Where those two are concerned, with their self opinionated arrogance, it was only a matter of time.Originally Posted by Zedder
NEDWN VIII
Where those two are concerned, with their self opinionated arrogance, it was only a matter of time.
Highway Biker
Theres an elephant in the room in this thread.
Trying to be a good dog
I only ever drive through west auckland, but as a kid remember girls wearing FM boots, mini skirts and ac/dc tee shirts. A lot different from Ellerslie at the time. Now they have their own outrages show on the telly, and acting up goes up. A culture springs from a meme
I blame that ad man Bob Harvey bringing all that sin down on the good folks of west auckland
Churches are monuments to self importance
Hardcore Biker
Had my own dealings with police after a family member made a complaint about years of sexual abuse.
They "the police" turned out to be a pack of lying sweep it under the carpet cunts.
They told us "the family" that there was a warrant out out on the scumdog,,,,then the cunt flew out of the country a week later.
An arrest warrant huh,,,,,,,,,yeah right.
Those girls never stood a chance with our pigs in charge.
Reputation,,,,
Hardcore Biker
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11419766
Well I for one am very pleased that the police went on with their lifes, I am very pleased that the little rapists get on to go with their lifes.....and who the fuck gives a shit about the victims. Oh yea....they were treated with Courtesy....we aint gonna investigate...but hey I call you Miss instead of slut...see I am very very courteous.Nikki Papatsoumas Nikki Papatsoumas is an NZME. News Service reporter based in Wellington.
IPCA: Police 'let down' Roast Busters' alleged victims
'Roast Busters' Joseph Lavell Parker (left) and Beraiah Hales.
'Roast Busters' Joseph Lavell Parker (left) and Beraiah Hales.
Victims were "let down" in the original police investigation into the alleged offending of the 'Roast Busters', the Independent Police Conduct Authority has found.
Today, the authority released the findings of the second of its investigations into police handling of alleged offending by the group.
This comes after the authority received a number of complaints relating to police investigations in November 2013.
The Roast Busters were a group made up of predominantly West Auckland youths who allegedly bragged on a Facebook page about having sex with drunk and underage girls, some as young as 13.
A report on the authority's first investigation, which focused on information provided by police to media, was released in May last year.
Today's report looked at the whether or not the initial police criminal investigations were adequate.
It also looked at the handling of any complaints or reports received by police from members of the public between 2011 and October 2013.
Independent Police Conduct Authority chair Judge David Carruthers said the authority investigated whether there was any police misconduct or any failure of police practice, policy or procedure in the handling of seven separate reports made to them in relation to the Roast Busters.
In its report, the authority found that investigating staff treated young women who were subject to alleged offending with "courtesy and compassion".
However, Judge Carruthers said the authority found investigations into original cases were not "robust and thorough".
"In a number of cases police failed to adhere to the basic tenets of any form of criminal investigation."
Judge Carruthers also said police failed to undertake adequate follow up enquiries and pursue positive lines of enquiry.
He said there was also a lack of record keeping and assessment of evidence during investigations.
The report also found that officers investigating the matters tended to approach each case on a "case by case" basis to consider whether there was sufficient evidence to prosecute offenders for sexual violation.
Mr Carruthers said in the authority's view, the officers should have identified connections between the various cases.
"Victims were let down by their failure to do so," Judge Carruthers said.
Judge Carruthers said details of alleged offenders were not correctly recorded in the police computer system.
"Moreover, police did not check whether the young men had been involved in any previous incidents."
The authority's report also criticised investigating officers for failing to properly consider alternative action, and take steps to address care and protection issues and the potential offending behaviours of the young men involved.
Judge Carruthers said only one of the young men was ever the subject of a referral to Child Youth and Family. "In one case, initial suspect interviews were held with the young men, but there was no further contact after that.
"In the other cases, officers did not speak to the young men or their parents during or at the conclusion of their investigations," Judge Carruthers said.
He said the officers' contact and interaction with young men who were the subjects of the investigations and their families was "inadequate or non-existent".
Police need to do 'whatever possible'
Police Commissioner Mike Bush has apologised "unreservedly" and says police will reach out to complainants in the Roast Busters case immediately.
