Two adults arrested for having consensual sex [Archive]

Blake

12-12-2012, 10:18 PM

2005 Connecticut Code - Sec. 53a-191. Incest: Class D felony.

View Current Version

Sec. 53a-191. Incest: Class D felony. (a) A person is guilty of incest when he marries a person whom he knows to be related to him within any of the degrees of kindred specified in section 46b-21.

(b) Incest is a class D felony.

http://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/2005/title53a/sec53a-191.html

Felony? I thought the northeast was a little more liberal than that. Guess not.

Latarian Milton

12-13-2012, 01:54 AM

shit sucks but i don't see how it becomes a crime tbh. doesn't the government have anything more important to deal with other than intervene in trivial issues such as gay marriage and incest?

Latarian Milton

12-13-2012, 01:57 AM

So does the kid call him daddy or grandpa?
he probably a brain dead motherfucker like most imbred kids imho

AussieFanKurt

12-13-2012, 02:04 AM

how fucked up to find out you've fucked and had a kid with your dad

CosmicCowboy

12-13-2012, 07:55 AM

http://wfsb.images.worldnow.com/images/20265872_BG4.jpg

BARF!

Drachen

12-13-2012, 11:29 AM

they could get together with the ladies from that thread in the club and star in a movie that plays this song the entire time on a loop:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEzmr3_Dmv8&noredirect=1

ChumpDumper

12-13-2012, 11:59 AM

http://wfsb.images.worldnow.com/images/20265872_BG4.jpglol might be her father

LnGrrrR

12-13-2012, 12:02 PM

lol might be her father

Exactly my thought...

ploto

12-13-2012, 01:39 PM

lol might be her father

He did claim that his brother might be her father ...

ChumpDumper

12-13-2012, 01:54 PM

He did claim that his brother might be her father ...Oh, that makes everything OK.

Wild Cobra

12-13-2012, 02:13 PM

Oh, that makes everything OK.
No, but notice how the quoted law said "married."

ChumpDumper

12-13-2012, 02:21 PM

Non Sequitur Theater presents:
No, but notice how the quoted law said "married."

Wild Cobra

12-13-2012, 02:24 PM

I'm just wondering what crime they committed by the state they are in. The above quoted law does not apply.

ChumpDumper

12-13-2012, 02:31 PM

I'm just wondering what crime they committed by the state they are in. The above quoted law does not apply.I've said it before and I'll say it again: Read the goddamn article.

LnGrrrR

12-13-2012, 02:36 PM

I'll make it easier for him:

George Sayers Jr. and Tiffany Hartford, of Bethel in western Connecticut, were charged Monday with third-degree sexual assault, obscenity and conspiracy after authorities said DNA tests showed Sayers was the father of both Hartford and her baby. Each pleaded not guilty and was being held on bail.

Now, I'm not sure if the first two are related to the whole "sleeping with your family" deal, but the third isn't.

Wild Cobra

12-13-2012, 02:43 PM

I was assuming Blake pulled out the law they were using.

My mistake for believing Blake.

Sec. 53a-72a. Sexual assault in the third degree: Class D or C felony. (a) A person is guilty of sexual assault in the third degree when such person (1) compels another person to submit to sexual contact (A) by the use of force against such other person or a third person, or (B) by the threat of use of force against such other person or against a third person, which reasonably causes such other person to fear physical injury to himself or herself or a third person, or (2) engages in sexual intercourse with another person whom the actor knows to be related to him or her within any of the degrees of kindred specified in section 46b-21.
Now I see their argument.

"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'knows' is."

Drachen

12-13-2012, 03:37 PM

What's Roger Clinton have to do with this?

ChumpDumper

12-13-2012, 03:44 PM

I don't know what it is, but WC managed to politicize another apolitical story.

Wild Cobra

12-13-2012, 03:48 PM

What's Roger Clinton have to do with this?
I mean this George Sayers Jr. must be another hillbilly relative.

I don't know what it is, but WC managed to politicize another apolitical story.
Well, if you take the letter of the law, you must then also prove that these two knew with certainty they were related. The case will be based about it, and I couldn't help but think of Clinton's testimony about the definition of "is."

