[Merenguero]

There is something here that a lot of the internet commenters (outside of the forum) and this Cucker guy apparently fail to understand. The way Maryland law is written, as long as the sex is consensual, it is not per se illegal for a seventeen year old or many eighteen year olds to have sex with a fourteen year old. If the alleged victim is under fourteen years old, and the Defendant is at least four years older than the alleged victim, age then comes into play. Sixteen is always legal in Maryland. Fourteen or fifteen is legal unless the Defendant is at least four years older than the alleged victim (fourth degree sex offense-misdemeanor) or the Defendant is at least 21 (third degree sex offense-felony). That type of third degree sex offense obviously does not apply here, as both Defendants are below the age of 21. The type of fourth degree sex offense I mentioned definitely does not apply to one of the Defendants, as that Defendant is seventeen and is therefore fewer than four years older than the alleged victim. If Sanchez is not a full four years older than the alleged victim (I do not believe he is as he is not being charged with a third degree sex offense), than absolutely no age-related sex offenses are being charged or are at all relevant in this case. There is a high probability that prior to April 14, 2017 (the date of Sanchez's Preliminary Hearing), the Grand Jury will indict both Defendants. If the grand jury finds probable cause that Sanchez was four years older than the alleged victim, they can add the charge of third degree sex offense and any other charged for which probable cause exists, to Sanchez's indictment. Basically Cucker (never even studied law) and the people who keep posting bollocks online like "statutory rape" and "fourteen is too young to consent" need to read the fucking code. Their ignorance isn't even funny.

The burden is on the state to prove lack of consent and use of force and I believe they will have an uphill battle. Due to all of the exposure in the press and the relative conservative nature of jurors (especially compared to P.G. and Baltimore City) in the jurisdiction where this case where will be tried, it may make sense to just have a court trial. The criminal trial will be difficult for the state. Gettting these guys removed from the country might not be as difficult.

Beyond that, I think I need to stay out of this thread and may be willing to answer questions in private.

[Samseau]

This case would take a turn for crazy if it turns out the girl had prior sexual relations with at least one of the guys.

But Merenguero, I don't think it will be very difficult to show a lack of consent in this case. How can it reasonably be shown that this girl wanted to fuck in the boys bathroom right in the middle of a school day? These guys are looking at 10-20 years in the slammer or a deportation.

[BrewDog]

(03-24-2017 03:20 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

This case would take a turn for crazy if it turns out the girl had prior sexual relations with at least one of the guys.

But Merenguero, I don't think it will be very difficult to show a lack of consent in this case. How can it reasonably be shown that this girl wanted to fuck in the boys bathroom right in the middle of a school day? These guys are looking at 10-20 years in the slammer or a deportation.

Tucker was saying that the kids in the next classroom could hear her screaming.

And I don't know about them getting time in prison; the jury will decide. But they'll definitely get deported. I can't imagine an immigration judge letting them off with this charge even if found not guilty.

[Merenguero]

(03-24-2017 03:20 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

This case would take a turn for crazy if it turns out the girl had prior sexual relations with at least one of the guys.

But Merenguero, I don't think it will be very difficult to show a lack of consent in this case. How can it reasonably be shown that this girl wanted to fuck in the boys bathroom right in the middle of a school day? These guys are looking at 10-20 years in the slammer or a deportation.

You seem to already know this, but the defense need not prove consent. The state needs to prove lack of consent. If you listen to Andy's comments at the early part of the video, it should start to make sense. Where are the wounds on the Defendants or on her? Would a fourteen year old girl not fight back? If so and there are no wounds on anybody, the state may have a serious problem. All you need is reasonable doubt as to any one element. I don't know all the facts, but I don't think it will be easy for the state to prove.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Rape, gang rape even is a fluke when an illegal immigrant or a Muslim does it.

But woe a white man pulls out his penis 5 seconds too late after a girl told him to stop while in the act - that is true and brutal rape. It is also rape if a rich black man gets drunk with a girl and both have sex while drunk - that girl can regret it and call it rape retroactively. Ay - Whites can be dirt poor and living in a trailer to profit from white privilege and enjoy their fake rape allegations. US blacks also get the pleasure of this when they are Mike-Tyson or Bill-Cosby rich.

