Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)

9. Of course he did. What suggested otherwise to you?

Reply to NickB79 (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 14, 2014, 11:30 AM

Apr 2014

You seem to have formed the opinion that my reply said that he did not rape a child.

My reply, of course, said nothing like that.

The man indisputably raped a child, which is why he should indisputably be in prison.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

13 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Court rules child pornographer’s 120-year sentence is neither cruel nor unusual [View all] DonViejo Apr 2014 OP

Quite a contrast with the treatment of the Dupont heir catrose Apr 2014 #1

Absolutely... Hip_Flask Apr 2014 #2

Oh, stop it. That situation was totally different. Orrex Apr 2014 #3

My bad catrose Apr 2014 #6

He didn't take pictures, which is what this case is about. cthulu2016 Apr 2014 #8

Am I supposed to be mad about this guy's sentence? Nye Bevan Apr 2014 #4

That the sentence is greater for pictures than for child rape is absurd cthulu2016 Apr 2014 #5

But he did rape a child NickB79 Apr 2014 #7

Of course he did. What suggested otherwise to you? cthulu2016 Apr 2014 #9

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but,... DonViejo Apr 2014 #10

He did molest the boy. cthulu2016 Apr 2014 #12

poor guy, maybe he should appea-- naw fuck that... rot in jail asshole! dionysus Apr 2014 #11

Court got it right. nt. NCTraveler Apr 2014 #13