Besides, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the political forum...

ChumpDumper

12-13-2012, 03:58 PM

Well, if you take the letter of the law, you must then also prove that these two knew with certainty they were related. The case will be based about it, and I couldn't help but think of Clinton's testimony about the definition of "is."I think you still don't know what the charges are.

Wild Cobra

12-13-2012, 04:00 PM

I think you still don't know what the charges are.
The charges don't matter. It's what can be proved.

CosmicCowboy

12-13-2012, 04:19 PM

The charges don't matter. It's what can be proved.

uhhh...that they were married? That she was his daughter and he fathered a child with her?

Wild Cobra

12-13-2012, 04:22 PM

uhhh...that they were married? That she was his daughter and he fathered a child with her?
The black and white of the law says they musty know they are related. "Know" has a specific definition. They are claiming there was no certainty, and that they might be. Can the law prove they "knew" they were related?

I'm not saying it isn't wrong. I'm saying there may be no viable case.

CosmicCowboy

12-13-2012, 04:37 PM

Wild Cobra

12-13-2012, 04:39 PM

Well, you never know. This guys lawyer is claiming that making it against the law for his client to have sex with doodles the donkey is unconstitutional.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2246994/Carlos-Romero-Farmhand-claims-Florida-bestiality-laws-unconstitutional.html#ixzz2Evhp0P25
Throwing out more stuff for the authorities to have to deal with, and so are you. Off on a tangent.

How does that pertain to proving the black and white of the state law was violated?

ChumpDumper

12-13-2012, 04:41 PM

The charges don't matter. It's what can be proved.The state doesn't have to prove charges that aren't made.

So yeah, the charges are pertty important when it comes to proving charges.

clambake

12-13-2012, 04:41 PM

wc may have more personal experience with this than he's letting on.

Wild Cobra

12-13-2012, 04:42 PM

wc may have more personal experience with this than he's letting on.
Always the punk that has to say stupid shit, Aren't you clamboy.

GoodOdor

12-13-2012, 04:44 PM

wc may have more personal experience with this than he's letting on.

He did mention he had daughters before, no?:wow

Wild Cobra

12-13-2012, 04:44 PM

The state doesn't have to prove charges that aren't made.

So yeah, the charges are pertty important when it comes to proving charges.
Three charges, all hinging on the third-degree sexual assault. Or am I wrong?

clambake

12-13-2012, 04:44 PM

i wasn't talking to you.

clambake

12-13-2012, 04:46 PM

He did mention he had daughters before, no?:wow

yes, but if interrogated, he'll claim he didn't know.

Wild Cobra

12-13-2012, 04:47 PM

i wasn't talking to you.
I know, but you are nothing but a shit talking punk. Here you are making unfounded personal attack allegations, like always.

ChumpDumper

12-13-2012, 04:47 PM

Three charges, all hinging on the third-degree sexual assault. Or am I wrong?I don't have all the information needed, but my default answer to this question is yes, you are wrong.

clambake

12-13-2012, 04:51 PM

I know, but you are nothing but a shit talking punk. Here you are making unfounded personal attack allegations, like always.
me thinks he doth protest too much

Wild Cobra

12-13-2012, 04:52 PM

I don't have all the information needed, but my default answer to this question is yes, you are wrong.
LOL...

That is always your default MO. Someone is always wrong, but never you.

Have you even looked at the specific charges, past the media allegations? have you looked at the letter of the law? Perhaps you should do so.

GoodOdor

12-13-2012, 04:52 PM

porking your own daughters....you sick bastard, WC, you......

ChumpDumper

12-13-2012, 04:55 PM

LOL...

That is always your default MO. Someone is always wrong, but never you.Just playing the odds in this case.

Have you even looked at the specific charges, past the media allegations? have you looked at the letter of the law? Perhaps you should do so.Are you serious? You didn't even read the article until I ridiculed you into it. You can't reverse the whip after that kind of laziness.

Wild Cobra

12-13-2012, 04:58 PM

Just playing the odds in this case.

Are you serious? You didn't even read the article until I ridiculed you into it. You can't reverse the whip after that kind of laziness.
Idiot.