Illegal immigrants however can do no wrong - they are traumatized and so are the Muslim immigrants and Somalis who are currently raping their way through the US and Europe.

The flow of immigration must not stop - diversity is our strength.

[MMX2010]

Expecting a 14 year old girl to "fight back" against two men, (to the point where lack of "wounds" makes you predict that she didn't fight back), is infuriating.

[Merenguero]

(03-24-2017 04:12 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Expecting a 14 year old girl to "fight back" against two men, (to the point where lack of "wounds" makes you predict that she didn't fight back), is infuriating.

And what about wounds on her? Read my entire post. I have no fucking clue what really happened. I wasn't there. I'm just pointing out the fact that the state must prove both lack of consent and either force or threat of force and it's nowhere near as easy to prove as you guys seem to think it is.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(03-24-2017 04:19 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 04:12 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Expecting a 14 year old girl to "fight back" against two men, (to the point where lack of "wounds" makes you predict that she didn't fight back), is infuriating.

And what about wounds on her? Read my entire post. I have no fucking clue what really happened. I wasn't there. I'm just pointing out the fact that the state must prove both lack of consent and either force or threat of force and it's nowhere near as easy to prove as you guys seem to think it is.

Witnesses heard cries and there was blood mixed with sperm in the bathroom. That is x-times the amount of evidence we have vs the Duke Lacrosse case and the UVA gang-rape cons.

It also seems as if the illegals get financially supported by every immigrant/Mexican organization out there - cost plays no role here.

At least everything will come out into the open. The defense will likely bring up some flirty texts with the guys and some online media messages. If that alone was a sign of sexual interest then the US men would get laid like gangbusters via Tinder. But I guess to scum like that it will be proof of sexual intent.

It is funny how the legal system became so biased. They equally accuse the locals to be rape-machines while claiming that more criminal immigrants must be proven innocent at all cost.

[Merenguero]

^^^
I don't think there is any dispute that sex did happen. If so, the presence of sperm is of no probative value and blood may or may not have been from a torn hymen. Multiple posters are bringing up this thing about screams. In order to get anything about screams into evidence, you need testimony from a credible witness who heard the screams. This school year ends pretty soon. People graduate. People move. People disappear. People get deported. When this goes to trial in a year or two (I'm well aware of Hicks, but it gets waived constantly), what are the chances that the state will a) locate a person who heard these screams, b) that person wil show up in court (even if subpoenaed), and c) that person will be credible and there will be no way to impeach that person? Serious question.

[BrewDog]

(03-24-2017 04:42 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

Multiple posters are bringing up this thing about screams. In order to get anything about screams into evidence, you need testimony from a credible witness who heard the screams. This school year ends pretty soon. People graduate. People move. People disappear. People get deported. When this goes to trial in a year or two (I'm well aware of Hicks, but it gets waived constantly), what are the chances that the state will a) locate a person who heard these screams, b) that person wil show up in court (even if subpoenaed), and c) that person will be credible and there will be no way to impeach that person? Serious question.

Why can't the ADA press for some depositions based upon these factors?

[MMX2010]

(03-24-2017 04:19 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 04:12 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Expecting a 14 year old girl to "fight back" against two men, (to the point where lack of "wounds" makes you predict that she didn't fight back), is infuriating.

And what about wounds on her? Read my entire post. I have no fucking clue what really happened. I wasn't there. I'm just pointing out the fact that the state must prove both lack of consent and either force or threat of force and it's nowhere near as easy to prove as you guys seem to think it is.

Since I grew up in a mostly White neighborhood, I was told from birth that the age of consent is 18. So imagining a 14 year old being expected to act like a 25 year old woman is laughable and infuriating.

I can also imagine that someone living in a Central American culture, who was taught from birth that a 15 year old girl is a woman, would have no problem extending full adult female responsibilities and expectations onto a 14 year old girl.

[Merenguero]

(03-24-2017 05:06 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 04:19 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 04:12 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Expecting a 14 year old girl to "fight back" against two men, (to the point where lack of "wounds" makes you predict that she didn't fight back), is infuriating.

And what about wounds on her? Read my entire post. I have no fucking clue what really happened. I wasn't there. I'm just pointing out the fact that the state must prove both lack of consent and either force or threat of force and it's nowhere near as easy to prove as you guys seem to think it is.