Mr Bush said he completely accepted the IPCA findings and police officers need to do "whatever possible" to stop a repeat of the kind of sexual conduct that outraged New Zealand when the scandal broke.
He did not believe the reprimanded officers would or should be sacked.
"They were well-trained. It was a lapse in performance at this point in time."
Mr Bush maintained Operation Clover was a "comprehensive" investigation.
"I'm very disappointed," Mr Bush added.
However, he said staff failures were isolated incidents and the officers criticised in the IPCA report were no longer on the child protection or sexual assault investigation teams.
This stuff happens to girls and young women (and boys and young man btw), and the reason the victims don't come forward is simply the fact that the Police still treats rape as something the victim initiated..Should have worn something else, should have not been in this place, should have not been so pretty, so happy, so this or that.
Anyways, just in case anyone is actually giving a shit please sign the petition to force the police to re-visit this case and to entice them somehow to actually do their job. (not holding my breath....writing tickets is easier).
http://www.actionstation.org.nz/roastbusters_review
squeek squeek
The Majestic Metal Wizard
So without defending the Roast Busters - Rape is probably of all the crimes - the hardest to prosecute. With almost every other crime, evidence of the deed is evidence of a crime - with Rape, Evidence of the deed is evidence of something completely legal, enjoyed by millions of people everyday. What seperates a legal act from an illegal act is the mindset of the people taking part.
This is the big problem in cases like these - if someone voluntarily accepts alcohol and in their un-inhibited state got persuaded/pressured into doing something they wouldn't do when someone - this gives a goldmine to any defence lawyer.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
KB's Chief Cats
as long as noone travels in excess of the posted limit, we'll all be safe as houses!
just not uninsured. err, or insured, houses in christchurch.
Hardcore Biker
young kids in the age groop from about 11 - 17 will do a lot of stupid stuff to be cool, and accepted....and gasp sometimes they even crush on someone and will do stupid shit to show the boy/girl how much they crush on them.
anyways.....
it is illegal to supply alcohol to a minor, but I agree if we just do away with age limits the booze industry will re-joice and anyone who supplies alcohol to a minor will have done nothing illegal and then there will be nothing to prosecute. However, as of today it is still illegal to supply alcohol to a minor. At a minimum the roast busters.....or rapists, should have been cited or charged with breach of the alcohol laws of this country.
next
it is illegal to have sex with a child under the age of 16..(age of consent in NZ I understand?). again, i agree we could just do away with any age of consent, and any fuckwit of any age can just start fucking by himself or with a group of mates the doughters of your friends, your daughters, and any other little girls (oh and boys). Once we have changed the legal restrictions on alcohol consumption, it will be really easy to fuck the little drunk girls and boys. Rejoice.
And in case that it is really hard to understand that the 13 year old girl did not deserve to be raped because she accepted a rdt from a boy/man she was probably crushing on, a boy who was either the son of a cop, or the son of a Hollywood star, or one of their mates i have an image that clearly lays out how to prevent rape.
squeek squeek
Scooter boy
Don't rape? Fuck me that's a useful idea.young kids in the age groop from about 11 - 17 will do a lot of stupid stuff to be cool, and accepted....and gasp sometimes they even crush on someone and will do stupid shit to show the boy/girl how much they crush on them.
anyways.....
it is illegal to supply alcohol to a minor, but I agree if we just do away with age limits the booze industry will re-joice and anyone who supplies alcohol to a minor will have done nothing illegal and then there will be nothing to prosecute. However, as of today it is still illegal to supply alcohol to a minor. At a minimum the roast busters.....or rapists, should have been cited or charged with breach of the alcohol laws of this country.
next
it is illegal to have sex with a child under the age of 16..(age of consent in NZ I understand?). again, i agree we could just do away with any age of consent, and any fuckwit of any age can just start fucking by himself or with a group of mates the doughters of your friends, your daughters, and any other little girls (oh and boys). Once we have changed the legal restrictions on alcohol consumption, it will be really easy to fuck the little drunk girls and boys. Rejoice.
And in case that it is really hard to understand that the 13 year old girl did not deserve to be raped because she accepted a rdt from a boy/man she was probably crushing on, a boy who was either the son of a cop, or the son of a Hollywood star, or one of their mates i have an image that clearly lays out how to prevent rape.
Why did these young dudes do what they did?
