about?

Now i am a witch burner - your are using exactly the same arguments you can hear from groups like NAMBLA.

Edited August 30, 2010 by Hakuchi

[TAWP]

No agenda, some people just wanted to point out that the wrong term was used.

By the way, in Finland the legal age is 14, Sweden, Norway 15 etc - Is that still minors?

Edit: Or, actually, incorrect; my agenda is that people argue with facts and use the right terms. However, as we long have known you to *not* do, Herr Returned Banned Member, these are not your strong points.

Edited August 30, 2010 by TAWP

[Jingthing]

Yes, we've got a bona fide witch hunter on our hands, so now it is

time to refer to the age old wisdom --

[Hakuchi]

Pointing out facts is 'sick'?

Pre-pubescent - pedophile

Under age, not pre-pubescent, oft. 11-14 - hebephile

But 'permanent_disorder' keeps having issues with facts.

yes, and a "age gap relationship" of a 15 years old minor with a 55+ years is called LOVE and not pedo or rape anymore, right? I know these arguments and heard them before.

some of us think that are sick arguments. face it.

Are you both agreeing that excuses and arguments made by some people for their "age gap relationships" with those under 15 (or 16 or 17) is sick?

Of course do I agree with that, but it seems that other fishing for excuses.

[Hakuchi]

No agenda, some people just wanted to point out that the wrong term was used.

By the way, in Finland the legal age is 14, Sweden, Norway 15 etc - Is that still minors?

Edit: Or, actually, incorrect; my agenda is that people argue with facts and use the right terms. However, as we long have known you to *not* do, Herr Returned Banned Member, these are not your strong points.

Yes, 55 years old having sex with 14 years old is a sick thing. nothing to defend.

That is what i call pedo propaganda. and i see you have your friends supporting your "strong" points.

[powderpuff]

Some serious charges there, but one thing to keep in mind. Rape is a legal term meaning different things. For examples, there is the violent assault kind of rape and then there is rape because of sex with anyone underage, which is not necessarily a violent assault. There is no info here about what kind of rape he is charged with, whether it was violent, and also the specific age of the victim at the time of the crime.

..most Westernised countries define rape, in part, as 'penetration to the least degree of any orifice without consent'.

Use of any violence is an 'aggravating' part of rape, assault etc. and is considered by the court whereever the matter is heard.

One should also bear in mind that legal definitions can differ from most countries and even states, counties, provinces within those countries.

So I guess you never heard of "statutory rape" then huh?

I guess 1/2 facts are better than no facts huh?

You are not gonna school Americans like that.

[mkawish]

What was his name on Thaivisa?

hehe, dont laugh to loud...ive noticed quite a few ex USA cops posting on TV

you can find them easily enough, their favourite topics are corruption, tea money, thai drivers, no helmets ...and of course..motorsai on the sidewalk

harhar.

+ question like: where i can get the best doughnut in town?

You must be refering to American coppers. Never seen an Aussie cop eat a doughnut. Yes ex copper (Aussie 20 yrs). :jap:

Most Aussie cops favor Som-Tum over stale Donuts?

Is that what you meant, officer?

[moetownblues]

Some serious charges there, but one thing to keep in mind. Rape is a legal term meaning different things. For examples, there is the violent assault kind of rape and then there is rape because of sex with anyone underage, which is not necessarily a violent assault. There is no info here about what kind of rape he is charged with, whether it was violent, and also the specific age of the victim at the time of the crime.

..most Westernised countries define rape, in part, as 'penetration to the least degree of any orifice without consent'.

Use of any violence is an 'aggravating' part of rape, assault etc. and is considered by the court whereever the matter is heard.

One should also bear in mind that legal definitions can differ from most countries and even states, counties, provinces within those countries.

By that definition;

If I stick a finger in your nose or mouth and it's rape.

I suspect that is missing a few phrases of clarification.

If I stuck a finger in your nose that MIGHT be assault, but never rape.

..I'm referring to penetration by a penis..anything else is an indecent assault ie. a finger, tongue, toe..as stated depends on the countries' legal definition..this is in broad terms and as stated the definition was 'in part'..not the full definition.

Your wrong rodcourt

Does not have to be penetration of a penis to be rape. Can be a foriegn object, a finger or what ever. Doe's not even have to be penetration to be rape. The simple unwanted touching of an exposed/unexposed sexual organ male/female can be construde as rape given the circumstances.

A nose, a mouth, an arse or virgina are classed as an orifice. Unwanted penetration is classed as rape. Technically if you stick your finger up a persons nose or in his/her ear it is rape. You have penetrated thier body without consent. (4 yrs sexual offences and child abuse squad Victoria Police Melbourne) The likelyhood of prosecution is slim tho but it does constitute rape.

[moetownblues]

Some serious charges there, but one thing to keep in mind. Rape is a legal term meaning different things. For examples, there is the violent assault kind of rape and then there is rape because of sex with anyone underage, which is not necessarily a violent assault. There is no info here about what kind of rape he is charged with, whether it was violent, and also the specific age of the victim at the time of the crime.

..most Westernised countries define rape, in part, as 'penetration to the least degree of any orifice without consent'.

Use of any violence is an 'aggravating' part of rape, assault etc. and is considered by the court whereever the matter is heard.

One should also bear in mind that legal definitions can differ from most countries and even states, counties, provinces within those countries.

By that definition;

If I stick a finger in your nose or mouth and it's rape.

I suspect that is missing a few phrases of clarification.

If I stuck a finger in your nose that MIGHT be assault, but never rape.

Rape

[Buchholz]

It might be helpful to speculate on the specifics using the laws that will apply in this case rather than the laws as they apply in a jurisdiction 12,770 kilometers away.

To that end, California Rape Law Penal Code 261 is what will be utilized in the prosecution of this defendant:

http://www.shouselaw.com/rape.html#overview

[gpdjohn]

Some serious charges there, but one thing to keep in mind. Rape is a legal term meaning different things. For examples, there is the violent assault kind of rape and then there is rape because of sex with anyone underage, which is not necessarily a violent assault. There is no info here about what kind of rape he is charged with, whether it was violent, and also the specific age of the victim at the time of the crime.

..most Westernised countries define rape, in part, as 'penetration to the least degree of any orifice without consent'.

Use of any violence is an 'aggravating' part of rape, assault etc. and is considered by the court whereever the matter is heard.

One should also bear in mind that legal definitions can differ from most countries and even states, counties, provinces within those countries.

By that definition;

If I stick a finger in your nose or mouth and it's rape.

I suspect that is missing a few phrases of clarification.

If I stuck a finger in your nose that MIGHT be assault, but never rape.

Rape

Nope.. where I worked ( 17 yrs -criminal street gangs/ organized crime ) it would be an assault.. "Touching to provoke"

This guy is a tool and makes us all look bad. As a ex-cop and a FOJ, he's going to get some hard time..some really hard time.