Since I grew up in a mostly White neighborhood, I was told from birth that the age of consent is 18. So imagining a 14 year old being expected to act like a 25 year old woman is laughable and infuriating.

I can also imagine that someone living in a Central American culture, who was taught from birth that a 15 year old girl is a woman, would have no problem extending full adult female responsibilities and expectations onto a 14 year old girl.

Take it up with the legislature. The age of consent was previously eighteen. Many, many guys went to prison for having sex with sixteen and seventeen year olds. Both Maryland and New Jersey, the two states where I have spent 99% if my life reduced the age to sixteen and as I have posted in Maryland, it can be fourteen or fifteen in some cases.

[Merenguero]

(03-24-2017 04:49 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 04:42 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

Multiple posters are bringing up this thing about screams. In order to get anything about screams into evidence, you need testimony from a credible witness who heard the screams. This school year ends pretty soon. People graduate. People move. People disappear. People get deported. When this goes to trial in a year or two (I'm well aware of Hicks, but it gets waived constantly), what are the chances that the state will a) locate a person who heard these screams, b) that person wil show up in court (even if subpoenaed), and c) that person will be credible and there will be no way to impeach that person? Serious question.

Why can't the ADA press for some depositions based upon these factors?

Good question. Your posts, on a wide range of topics, are getting better every day. The simple answer is that in criminal cases in Maryland, depositions cause all kinds of constitutional problems, such as the right to be present at all stages of a trial (the Court of Appeals consideration depos to be part of a trial), the right to confront and cross examine witnesses, etc. Those rights need to be expressly waived and generally a judge has tp find that the Defendant expressly waives those rights or risk getting reversed. I think for those reasons, criminal depos are not done in Maryland. I have never heard of one being held. There is a proceeding in civil cases called a De Bene Esse Depo where it is a deposition, but the despondent is fully cross examined and the depo is used as evidence just as if the deponent fully testified at trial. They are held when a witness gives advanced notice of his or her unavailability at trial and are pretty rare. I've only participated in one of those in my life.

[Renzy]

(03-24-2017 03:20 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

This case would take a turn for crazy if it turns out the girl had prior sexual relations with at least one of the guys.

But Merenguero, I don't think it will be very difficult to show a lack of consent in this case. How can it reasonably be shown that this girl wanted to fuck in the boys bathroom right in the middle of a school day? These guys are looking at 10-20 years in the slammer or a deportation.

Reports I read stated that this happened around 9am. Maybe we're justing reaching new levels of depravity, but I have a hard time believing a 14 year old girl is ready to get double-teamed in the school's hallway bathroom at 9 in the morning.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(03-24-2017 05:22 PM)Renzy Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 03:20 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

This case would take a turn for crazy if it turns out the girl had prior sexual relations with at least one of the guys.

But Merenguero, I don't think it will be very difficult to show a lack of consent in this case. How can it reasonably be shown that this girl wanted to fuck in the boys bathroom right in the middle of a school day? These guys are looking at 10-20 years in the slammer or a deportation.

Reports I read stated that this happened around 9am. Maybe we're justing reaching new levels of depravity, but I have a hard time believing a 14 year old girl is ready to get double-teamed in the school's hallway bathroom at 9 in the morning.

I can believe it, when I see her face, body, have a look at her ethnic makeup and sexual history. In this case I tend to favor her account, but it is not 100% impossible that she did not want it.

What I did not belive was this recent case in Sweden were a woman in a wheelchair wanted to have sex with 14 refugees on the bathroom floor for several hours. By they - the Swedish court said that there were too little signs of a struggle and they released the glorious enrichers, since we all know that women in wheelchairs always dream about gang-bangs in bathroom floors for several hours.

Face it guys - the laws are biased and the traitors are out to destroy your order and culture.

[MMX2010]

Merenguero Wrote:

Take it up with the legislature.

I don't need to take my perspective up to the legislature. I'm just telling you my own mindset, which will never ever seriously consider that a 14 year old girl would consent to sex with two men.

In my mind, the simpler explanation is that the two Hondurans, one of whom looks like he has an IQ of 75, misinterpreted her refusals as LMR.

If the majority of jurors think like me, both of the accusers will be convicted.

[Merenguero]

(03-24-2017 05:43 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Merenguero Wrote:

Take it up with the legislature.

