CT - High school football players charged with sexually assaulting 13-year-old

Reader

New Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2004
Messages
7,033
Reaction score
93
Sound familiar?

TORRINGTON, Conn. – Two members of the Torrington High School football team have been charged with sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl, who has been taunted on social media sites in recent weeks by dozens of classmates upset at the allegations.

The Register Citizen reports the two 18-year-old football players, Edgar Gonzalez and Joan Toribio, have been charged with felony second-degree sexual assault and other crimes in an investigation that began last month. Both have pleaded not guilty.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/2...-assaulting-13/?intcmp=trending#ixzz2O85t1xxv
 
Reader - thank you. I was just coming to open this thread up. I have some posts I'm going to quote and bring over from the Stuebenville thread.

Thank you!

Salem
 
Okay - just bringing these over. I didn't want to copy them, because they would throw the discussion out of order.

Has anyone posted this story?
Conn. high school football players accused of sex assault

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...yers-sex-assault-connecticut-accused/2003379/



TORRINGTON, Conn. (AP) — Two Connecticut high school football players have been charged in sexual assault cases involving different 13-year-old girls, at least one of whom has been taunted online by dozens of upset classmates.

...The case has some parallels to one in Steubenville, Ohio, where two football players were convicted this week of raping a girl who was later threatened online.


Nice. One of these guys had already been arrested for robbery and assault and was pending trial when this sexual assault allegedly happened. Plus he was still playing football with those charges pending. I would love to know what his bond conditions were.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p><a href="https://twitter.com/search/%23Torrington">#Torrington</a> police confirm there are two 13-year-old victims in the sex assault case against two high school football players.</p>&mdash; Register Citizen (@RegisterCitizen) <a href="https://twitter.com/RegisterCitizen/status/314479298461446144">March 20, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Not sure if I did this right-trying to put in a tweet.

They are now saying there are two (2) thirteen (13) year old victims!!!

Such a shame...we are talking about the team MVP and 2nd leading scorer on the team...so sad....:what:

http://registercitizen.com/articles/2013/03/20/news/doc514a33ce3b7d1094742317.txt

OK..so it is two (2) DIFFERENT thirteen-year-old girls, two (2) DIFFERENT eighteen-year-old men, and one (1) seventeen-year-old boy involved. There are two (2) different incidents. Incident #1 and #2 are the 2 18 year olds and the 2 13 year olds. There is a separate, earlier incident with the 17 year old and one of the 13 year olds.

It is sad that the prosecutor is trying to go through such pains to explain the rape charge and that there is no such thing as consent between a 13 year old and a 17 or 18 year old.


Salem
 
The two 18-year-old Torrington High School players, EG and JT, were charged with felony second-degree sexual assault and other crimes last month in cases involving different 13-year-old girls. JT also was charged two weeks ago in another second-degree sexual assault case.

a third student, a 17-year-old boy, was charged this month with second-degree sexual assault on one of the two 13-year-olds linked to the football players&#8217; cases.

At least one more arrest involving the same accusers is likely in the case, he said.

The accusers and suspects knew one another, according to Emanuel, who described what happened as &#8220;voluntary encounters&#8221; at private residences. But he said sexual encounters between a 13-year-old and anyone more than three years older are illegal under state law.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...87d570-91c1-11e2-9173-7f87cda73b49_story.html
 
I am trying to figure out if all these &#8220;voluntary encounters&#8221; happened at the same time with all involved or did they happen on different days with different people? I am rather confused..it could be the sleepy meds making my brain groggy but I don't know...
 
I don't understand the term "voluntary encounters."

If it's sex between a 13 year old and a 17/18 year old it is't voluntary.

It's called statutory rape-2nd degree rape, whatever you want.

But WHY must they use the term VOLUNTARY???
 
I don't understand the term "voluntary encounters."

If it's sex between a 13 year old and a 17/18 year old it is't voluntary.

It's called statutory rape-2nd degree rape, whatever you want.

But WHY must they use the term VOLUNTARY???

Presumably "voluntary" means that force was not used.
Being "voluntary" doesn't make it legal, obviously.
 
I am trying to figure out if all these &#8220;voluntary encounters&#8221; happened at the same time with all involved or did they happen on different days with different people? I am rather confused..it could be the sleepy meds making my brain groggy but I don't know...

BBM

Best clarification I can find at this time:

While the cases remain sealed at Litchfield Judicial District court, some small, clarifying details were released by police Wednesday.

Police spokesman Lt. Mike Emanuel said [JT&#8217;s] incidents are separate, but occurred during the same &#8220;time period,&#8221; around Feb. 10. Emanuel said the initial sexual assault charges against [JT] and [EG] stem from an incident on Feb. 10, which was reported by the one of the victim&#8217;s parents on Feb. 11.

The 17-year-old male, a Torrington resident charged on March 4 with second-degree sexual assault stemming from a Fall 2012 incident with one of the same 13-year-old victims, has not been identified due to his age. The charge came from information learned in the original investigation.

Emanuel said the charges against all three teenagers are related to the same two victims, but that the charges are related to three separate alleged incidents.

More at the link:

http://www.registercitizen.com/articles/2013/03/21/news/doc514a89b81fed3203280598.txt
 

RSBM

This quote puzzles me:

The accusers and suspects knew one another, according to Emanuel, who described what happened as “voluntary encounters” at private residences. But he said sexual encounters between a 13-year-old and anyone more than three years older are illegal under state law.

I don't understand the 'three years older' part....what if the girls were 14 years old and had been assaulted 'voluntarily' by a 16 year old? Would that not be a crime since it doesn't meet the '3 years older' requirement?

Doesn't Conn. have an age of consent law at all? In most states it's at least 16 or 17. The 3 years older law doesn't seem to be strong enough to protect young girls to me. What is the actual law here?
 
