- June 5th, 2015, 11:16 am
#485190
The cover up was sending him to a family friend when it happened instead of going to the police right away.
Moderators: jcmanson, Sly Fox, BuryYourDuke
SuperJon wrote:The cover up was sending him to a family friend when it happened instead of going to the police right away.They are not required to go to the Police. At that point it was a family matter not a Police matter. On a bigger scale, would he have a better chance 'overcoming' this issue with a family friend/counselor or the Police?
SuperJon wrote: I love dc Talk.
BJWilliams wrote:Also, one has to bear in mind that based on how statute of limitations works in Arkansas, he will not face criminal or civil punishment. If this was addressed say...13 years ago by the police and court system this would not be as big a news story as it is nowThe Duggars will also not have ever been in the national limelight either if this was 13 years ago.
PAmedic wrote:you're absolutely right
BJWilliams wrote:Also, one has to bear in mind that based on how statute of limitations works in Arkansas, he will not face criminal or civil punishment. If this was addressed say...13 years ago by the police and court system this would not be as big a news story as it is nowIt was addressed by the Police. There is a file.
Purple Haize wrote:If it were just against his family, I would agree. There was a girl who was not a family member involved.SuperJon wrote:The cover up was sending him to a family friend when it happened instead of going to the police right away.At that point it was a family matter not a Police matter.
SuperJon wrote:This I did not know. But it's difficult to keep up with 19 kidsPurple Haize wrote:If it were just against his family, I would agree. There was a girl who was not a family member involved.SuperJon wrote:The cover up was sending him to a family friend when it happened instead of going to the police right away.At that point it was a family matter not a Police matter.
Purple Haize wrote:Right...but I mean charges filed, arrest made, and going through the complete legal process (both criminal and civil).BJWilliams wrote:Also, one has to bear in mind that based on how statute of limitations works in Arkansas, he will not face criminal or civil punishment. If this was addressed say...13 years ago by the police and court system this would not be as big a news story as it is nowIt was addressed by the Police. There is a file.
SuperJon wrote:The cover up was sending him to a family friend when it happened instead of going to the police right away.once again, we have no idea if he honked a hooter or you know use your imagination. something similar happened to a close friend. she told her parents, they went and talked with the other parents, and in the end, all parties worked with the pastor of the church to resolve it. no police were required. she was 11 or so and he was 14. the dude is a pretty awesome guy with an awesome family. thank God he wasn't castrated!
SuperJon wrote: I love dc Talk.
ATrain wrote:Bballfan wants him to be castrated...atrain wants that and then registering as a sex offenderbballfan84 wrote:josh duggar should be castrated..plain and simpleAnd/or forced to register as a sex offender.
BJWilliams wrote:I said and/or...I'm not exactly sure castration is an option that should be exercised here, and as more facts come to light that does seem rather extreme. Being placed on the sex offender registry, however, if the legal system were allowed to get involved at this point, is something I would support.ATrain wrote:Bballfan wants him to be castrated...atrain wants that and then registering as a sex offenderbballfan84 wrote:josh duggar should be castrated..plain and simpleAnd/or forced to register as a sex offender.
PAmedic wrote:you're absolutely right
thepostman wrote:I will say this, there are people on the sex offender list for far less but that is because the whole sex offender status and its list has been misused for a long time and needs some serious reform. Of course that is not a popular stance because when you say that people automatically assume you are trying to protect the sex offenders.I wouldn't necessarily argue against this stance either. People have ended up on it b/c they went streaking as teenagers. I would consider what Josh Duggar to be far worse.
PAmedic wrote:you're absolutely right
thepostman wrote:I will say this, there are people on the sex offender list for far less but that is because the whole sex offender status and its list has been misused for a long time and needs some serious reform. Of course that is not a popular stance because when you say that people automatically assume you are trying to protect the sex offenders.it another one of those things that you'll be crucified for to even bring up. can you imagine a politician clamouring for this "DID YOU KNOW THEPOSTMAN JONES WANTS TO TAKE PERVERTS OFF THE SEX OFFENDER LIST!!????
SuperJon wrote: I love dc Talk.
ATrain wrote:The question i have is, do we have documented legal precedent for retroactively charging someone with a crime of this nature, after the criminal AND civil statute of limitations had expired, especially given that there Iis something on file but no charges were filed, as well as filing as a registered sex offender
I said and/or...I'm not exactly sure castration is an option that should be exercised here, and as more facts come to light that does seem rather extreme. Being placed on the sex offender registry, however, if the legal system were allowed to get involved at this point, is something I would support.
Sly Fox wrote:Guys, I think he is probably received more attention from the media than he ever would have to endure from the sex offender registry list. That seems kind of pointless at this juncture.But inside 12 months the media will move on. Registering on the Sex Offender List (something I don't endorse) stays with him forever
BJWilliams wrote:ATrain wrote:Bballfan wants him to be castrated...atrain wants that and then registering as a sex offenderbballfan84 wrote:josh duggar should be castrated..plain and simpleAnd/or forced to register as a sex offender.
RubberMallet wrote:what is also absurd is that "rape and incest crimes" offers no real insight into degrees of severity. Its just "OH HAI LOOK HE SHOULD OF HAD HIS SON KILLED DUR DURR DURR"
that this type of family is more dangerous than those they want to deny rights to is laughable.
PAmedic wrote:you're absolutely right
ATrain wrote:And we're supposed to take JimBob as authoritative here, right? Just a little bit of a stretch on your part, and whoever put that piece together. HA! WE GOT THEM!! CHRISTIANS ARE ALL HYPOCRITICAL PERVERTS!!!! SEE?!!!RubberMallet wrote:what is also absurd is that "rape and incest crimes" offers no real insight into degrees of severity. Its just "OH HAI LOOK HE SHOULD OF HAD HIS SON KILLED DUR DURR DURR"
that this type of family is more dangerous than those they want to deny rights to is laughable.
http://reverbpress.com/news/jim-bob-dug ... ies-video/