I don't need to take my perspective up to the legislature. I'm just telling you my own mindset, which will never ever seriously consider that a 14 year old girl would consent to sex with two men.

In my mind, the simpler explanation is that the two Hondurans, one of whom looks like he has an IQ of 75, misinterpreted her refusals as LMR.

If the majority of jurors think like me, both of the accusers will be convicted.

Sanchez is from Guatemala and Montano is from El Salvador. Do you make it a habit to call all people of Latin American origin "Hondurans" or just these two guys?

[MMX2010]

(03-24-2017 05:51 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 05:43 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Merenguero Wrote:

Take it up with the legislature.

I don't need to take my perspective up to the legislature. I'm just telling you my own mindset, which will never ever seriously consider that a 14 year old girl would consent to sex with two men.

In my mind, the simpler explanation is that the two Hondurans, one of whom looks like he has an IQ of 75, misinterpreted her refusals as LMR.

If the majority of jurors think like me, both of the accusers will be convicted.

Sanchez is from Guatemala and Montano is from El Salvador. Do you make it a habit to call all people of Latin American origin "Hondurans" or just these two guys?

The age of consent Guatemala is 18, but is only 15 in El Salvador. It's 12 in Mexico.

Overall, in Latin American countries, the age of consent is far lower than 18. So telling me which country a Latin American is from makes no difference to me, particularly when Latin Americans unite as one political block to extort political benefits from Americans.

[Enigma]

(03-24-2017 01:35 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

There is something here that a lot of the internet commenters (outside of the forum) and this Cucker guy apparently fail to understand.

Where in that segment did "Cucker" say the age difference was illegal? He didn't. He said she was a child, which she is.

Interesting that you heard something that was never said.

[Merenguero]

(03-24-2017 07:27 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 01:35 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

There is something here that a lot of the internet commenters (outside of the forum) and this Cucker guy apparently fail to understand.

Where in that segment did "Cucker" say the age difference was illegal? He didn't. He said she was a child, which she is.

Interesting that you heard something that was never said.

Are you kidding me? He said there were two men, one eighteen years old and one seventeen years old with a fourteen year old in a bathroom, how could that be consensual? This implies that a fourteen year old is legally unable to give consent, when the code clearly says that a fourteen year old is, as long as the alleged Defendant is not four years older than the alleged victim. How much clearer could he have made it that he completely misunderstands the code with regard to age of consent and ability to give consent?

[Enigma]

(03-24-2017 07:44 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 07:27 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 01:35 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

There is something here that a lot of the internet commenters (outside of the forum) and this Cucker guy apparently fail to understand.

Where in that segment did "Cucker" say the age difference was illegal? He didn't. He said she was a child, which she is.

Interesting that you heard something that was never said.

Are you kidding me? He said there were two men, one eighteen years old and one seventeen years old with a fourteen year old in a bathroom, how could that be consensual? This implies that a fourteen year old is legally unable to give consent, when the code clearly says that a fourteen year old is, as long as the alleged Defendant is not four years older than the alleged victim. How much clearer could he have made it that he completely misunderstands the code with regard to age of consent and ability to give consent?

Are you triggered?

He could have made it clearer by saying "a 14 year old can't give consent" or "this was statutory rape" or "it is illegal for an 18 year old to have sex with a 14 year old in Maryland".

He didn't say anything of those things. He asked how it could be consensual, given that the defense attorney had just said he planned to claim it was consensual.

Not all of us choose to ignore the fact that she was screaming and bleeding or the other context of the situation, as you do.

[Merenguero]

(03-24-2017 08:06 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 07:44 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 07:27 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 01:35 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

There is something here that a lot of the internet commenters (outside of the forum) and this Cucker guy apparently fail to understand.

Where in that segment did "Cucker" say the age difference was illegal? He didn't. He said she was a child, which she is.

Interesting that you heard something that was never said.

Are you kidding me? He said there were two men, one eighteen years old and one seventeen years old with a fourteen year old in a bathroom, how could that be consensual? This implies that a fourteen year old is legally unable to give consent, when the code clearly says that a fourteen year old is, as long as the alleged Defendant is not four years older than the alleged victim. How much clearer could he have made it that he completely misunderstands the code with regard to age of consent and ability to give consent?

Are you triggered?