I read the article. I just didn't look anything up till I pointed out the law Blake quoted didn't apply. Now I do credit your words to making me find the pertinent information outside the link. Did you? Do you even know what you are arguing about, or are you just being a stupid chump like always?

ChumpDumper

12-13-2012, 05:08 PM

Idiot.

I read the article. I just didn't look anything up till I pointed out the law Blake quoted didn't apply. Oh, so you just didn't understand anything you read.

OK.
Now I do credit your words to making me find the pertinent information outside the link. Did you?There was no reason to do so for my purposes. I also don't google earth the homes of female acquaintances in an attempt to impress them. Such things are not necessary.
Do you even know what you are arguing about, or are you just being a stupid chump like always?Yeah, I know exactly what I'm talking about. I also know you are trying to salvage yet another one of your fuckups.

ploto

12-13-2012, 05:22 PM

Oh, that makes everything OK.

Where did I say that? I was commenting on how much she looks like him. She could have been his niece and not his daughter - but I never claimed that made it OK.

ChumpDumper

12-13-2012, 05:47 PM

Where did I say that? I was commenting on how much she looks like him. She could have been his niece and not his daughter - but I never claimed that made it OK.Should have posted in blue.

LnGrrrR

12-13-2012, 06:42 PM

johnsmith

12-14-2012, 01:44 AM

WC is gold in every thread in this forum. I'm almost considering becoming a democrat just so I'm no longer associated with this clown.....thank god this site is anonymous.

Wild Cobra

12-14-2012, 03:18 AM

WC, the whole point of the trial will be to determine whether or not they knew they were father/daughter or not, I'm guessing. Given they look very similar, and that they possibly lied to the police, I'm guessing that the judge/jury probably won't believe them.
The genetic test already confirms they are father/daughter from my understanding. There is no point in wasting tax payer dollars for a trial, or put them through a trial if the police cannot show evidence to prove they knew they were related. Unless the two confess, the police likely have no case for the sexual assault charges. Another thing. In this economy, unless Connecticut can afford to spend tax dollars this way, is it something they should pursue?

LnGrrrR

12-14-2012, 03:26 AM

The genetic test already confirms they are father/daughter from my understanding. There is no point in wasting tax payer dollars for a trial, or put them through a trial if the police cannot show evidence to prove they knew they were related. Unless the two confess, the police likely have no case for the sexual assault charges. Another thing. In this economy, unless Connecticut can afford to spend tax dollars this way, is it something they should pursue?

I assume the "prove they knew" will be what the trial rests upon. That's likely why they're charged with conspiracy. (Assuming they didn't know, they wouldn't have anything to hide.)

As far as the taxdollar thing goes... eh, I'd say it could be put to better use, IF they didn't have a kid. Once a child gets involved, it's different... the kid didn't ask to be born into a messed up genetic family. That kid would have problems for life.

Wild Cobra

12-14-2012, 04:47 AM

As far as the taxdollar thing goes... eh, I'd say it could be put to better use, IF they didn't have a kid. Once a child gets involved, it's different... the kid didn't ask to be born into a messed up genetic family. That kid would have problems for life.
Don't get me wrong here, I don't advocate such a relationship, but the kid is either damages but very likely not, and what would be the cause for removing the kid from them? Line breeding is done with horses all the time with no ill effect. This comes down to people imposing their morals over others, which is wrong.

LnGrrrR

12-14-2012, 05:13 AM

Don't get me wrong here, I don't advocate such a relationship, but the kid is either damages but very likely not, and what would be the cause for removing the kid from them? Line breeding is done with horses all the time with no ill effect. This comes down to people imposing their morals over others, which is wrong.

I am no genetics professor or anything, but I do believe that inbreeding greatly enhances the chance for genetic malfunctions and de novo mutations.

One could argue that a family where your father is also your grandfather is likely to cause intense negative social pressure on the child if it ever comes out. Kids are jerk, can you imagine the torment if you were actually inbred?

Maybe if the two if them weren't inbreeding, I might be inclined to have more sympathy for them.

Wild Cobra

12-14-2012, 05:50 AM

I am no genetics professor or anything, but I do believe that inbreeding greatly enhances the chance for genetic malfunctions and de novo mutations.