The Majestic Metal Wizard
This is probably one of the hardest things to talk about - at what point does it stop being acceptable peer pressure? of course one could argue that No peer pressure is acceptable - but think of the times that you have shown no intention to do something and a friend suggested you try it, you tried it and enjoyed it? What limit would you define as acceptable or not acceptable? I would put forward that the moment you use physical force, its not okay, but to others it isn't okay far earlier than that - even others would say the amount of peer pressure that is acceptable changes with what they are pressuring to do (which I don't) - ie when it comes to say pressuring to study to do well in a test, any amount of pressure is okay, when it comes to sex, no pressure is okay
but then if you were to strictly enforce that law - just about every teenager who ever shared a drink with their friends would be guilty of a crime - do we lock up the entire teenage population?
What about 2 15 year olds experimenting? the Age of consent is there for a reason - to protect people, but at the same time it has to be used within reason - I was dating a 17 year old when I was 15 - She should have been charged with statutory rape which is what the rigid application of the Age of Consent would have mandated - just because we can't apply the law in a way that protects everyone it is designed to protect while allowing those that should be exempted from it to be allowed their freedoms isn't reason to do away with the law. It is reason however to talk openly about how it can be improved
And there is the problem - "Probably crushing on" - firsly I agree entirely with does not deserve to be rapes - no one deserves to be raped - no man, no woman, no child. You said so however that 'crushing on' creates an ideal scenario for a defence:
You offered a drink, they of their own free will accepted, after they loosened up, you suggested sex - they were keen (who doesn't want to sleep with their crush?), the deed was done, they woke up with a hangover and regret.
Don't get me wrong - I agree that the Roastbusters are despicable, but how do you protects against the likes of them without turning every horny experimental teenager into a criminal?
As for the Picture - notice how it is a little one sided by its wording - implying that only men Rape, and only women get raped.
That all said - I have witnessed first hand Police Cronyism at its worst - All I'm going to say is there is a Dead Child, a Heart broken father and a 'mother' who should have her remaining kids taken off her before she kills them - I wish I could go into more detail
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
KB's Chief Cats
well, no. Because legally, you need a penis to rape.
Loud and Uncouth
People are always saying the IPCA cover up any negative Police issues and failings - so what happened here? I'm shattered.
And yeah, it's YOU people getting tickets that take cops away from 'real' police work, shame on you....
Winding up drongos, foil hat wearers and over sensitive KBers for over 14,000 posts...........
" Life is not a rehearsal, it's as happy or miserable as you want to make it"
Scooter boy
The whole 'Roastbusters' thing makes no sense.People are always saying the IPCA cover up any negative Police issues and failings - so what happened here? I'm shattered.
And yeah, it's YOU people getting tickets that take cops away from 'real' police work, shame on you....
How are the cops meant to lay charges when the hot mess little missies wont well lay them?
they said what they did online so should be piss easy to charge them with something right?
where are the angry dads?
Nana
At its simplest: If they were unable to give informed consent at the time of the act it is rape.
From there it gets much muddier.
Who is responsible for burden of proof?
At what point can you no longer decide that was a bad decision?
No means no! But, what's about when your chosen participants body language says otherwise? Who here has never had a woman whisper "no, stop" in their ear? Did you? What was the reaction?
How accurate I don't know but in sex ed at high school educators came around and advised the statutory age does not apply to boys specifically and only applied to boys where they were not the initiator and even then that was a precedence rather than a law.
Essentially telling us to go forth and sow our wild oats but to always sleep with women above the age of consent.
Back to what does constitute consent.
If the boy is himself under age as well can he be held accountable for not gaining hers?
Is it still rape if you never got consent but then you never asked either? Assuming they are conscious and not under the influence.
Does that change where there was a clear agreement of an exchange of bodily fluids prior to intoxication if they were intoxicated at the time?
If you can be to intoxicated to give consent, can you be too intoxicated to retract consent?
Drunken sex can be fun. At what point are you too drunk to continue? Does this change because your relationship has?
I suspect the answer to that is going to be different for every person.
For me inhibitions gone is good. Slurring and star fishing is bad.
What Is your guide?
Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.
Nana
Now, answer all those same questions with your teen daughters relationship with another teen in mind.
Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks