Former cop molests 13 year old NO JAIL TIME

Kane wrote
Do you think that all child molesters get jail time?

Why do you think Walt Bevel did not?

Kane wrote
And have you suddenly become a protector of children, Greg?

While I am not on a CRUSADE like you claim to be,
I have always had certain standards and actually was IN
a situation where I risked going to jail by stopping an abuser.

Kane wrote
You who have claimed that children lie about these things?

Sometimes they DO, and you know it but you seem
to be championing the AGENCY serving myth that
children never lie about such stuff.

I am not saying they ALWAYS lie.
You seem to be perpetuating the myth that they NEVER lie.

Kane wrote
You who protest that some forms of 'sexual abuse' aren't really abuse at
all?

Please post a link to such a quote from me.
I strongly suspect you are confusing me with Bobb.

Kane wrote
Are my claims not true?

You tend to use HALF TRUTHS and then ask oversimplified questions.
It's kind of a juvenile tactic really.


http://www.mustbme.com/former-police...ing-child.html

Former Police officer and Shelter Aide Accused of Sexually Abusing
Child
IOWA, DES MOINES - A Polk county youth shelter aide and former Des
Moines police officer has been accused of sexually abusing a child. His
name is Walt Bevel, and he worked at the Polk County Youth Shelter for
a little more than a year. In July he resigned and now he is facing
three sex abuse charges.

Walt Bevel is charged with assault with intent to commit sex abuse,
indecent contact with a child and third degree sex abuse. Police say
the abuse occurred at the Polk County Youth Shelter, where Bevel was an
aide and outside of the shelter. Investigators believe it occurred over
an eight month period beginning in January of this year. The shelter
normally houses children as young as nine to as old as 17.

Bevel was a Des Moines police officer from 1983 to 2001. He retired
taking accidental disability after sustaining some type of injury. We
talked with an officer who worked with Bevel. He says he was
personable, a competent officer and they were shocked to hear about the
charges.

This entry was posted on Friday, September 16th, 2005


Sunday, July 23, 2006 6:13 AM CDT
FORMER POLICE OFFICER PLEADS GUILTY TO IMPROPER CONTACT WITH TEEN

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) -- A former Des Moines police officer will avoid
jail time but be forced to register as a sex offender after pleading
guilty Friday to improper contact with a 13-year-old girl.

Walt Bevel, 44, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of child
endangerment and assault with intent to commit sexual abuse.

Bevel, who met the girl while working at the Polk County Youth Shelter,
previously faced up to 20 years in prison on felony charges that he
abused the girl at the shelter and after she went into foster care.

Assistant Polk County Attorney Nan Horvat said Bevel will likely get
probation, be forced to seek psychological treatment and to register as
a sex offender.

Formal sentencing is scheduled for Sept. 22.

Bevel was a police officer until he resigned due to an injury
disability in 2001.



Published July 21, 2006
FORMER POLICE OFFICER AVOIDS JAIL ON SEX CHARGE
By JEFF ECKHOFF REGISTER STAFF WRITER

A former Des Moines police officer will avoid jail time but be forced
to register as a sex offender after he pleaded guilty Friday to two
charges related to improper contact with a 13-year-old girl.

Walt Bevel, 44, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of child
endangerment and assault with intent to commit sexual abuse on a teen
Bevel met while he worked as a youth service aide at the Polk County
Youth Shelter, 1548 Hull Ave.

Bevel previously had faced up to 20 years in prison on felony charges
stemming from abuse at the shelter and additional contact after the
girl went into foster care.

Assistant Polk County Attorney Nan Horvat said the plea likely will
lead to probation for Bevel, but he will be forced to seek
psychological treatment and to register as a sex offender.

That means Bevel, a police officer until he resigned due to an injury
disability in 2001, eventually will be banned from living within 2,000
feet of a school or child care center. He also will be forbidden to
have any contact with children other than his own.

Formal sentencing has been scheduled for Sept. 22.

Relatives of the girl, now 15, said Friday that they weren't happy with
the plea agreement but weren't given any choice.

"He walked out of here with his head held high like some kind of
bigshot," the girl's grandmother said outside the courtroom. "She's
going to go home and scream her head off tonight because of the
nightmares."

It is the Des Moines Register's policy not to identify sexual abuse
victims, or anyone who could be used to identify them, unless victims
voluntarily come forward or file a civil lawsuit.