One could argue that a family where your father is also your grandfather is likely to cause intense negative social pressure on the child if it ever comes out. Kids are jerk, can you imagine the torment if you were actually inbred?

Maybe if the two if them weren't inbreeding, I might be inclined to have more sympathy for them.
I'm not going to disagree with that. However, it's already done. What would your solution be? I say let the kid stay with one parent, and warn them it can't happen again now that they know they are related. Do you have a better idea?

clambake

12-14-2012, 09:53 AM

yeah, clearly there was nothing wrong with these people before they had a baby. he didn't know she was his daughter because the mother didn't tell him. she wanted to keep this jewel of the nile all to herself.

let the dad keep the baby.......because he has a history of being an awesome dad.

oddly enough, comparing them to horses was the most generous compliment.

Blake

12-14-2012, 12:06 PM

One could argue that a family where your father is also your grandfather is likely to cause intense negative social pressure on the child if it ever comes out. Kids are jerk, can you imagine the torment if you were actually inbred?

And then imagine if your fathergrandfather was also married to a dude!

exponential increase in torment, imo

russellgoat

02-26-2014, 08:47 PM

I am no genetics professor or anything, but I do believe that inbreeding greatly enhances the chance for genetic malfunctions and de novo mutations.

One could argue that a family where your father is also your grandfather is likely to cause intense negative social pressure on the child if it ever comes out. Kids are jerk, can you imagine the torment if you were actually inbred?

Maybe if the two if them weren't inbreeding, I might be inclined to have more sympathy for them.

Show me a fucking law prohibiting two people with a recessive allele of a disease to have children. If such law does not exist, then why are we discriminating against incestuous couples? Besides, having children with a family member does not guarantee that the children will be fucked up.

LnGrrrR

02-28-2014, 03:34 PM

Show me a fucking law prohibiting two people with a recessive allele of a disease to have children. If such law does not exist, then why are we discriminating against incestuous couples? Besides, having children with a family member does not guarantee that the children will be fucked up.

Hey, if you want to fuck your sister, go ahead. I mean, I feel bad for the kid, but there are a lot of fucked up parents in the world anyways.

SnakeBoy

03-01-2014, 02:28 AM

I am no genetics professor or anything, but I do believe that inbreeding greatly enhances the chance for genetic malfunctions and de novo mutations.

Everything you ever wanted to know and a pretty interesting read...
http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/23704/InTech-Inbreeding_and_genetic_disorder.pdf

In case you don't want to read 41 pages...
In a compilation based on data from a number of studies, the increased risk for a
significant birth defect in progeny of a first cousin marriage varied between 1.7 and 2.8%
above that of the non-consanguineous population (Bennett et al., 2002). An important
number of abnormalities have also been reported in the offspring of first degree incestuous
unions. A compilation from data of several studies shows that 11.7% (25/213) of the
incestuous progeny presented known autosomal recessive disorders, 16.0% (34/213)
congenital malformations, 11.7% (25/213) nonspecific severe intellectual impairment and
14.6% (31/213) mild intellectual impairment (Bennett et al., 2002).

One could argue that a family where your father is also your grandfather is likely to cause intense negative social pressure on the child if it ever comes out. Kids are jerk, can you imagine the torment if you were actually inbred?

The children might get teased by other kids is a terrible argument against anything.

SnakeBoy

03-01-2014, 02:33 AM

Line breeding is done with horses all the time with no ill effect.

It is also done all the time with ill effect. When it's just a horse/dog/cow/etc. the ill effect isn't such a big deal.

This comes down to people imposing their morals over others, which is wrong.

You are wrong.

Wild Cobra

03-01-2014, 02:41 AM

It is also done all the time with ill effect. When it's just a horse/dog/cow/etc. the ill effect isn't such a big deal.

You are wrong.
Next, you will be advocating it to be illegal for some people to produce based on genetics.

SnakeBoy

03-01-2014, 03:24 AM

Next, you will be advocating it to be illegal for some people to produce based on genetics.

I'm not advocating anything except that you are wrong when you claim there is no ill effect from inbreeding and that this is just people imposing their morals.