He could have made it clearer by saying "a 14 year old can't give consent" or "this was statutory rape" or "it is illegal for an 18 year old to have sex with a 14 year old in Maryland".

He didn't say anything of those things. He asked how it could be consensual, given that the defense attorney had just said he planned to claim it was consensual.

Not all of us choose to ignore the fact that she was screaming and bleeding or the other context of the situation, as you do.

He mentions the ages of all persons involved at the exact same point in the interview when he asks how it could be consensual, without bringing up any factors such as screaming, bleading, or anything else. He was referring to the age thing, which he didn't at the time understand. Hopefully, he educated himself on the code since then. It only takes a few minutes and a few clicks online. He was also way out of line in pressing regarding payment of the fee, which attorneys are bound by their duty of confidentiality not to disclose. I'm not sure if he even understands that. At least one of the Defendants would be required to have an attorney who is normally a private attorney no matter what. The reason why is the public defender's office would have an obvious conflict of interest had both Defendants sought their representation. One of the Defendants would have to be paneled out to a court appointed attorney, who is not employed by the public defender's office and who is basically private counsel.

[Thomas Jackson]

Will be interested to see if this wakes up any of the populace of Montgomery county. Too little too late anyway. It is truly a cucked place. Something like 35% of the residents are foreign born and about 10-15% illegal. This is what an invasion looks like. Known for being very Jewish as well.

[Enigma]

(03-24-2017 08:16 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 08:06 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 07:44 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 07:27 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 01:35 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

There is something here that a lot of the internet commenters (outside of the forum) and this Cucker guy apparently fail to understand.

Where in that segment did "Cucker" say the age difference was illegal? He didn't. He said she was a child, which she is.

Interesting that you heard something that was never said.

Are you kidding me? He said there were two men, one eighteen years old and one seventeen years old with a fourteen year old in a bathroom, how could that be consensual? This implies that a fourteen year old is legally unable to give consent, when the code clearly says that a fourteen year old is, as long as the alleged Defendant is not four years older than the alleged victim. How much clearer could he have made it that he completely misunderstands the code with regard to age of consent and ability to give consent?

Are you triggered?

He could have made it clearer by saying "a 14 year old can't give consent" or "this was statutory rape" or "it is illegal for an 18 year old to have sex with a 14 year old in Maryland".

He didn't say anything of those things. He asked how it could be consensual, given that the defense attorney had just said he planned to claim it was consensual.

Not all of us choose to ignore the fact that she was screaming and bleeding or the other context of the situation, as you do.

He mentions the ages of all persons involved at the exact same point in the interview when he asks how it could be consensual, without bringing up any factors such as screaming, bleading, or anything else. He was referring to the age thing, which he didn't at the time understand. Hopefully, he educated himself on the code since then. It only takes a few minutes and a few clicks online. He was also way out of line in pressing regarding payment of the fee, which attorneys are bound by their duty of confidentiality not to disclose. I'm not sure if he even understands that. At least one of the Defendants would be required to have an attorney who is normally a private attorney no matter what. The reason why is the public defender's office would have an obvious conflict of interest had both Defendants sought their representation. One of the Defendants would have to be paneled out to a court appointed attorney, who is not employed by the public defender's office and who is basically private counsel.

He mentioned their ages because their ages are relevant He did not say it was illegal, that is your own assumption.

And it's not an interviewers job to know what questions an attorney can and can't answer. His job is to ask questions. If the attorney can't answer it, he just says I can't answer it, as he did in the video.

But apparently you're a cuck if you believe two "Latinos" raped a girl who was screaming and bleeding though.

[BrewDog]

(03-24-2017 08:16 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

He was also way out of line in pressing regarding payment of the fee, which attorneys are bound by their duty of confidentiality not to disclose.

If we're talking about Tucker Carlson, I thought that was a bad spot in the interview. Whoever is paying or not paying for the defense is completely irrelevant. I know it was a "Gotcha!" moment for most TV viewers because it looked like Tucker was really showing the guy is slimy somehow, but the question shouldn't have ever come up and has nothing to do with anything.

I thought the defense attorney seemed pretty forthright in his responses. He didn't seem slimy at all. Everyone deserves a defense in a criminal case, and it doesn't make an attorney a scumbag for providing that role. I think the attorney did pretty well under fire.