According to the girl's family, prosecutors approved the plea due to
worries about a lack of proof to back up the girl's claims of a sexual
relationship. Bevel has acknowledged touching the girl but admitted
nothing more.

Bevel's attorney declined to comment Friday afternoon.
The girl's relatives say they've been assured that Bevel, as a
misbehaving former police officer, will be monitored intensely as a sex
offender. But that's not enough.

"When you molest a child, you should go to prison," the girl's
stepfather said. "He's been on the police force for 18 years. He should
get worse than what everybody else does."


LINKS:

Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier, IA
http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2...e946437107.txt

http://www.whotv.com/Global/story.as...83651&nav=2HAB

http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2...a421448225.txt

KCCI TV Channel 8
http://www.kcci.com/news/9559993/detail.html
Larger picture of Walt Bevel
http://www.kcci.com/2005/0915/4978221_400X300.jpg
Smaller Picture
http://www.kcci.com/2005/0915/4978221_240X180.jpg

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pb...607220321/1002

http://www.woi-tv.com/Global/story.a...83651&nav=1LFX

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pb...1/ragbrai_2006

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
Do you think that all child molesters get jail time?

Why do you think Walt Bevel did not?

Provide more information and I might find something that would matter.
So far, there isn't.

Are you suggesting it's because he's was a cop?

Kane wrote
And have you suddenly become a protector of children, Greg?

While I am not on a CRUSADE like you claim to be,

When did I make this claim, Greg? Being against something doesn't mean a
crusade is underway. Or you could say that about lots of people.

For instance, I know this fellow from Iowa that believes he was....well,
never mind. 0:-

I have always had certain standards

The question isn't if you have them or not, but what ARE they.

and actually was IN
a situation where I risked going to jail by stopping an abuser.

Good for you. I just knew that someday I'd learn something about you
that didn't cause me to gag.

Want to share the circumstances with us?

Kane wrote
You who have claimed that children lie about these things?

Sometimes they DO,

Yep. But when it's someone YOU see as an authority figure, or more
specifically those involved in the justice system (which includes CPS,
by the way) you ALWAYS GO FOR THE INSINUATION THEY HAD TO BE DOING THE
BAD THINGS.

and you know it

Of course. I've said it myself. I simply don't assume that they are
guilty because of the organization they belong to or the job they hold.

but you seem
to be championing the AGENCY serving myth that
children never lie about such stuff.

I do?

Where have you EVER seen me say that children do not lie about such things?

I KNOW they lie, and just as readily by recantation, Greg. Many a
frightened child, WITH THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE PLAINLY TO BE SEEN,
withdraws their claim of abuse...for fear they'll "lose their daddy, or
mummy, or grandpa, or uncle, brother, sister, pets, etc."

You'd be amazed at what perps will do to children they have victimized
to escape punishment.

I knew of a case where a perp took the kiddies in the family to the pet
shop, bought a puppy (they were so excited) took it home and telling
them that if they ever told about Uncle Billy and his games with them he
would to do them what he proceeded to do to the puppy...cut it's head
off while living.

I am not saying they ALWAYS lie.

I have NEVER seen you say that before. Could it be you are no longer so
easily influenced by the Douggies of the world, and the lying ****s that
run the anti-CPS websites?

ARE you waking UP? Wow! Good for you.

You seem to be perpetuating the myth that they NEVER lie.

Opps!

I spoke too soon.

Greg, I won't even ask, I'll tell you. I've never made such a statement
in all the time I've posted to either of newsgroups this thread is in,
or elsewhere.

I even dealt with the problem when I helped relatives with kinship
placement issues. How to deal with a child's lying. Because traumatized
children frequently DO lie as a matter of survival. They are like
warriors ... no, they ARE warriors, many of them. And seen horrors
you've only read about....done to them, and to their siblings.

Kane wrote
You who protest that some forms of 'sexual abuse' aren't really abuse at
all?

Please post a link to such a quote from me.

I didn't quote you. But I shall, if you insiste, look for some form of
you having remarked against some sexual abuse being called sexual abuse.

Don't you know better by now than to challenge me to produce evidence
when I've made a claim?

I strongly suspect you are confusing me with Bobb.

Oh?

Well, sure could be.

Then you disagree with bobb? How so?