Wild Cobra

03-01-2014, 12:19 PM

I'm not advocating anything except that you are wrong when you claim there is no ill effect from inbreeding and that this is just people imposing their morals.
Ok, I will accept your point. This is, it's still a matter of probability. If I recall, these two didn't even know they were related, yet arrested. Where is the harm in what happened, unknowingly?

Sybok

03-01-2014, 11:23 PM

Next, you will be advocating it to be illegal for some people to produce based on genetics.

That's what "kin" means.

LnGrrrR

03-02-2014, 02:59 AM

Everything you ever wanted to know and a pretty interesting read...
http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/23704/InTech-Inbreeding_and_genetic_disorder.pdf

In case you don't want to read 41 pages...
In a compilation based on data from a number of studies, the increased risk for a
significant birth defect in progeny of a first cousin marriage varied between 1.7 and 2.8%
above that of the non-consanguineous population (Bennett et al., 2002). An important
number of abnormalities have also been reported in the offspring of first degree incestuous
unions. A compilation from data of several studies shows that 11.7% (25/213) of the
incestuous progeny presented known autosomal recessive disorders, 16.0% (34/213)
congenital malformations, 11.7% (25/213) nonspecific severe intellectual impairment and
14.6% (31/213) mild intellectual impairment (Bennett et al., 2002).

The children might get teased by other kids is a terrible argument against anything.

It's an argument for not fucking your sister, in my opinion. :lol

russellgoat

02-15-2015, 11:03 AM

http://rt.com/news/190604-incest-germany-family-legal/

russellgoat

02-15-2015, 11:07 AM

http://nypost.com/2014/10/29/new-york-state-blesses-incest-marriage-between-uncle-niece/

FuzzyLumpkins

02-15-2015, 04:29 PM

Next, you will be advocating it to be illegal for some people to produce based on genetics.

:lol WC wants to fuck his mother.

DMC

02-15-2015, 07:27 PM

Any port in a storm.

russellgoat

05-17-2015, 07:28 PM

http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1431908638382s.jpg

This people are allowed to have children, while other people that can have healthier children arent allowed because they are family

russellgoat

07-09-2015, 08:40 PM

LnGrrrR

07-10-2015, 07:18 AM

https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/hphotos-xaf1/t51.2885-15/e15/11378521_983142561748784_1999363590_n.jpg

http://www.thehartleyhooligans.com/p/lola.html

So, this woman had a girl that was born with a lot of problems. Doctors said that if she had another baby, the baby would have 25% chance of being as fucked as the old sister. They tried again and they got another girl with the same problems. Nobody stopped them because there isn't any law stopping people that have high chances of having children with a lot of genetic problems if they aren't related. People that are against incest because of the potential problems that the baby may have should also be very worried about this. Why isn't anyone pushing for laws against this.

Necro thread! But honestly, if you have a kid with severe genetic deformities, and the doctors tell you there's a good chance your next child will have one, and you have it anyways? I'm not sure if "immoral" is the right word, but I'm definitely fine with calling it "fucked up". You're bringing a person into the world with a huge disadvantage (and screw everyone who says it's really a gift or any such bs).

LnGrrrR

07-10-2015, 07:23 AM

"We never expected to hear that Lola was also affected, but at our 22-week sonogram, her head measurements showed considerable lag, and microcephaly was confirmed a month later. Obviously this was a huge shock to us, as we felt confident that it would not happen again (we knew we had a 75% or greater chance that all would be OK) and all measurements were on track until that point. We were devastated initially, but this soon passed as we realized that this was the same child that we waitednearly five years to conceive, the same child that we wanted desperately, and the same child that we loved with everything in us, regardless of the size of her head. We knew the immense joy that Claire brought to our family, and we had no doubt that Lola would enrich our lives beyond belief as well." They might be really good parents, but their reasoning for wanting a kid (like pretty much every parent) was greedy... for their own happiness. They pretty much pushed all their chips in on 4 to 1 odds that their kid wouldn't be messed up, and lost. Now they have to pay some cost, but the child is the one that has to live with it. I guess alive and messed up is better than dead, but still seems pretty messed up. It's far more a "Ugh this is wrong" feeling than one I can explain logically.