So either:
This prosecutor Lisa Riniker is an attention whore who formulated a way to get national media coverage,
or,
The girl's 'high-ranking official' mother is an attention whore or a total narcissistic [fill in your favorite derogatory term],
or BOTH.

I don't see how this idiot prosecutor is not sanctioned for wasting public money on this bullshit.

"the Legislature could have put an age restriction in the statute ... the legislature did no such thing."

The legislature often does this and then claims that the DA's will apply the law correctly, as is their job. Unfortunately, it seems no one in the legislature realizes that the DA's almost always use as wide an interpretation as possible when applying any law, because it gives them more convictions to boost their resume.

Isn't playing doctor a normal part of growing up? We sure did, and usually it was the girls who were the more eager participants. Pretty soon they'll be prosecuting young boys for involuntary erections.

I'm surprised it's still legal for me to change my daughter's diaper.

Indeed, Eric, it's a normal part of the maturity process. After reading some more about this, it's pretty clear what happened. The girl's family is doing this to impress upon her that, as a daughter of the Entitlement Class, she is not to dally with boys that are beneath her station. Two tidbits:

* The social worker that filed the initial report is the girl's aunt.

* The girl's brother was also a participant. He was not charged.

It's tantamount to horse-whipping the house servant because he and the plantation owner's daughter made eyes at each other. The betters must teach the lower classes to mind their place.

Two thoughts came to mind as I read this article.

Matt and Trust expressed them both.

It's funny that the DA is claiming that she has no discretion. She's being disengenuous. Her office determines the charges and could obviously refrain from charging a child with felony sexual assault. Youll notice that she's also obtained a blanket gag order on the family, which causes me to suspect that she's trying to cover herself. This seems like a case of prosecutorial abuse. Hopefully shell be asked to resign.

The legislature often does this and then claims that the DA's will apply the law correctly, as is their job.

This is why Matt, whenever I hear "don't worry, it won't be applied widely, it will be at the discretion of the courts" I instantly oppose whatever law it is. It's the ultimate in blame shifting. The politicians get credit for passing some law addressing some non-existent, hyped up problem, the prosecutors get to claim they have no choice. No one gets blamed.

Where I live, for instance, we have the "Racial and Religious Vilification Act". (Despite the name, it's not meant to encourage it. Sheesh, they can't even get that right). It was meant, as always, to provide judicial power to address serious hate crimes, incitement to violence, all that stuff. "No. it will never be used to criminalise free speech". Yet, the first people charged under it were two "Christian" pastors (quotes will become clear shortly) who performed the heinous crime of quoting the Koran in their sermons. Some of the congregation laughed. Therefore, of course, incitement to violence!

Now, these guys are genuine nutbags. They claim, amongst other things, to have stopped a plane from crashing by kneeling and praying in the aisle, which must have delighted the flight attendants no end. But they're harmless for fuck's sake.

The moral is - never believe anyone who says "Oh, but it won't be applied that way". Tell them to go back and redraft it until it fucking can't be. Or better still, drop the whole idea.

I am surprised the kid is not being charged with practicing medicine without a license.

I think the justice system shows a wide crisis of our times.

First, the police actually have to arrest someone. Then the DA must charge them. Then a grand jury must allow the case to move forward. Then either the person pleads guilty (probably because they are threatened with the possibility too harsh of a sentence if they don't, and a much lighter sentence if they do), or a bone headed jury has to convict them. Then, a judge must both allow the conviction to stand and sentence them.

All the checks and balances are failing because our society is failing.

A society that makes a 6 year old a lifetime sex offender for playing doctor, but lets a woman out after 7 months after she shoots her husband in his sleep and watches him bleed to death is a society that is in trouble.

Really? I mean really? I remember when my brother and I were kids, that I wanted to "hold it" while he peed, because I didn't have one. I apparently should be on a registry somewhere, even though I was four...

"...the person pleads guilty (probably because they are threatened with the possibility too harsh of a sentence if they don't"

This. I don't recall the exact number, but more than 90% of defendents never get a "trial by a jury of their peers". Why? Because the DA threatens them with all sorts of charges if they don't plead guilty to some lesser charge. This ensures that the DA gets their conviction - while depriving the accused of their right to a trial.

Plea bargaining should simply be eliminated.

My personal take is that some sexual abuse has taken place but it wasn't done by the curious kids.
The sick authoritarian mind exacerbated by the political connections of others.

My first glimpse was initiated by the girl when I was nine, quick "show me yours I'll show mine", and off to finish recess (we were hiding in the dense fog). In today's world, I'm a sex offender, she a victim, and off I go to register. Hi ho, hi ho...

The most dangerous person in the room is the one that says "there oughta be a law".

> The most dangerous person in the room is the
> one that says "there oughta be a law".

Schoolmarms call it a conscience!

In justification for the charge, Riniker is quoted in the lawsuit saying "the Legislature could have put an age restriction in the statute ... the legislature did no such thing." The lawsuit also alleges the charges were brought because the 5-year-old is the daughter of a high-ranking official in Grant County.

Oh, Lisa, Lisa, Lisa, you silly dingbat, what are you trying to do, get the 19th Amendment repealed?

Hey, Crid, would your conscience label me a sex offender because my 7th Grade girlfriend showed me her ta-tas one fine evening (we were both 12 or 13 at the time).