But, I could be confused. You know how it is when someone posts "aborted
attribution" style. One just can't keep track of who said what. 0:-

I thought I'd take a look in your past posts...and what a yuk. I found,
of course, a diatribe about lying teens on the subject of sexual abuse
victimization.

In fact, rather a number of them. You seem a bit obsessed.

But then, happy chance, I just happened to read the whole message, as I
am wont to do, and YOU ARE NOT. It certainly pays off.

You, who calls MSbP a false diagnosis, wrote THIS:

"I believe it was Dan who mentioned a proposed DSM-IV
diagnosis of caseworkers and attorneys who need to
believe that abuse had occurred even when it had not,
as a variation on the Munchausens By Proxy coding."

If you don't believe in it why would you say such a thing....r r r r r

And...oh dear, Greg. I think I found what you asked me for, believing of
course, I would not find it....that you minimized sexual abuse of children.

My statement actually being: "You who protest that some forms of 'sexual
abuse' aren't really abuse at all?

From your post at:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...e66275 6827c5
http://tinyurl.com/gna6u

"Well, you did. Seems to me that the whole issue of sexual abuse
(however you define it) rests on societal opinions of when an individual
can knowingly and reasonably consent to engaging in sexual behavior with
another individual.

Of course, there are also those who disagree on what is sexual and what
is not. "

The interesting thing about this post is that you did such a butcher job
on who is saying what....no significant attribution signs, poor quote
marking, that it might have been bobb you were quoting, or, since it's
the very last paragraph in the post, your response to the exchange you
quoted.

Care to enlighten us?

And in another post, you seemed to be mounting an argument against what
another labeled (from a news article) sexual exploitation. You seemed to
want to blame the teens involved.

http://tinyurl.com/hulmr
"1. Subject line said this was US, but report said 17 of the 28 cities were
US.
2. They only sampled 1000 teens total from 28 cities?
3. NASW has both a political bias, and a financial interest in the outcome.
4. The study clearly said that the biggest consumers of the porn were
the teens own peers at school, but continues the old assertion
about married men with kids being big consumers.
5. No explanation was given about how the teens were found or sampled. "

Sure looks like minimizing sexual abuse (exploitation) of children to
me, Gregg.

And more Yuks Aside. Ran across this too...and given your high blame
quotient postings when it comes to CPS and "The State' this really did
put me laughing out loud....as long as it's NOT CPS and the State, we
must be "understanding."

http://tinyurl.com/qu5j5


Then in this post:
http://tinyurl.com/rqqgm

You have entered into a debate on the issue of sexual abuse between
young people that marry.

WE can presume the issue is that the abuse happened before the marriage
because one or both were younger than the legal age for consensual sex
and the gap in age met the state's criteria for sexual abuse of a minor.

Yet you are screaming your usual 'questions' that insinuate that it
should not have been sexual abuse because of 'custom.'

Now that I've had my fun with you, Greg the munificent and benificent
lover of children, and one who would NEVER defend sexual abuse by
suggesting " ... that some forms of 'sexual abuse' aren't really abuse
at all," enjoy:

http://tinyurl.com/o2nbp
I'll quote it in full for you at the end of this post, so you won't have
to trouble your lazy self with actually clicking on a link and waiting
for it to load.


Kane wrote
Are my claims not true?

You tend to use HALF TRUTHS and then ask oversimplified questions.
It's kind of a juvenile tactic really.

No, I do no such thing, Greg. You are projecting. That is YOUR MO to a 'T.'

In fact, if you want to fault me it should be for the density of my
proof of claims and the complexity of my questions.

In fact I believe you have complained of that before.

So which is it then?"

Whatever is most convenient for you at the moment?

I asked you a question.

Are my CLAIMS NOT TRUE?

I asked both if you have claimed children lie about being sexually
abused...and we have proven that you DO, by my posting of links to posts
where you did that. And I left a great many of them uncited....just too
sickening, Greg.

Then I stated, "You who protest that some forms of 'sexual abuse' aren't
really abuse at all?"

You did NOT answer me, so I had to answer FOR YOU.

Now do you see that that is exactly what you did?

Have a good read. Think about who you are. And what you are.

Think hard, because I doubt you can maintain your self delusions about
yourself for very many more years, and the truth is going to be very
hard for you to handle. Now's the time to wake up, Greg.