I think it's all very clear. 13 year old having sex with a 16 year old would be legal under the law. 13 year old having sex with a 17 year old would not be legal anymore, because age difference is more than 3 years.
What they are alleging is that 13 year old hasn't been forced to have sex, but because of age difference, the sex was not legal. If force was used (which is not alleged here, apparently) then obviously age difference would not matter since it would not be legal even if age difference was less than 3 years. But use of force is apparently not alleged.
If the girls were 14 and voluntarily had sex with a 16 year old, that would be legal -since the age difference is less than 3 years.
Age of consent doesn't necessarily prevent teenagers from having sex.
So the laws come up with age difference limit-otherwise they would have to lock up teenagers of the same age having sex with each other if they are under the age of consent.
If there was no age difference limit, then two 14 year old having sex with each other could both end up in prison-and most people don't want that, as far as I can tell.
 
I think it's all very clear. 13 year old having sex with a 16 year old would be legal under the law. 13 year old having sex with a 17 year old would not be legal anymore, because age difference is more than 3 years.
What they are alleging is that 13 year old hasn't been forced to have sex, but because of age difference, the sex was not legal. If force was used (which is not alleged here, apparently) then obviously age difference would not matter since it would not be legal even if age difference was less than 3 years. But use of force is apparently not alleged.
If the girls were 14 and voluntarily had sex with a 16 year old, that would be legal -since the age difference is less than 3 years.
Age of consent doesn't necessarily prevent teenagers from having sex.
So the laws come up with age difference limit-otherwise they would have to lock up teenagers of the same age having sex with each other if they are under the age of consent.
If there was no age difference limit, then two 14 year old having sex with each other could both end up in prison-and most people don't want that, as far as I can tell.

JJenny, I think you pretty much summed that correctly. Most states have those kinds of statutes. The use of "voluntary encounter" and the inclusion of the ages is necessary to explain the precise charges here; the different levels of sexual assault that most states have.
 
The age of consent in Connecticut is 16, and the 18-year-olds arrested in the case, EG and JT, do not fall within the state's "Romeo and Juliet" protection of a three-year "close in age" encounter &#8212; the case will likely center on statutory rape.

In Torrington, already, school officials are already struggling with confronting the cyber-bullying: "There's nothing we can do; there's no police, no protection whatsoever governing the World Wide Web," Debrah Pollutro, an assistant to the superintendent, told The Times.

"EG, the team's Most Valuable Player, was charged in a March 2012 alleged felony robbery. He's accused of jumping three juveniles, 14-years-old, in search of money," Glenza reports. But he was still allowed to play

"When the student does something and is arrested, of course, until they go to court they&#8217;re innocent until proven guilt [...] While you&#8217;re pending do we say, &#8216;OK you were involved in this,&#8217; and because you were involved we kick them off the team, and then they&#8217;re found innocent,&#8221; said Kloczko.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/03/torringtons-rape-case/63386/
 
These school officals seem rather clueless. Playing high school football isnt a constitutional right. If you get charged with a violent felony, you can suspend him from the team.
 
its the sports culture at work once again IMO. That segment of society that places a higher value on their athletes then your average Joe (or Josephine) and perpetuates the mentality that by their sheer athletic prowess they are somehow special or exempt from the rules.

I am sure their parents remain proud of their boys and blame the 13 year old seductress. Everyone knows that boys will be boys and they are walking hormones without an ounce of self control. <sarcasm alert>
 
I have no words, only a heavy heart and outrage. The only thing separating us from the Romans is Twitter...ughh....
 

Quote:
In Torrington, already, school officials are already struggling with confronting the cyber-bullying: "There's nothing we can do; there's no police, no protection whatsoever governing the World Wide Web," Debrah Pollutro, an assistant to the superintendent, told The Times.

BBM

Pulled one of the excerpts from your post...
This is absolutely incorrect. There is plenty that can be done. Does CT not have statutes regarding witness intimidation? Does CT not have statutes regarding harassment? Does CT not have statutes regarding stalking, or cyber-stalking? Are they not aware that the FBI can be called in regarding a case involving the use of the internet in cyber-stalking/harassment cases?

I've no doubt the *advertiser censored*'t to the superintendent doesn't have the power to do something, but to say that there is no police or protection governing the WWW is absolutely false... There most certainly are ways to prosecute people who use the internet to commit crimes. It is ridiculous for her to make that statement...

Also, why are people blaming the school district in the first place?* Do they allow students to be texting while in class or something? If they do then they can do something to prevent these things happening while the students are in school at least - ban cellphone usage in school...

ETA: * In regard to the cyber-bullying - I completely understand the outrage when it comes to athletes not being suspended when arrested for a serious crime. I remember our Athletic Code of Conduct was very strict in regard to many different types of behavior - from drinking & drugs, to even swearing (especially while in uniform). I'm aware that the Code was not always followed - especially in regard to our State Champion Football Team, however, I don't have a doubt that if one of the players were actually arrested for a serious crime, they would have been suspended immediately... Not banned, but definitely suspended from games.
 
I see that lots of kids from the high school are organizing support for........ the accused football players! I really dont understand the reasoning these kids have regarding these boys and what happened.
 
I see that lots of kids from the high school are organizing support for........ the accused football players! I really dont understand the reasoning these kids have regarding these boys and what happened.

Not sure but sadly, I'm thinking it's just part of wanting to be 'in' with the 'in crowd'..

Somebody in these homes is not teaching, either by counsel or example, these kids what is really important and right in their lives.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
103
Guests online
1,040
Total visitors
1,143

Forum statistics

Threads
589,162
Messages
17,915,043
Members
227,745
Latest member
branditau.wareham72@gmail
Back
Top