Mpet, I'm just teasing that busty schoolmarm Ariel, who loves to tell others how decency works.

But yes, you probably are a perverted sicko. Keep up the good work.

OK, Crid, you got me laughing. The only reason the most dangerous person in the room is the one that says "there oughta be law" is because they don't understand the law of good intentions (it leads to hell, paved with those nice intentions).

Still fighting that conscience I see. Hey, the British Empire got it eventually. So will you.

My favorite line, which I paraphrase, from a Hindu friend when I asked him about the British: I love them dearly but hate them too: they loved us like their children; they made us a nation which we would not have been; they gave us the greatest railroad in the world; they made us a land of the "rule of law", a democracy; but it was that great sucking sound that they couldn't stop doing that made us break away. Can you find the conscience there? The British did.

We can't leave ourselves to know decency, it takes others to remind us when we aren't. I have my scolds, where are yours?

> The only reason the

Didn't mean to summon a defense, it was just a random cut & paste so you'd know it was for you. I think you're pompous 'n goofy... But cluck all you want!

Now, crid, if you want to experience Capsaicinoids for a treat: jalapenos won't suffice cuz I eat them for a snack, nor habeneros (tildes lacking) cuz while hot their not hot enough; maybe not a Hatch or Winkleman (an Arizona treat hotter than you think); maybe a thai (bird's eye is good, but no Thai will serve such to a round eye unless the bird's eye is well dilute) cuz they are hot; but still, you've not got the point until you finely grind them up and snort them deep.

Try it, I'll wait.

Ah, pompous, a persona yes, but that raises the question: is one man's teacher, realized or not, another man's pedant?

And goofy? Wasn't Goofy sometimes right, more often than realized until later? Or is goofy just a way to make others think along other lines? A test for flexibility of thought or, sadly, ossification? A tongue in cheek or a mind run loose? How would you know?

Oohh, I did "their" for "they're" in my comment at 9:46. I'll flagellate like the 14th century Germans in penance, just in case a grammar Nazi comes by to scourge me.

Typos are the torch lighting up those who are imperfect. I am flawed, but damn it I admit it. I stand proud. Why are my shoes wet? Because I am afraid of the grammar Nazis...

> How would you know?

Because my heart is pure, I see the world as it is. I think you misjudged the Pike thing because you wanted to cluck. People shouldn't do that.

And you'll have noticed that most of America didn't do that. There was a gasp of astonishment at the brazenness of the assault, but that quickly devolved into giggles over Photoshop jokes. The electorate hasn't come streaming into the streets with torches to demand that their police departments certify officers as nice guys, or even to insist on improved training & support (expenditures) for public demonstrations. A huge number of annoying smartasses who named themselves after wartime behavior demanded a huge number of arrests and silly confrontations... Resulting in a tiny number of ugly incidents, signifying, essentially, nothing. America had nothing much to learn from this.

And you had nothing much to teach. We can sympathize with Amy's need to sniff and drop a single "vile". No one likes to see people unnecessarily choked.

But if you seriously think the way to sway the opinions of other people about an event like this is by saying "it scratches something called a conscience," it's safe to presume you haven't considered the full diversity and nourishment of opinion being offered to you. You're too eager to be right the first time, and to use the words of some snot-bot teacher from your childhood whose sarcasm holds no currency with the rest of us. America took better reading of this than you did.

OWS in L.A. is due to be cleaned out in precisely one hour. (We have fabulous weather, and can toy around later in the winter than other places.) If 15 kids get shot tonight, I'll certainly want the police held accountable.

7.5 hours later:

"Many people have left, but those who remain were declaring victory."

...A declaration which would be easier to recognize if they, y'know, had a goal in mind.

What do these people want before they'll go? What would satisfy them?

They're brat children, not "protesters"

And I didn't want to be first to mention this, but there's more evidence that OWS doesn't represent the entire community, or even the more-oppressed sectors.

Grown-ups throughout society have better things to worry about.

"Because my heart is pure, I see the world as it is. I think you misjudged the Pike thing because you wanted to cluck. People shouldn't do that."

You know I'm really insulted by the above tepid attempt to parody me. I would have preferred "bray" to "cluck", well, one of us certainly prefers braying. No one sees the world as it is, all see through an obscure lens shaped through the sum of their limited experiences. To think otherwise is hubris. So I know this had to be a parody.

Scrolling past the Argumentum ad Populum; the gratuitous "you're not worthy"; through the self-appointed arbiter of diverse opinion and how it should be done; through "you only want to be right so I'll teach you that I am"; back through "you're not worthy"; and I end right back to your Argumentum ad Populum. Hey, I could flow chart this and use it for a template of future arguments.

"If 15 kids get shot tonight, I'll certainly want the police held accountable." So 14 isn't enough?
I'd go on one wrongly shot, but I have no sense of proportion. And America would likely be against me.

I was going to end with a twisting of Welch's words to McCarthy, the last line being "Have you no sense of self-awareness?", but I have too much respect for the man.

I haven't taken you seriously since you wrote that they were all commies, and a lot of bystanders have suffered for it. ronc was right "crid, Ariel, yawn".

Sir, you may have the last word.

"Schoolmarm"