Greg's defense of child sexual abuse on the grounds that some of it
isn't even sexual abuse:

From: Greegor - view profile
Date: Fri, Feb 25 2005 4:39 pm
Email: "Greegor"
Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

Chickeyd:
At the distinct risk of being mislabeled by
motivated opposition, I've gotta express something.

The Quaker Oats Man on the box?
He was likely married to a fourteeen year old girl.

I have not investigated, but I suspect it is VERY
likely that several of our past US Presidents
were married to fourteen year old girls.

I have mentioned it before, and it ties in a bit
with some of what you are chiding Bobb for,
but a great amount of normal marital and
sexual relations (respectable even) from only
100 years ago would today be considered
perverted and child sexual abuse.

People are coming here from Mexico and
other countries MARRIED to 13 year old ""women"".
Here they are then caught in a situation
where sex with their legally married spouse
is then considered to be child molestation.

As recently as two years ago there was one
or two southern state that actually allowed
14 year olds to be married with parents
permission, and those people have been
caught in a legal limbo or charged with
child molestation for sex with their legal wife.

I am in no way ADVOCATING this stuff but
I mention this to try to point out that our
standards are new and local, and that our
societal attitude about it being perverted
is not as REASONABLE as it is Politically Correct.

How do you reconcile the huge change in
attitude and perception on this in only
100 years and with such huge variation from
country to country?

I find it much easier to have disdain for
somebody who molests a child under 13
than somebody who might get a woodie
in the peter meter from seeing action
involving fully formed anatomy that just
happens to be 15.

When I drove taxi I hauled numerous
prostitutes who were like 14 years old.

At one point there was a whole HOUSE
in town full of them. Not a one was "of age".

One in particular routinely went to a
VERY upscale house twice a week or more.
Clearly her youth was a HUGE financial asset.

I don't CONDONE any of this crap, I am
just reporting it in an effort to bring about
better connections to reality.

The idea that these teens are victims
just doesn't work.

They very much seemed more like they
were working the reality of the streets
quite well to their advantage.

I've seen conflicting information about what
the legal definition of statutory rape
even IS in Iowa. A corrections guy told me
that guys are not being charged for sex with
17 year olds but then I see arrest reports
in the newspaper that conflict.

There really is still a problem with "jail bait"
and how society views the whole issue.

I think the simple legalistic view of these
problems just can't cope with the realities
of the situation.

Simple answers just don't cut it.

I'm not saying Bobb is right about all of the
stuff you don't like, but is it possible that
you are just not giving his presentation a fair shot?

Are you just doing a "knee jerk" about teen sexuality?

Remember I don't think simple answers cut it.

Remember the Quaker Oats guy.

....end, gag ......

With ALL your protestations, Greg, you are clearly SUPPORTING THIS AS
ACCEPTABLE.

You, child, DID NOT REPORT THE 14 YEAR OLD PROSTITUTES.

Yet you claim you once put yourself in danger of jail by stopping a
child molestation.

Your morals are as flexible as your narratives are suitable to your need
of the moment, even if in conflict with a need in the past.

And I suggest you go to considerable trouble to NOT let the court know
that you post here.

That is NOT a good post as evidence goes. Not good at all, for you.

0:-



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

http://tinyurl.com/rznf2
"13-17 year old wants mom to self
Makes false accusations of sexual abuse

The backward mental abilities of this teen
seem to make her more of a "charity case"
for the caseworkers to sympathize with probably. "

http://tinyurl.com/noty8
"This sounds like exactly the kind of namby pamby
ultraliberal garbage that I have been predicting,
as in verbal/emotional abuse even comprising
telling teen girls NO they can't have the latest
Abercrombie and Fitch clothes advertized in the
AF teen orgy photos in their catalogs.

Boo Hoo, she JUST WON'T FIT IN without those
vastly overpriced status symbols!

She is mentally and emotionally ABUSED! Waaah! "


http://tinyurl.com/py4h6
" I've heard of SEVERAL cases where a teen
girl accused a step Dad out of some urge
to possess their mother, have her to themself. "


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

"0:-" wrote in message
news:ysednSblDsE0y1jZnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
Do you think that all child molesters get jail time?

Why do you think Walt Bevel did not?

Provide more information and I might find something that would matter.
So far, there isn't.

Are you suggesting it's because he's was a cop?

Kane wrote
And have you suddenly become a protector of children, Greg?

While I am not on a CRUSADE like you claim to be,

When did I make this claim, Greg? Being against something doesn't mean a
crusade is underway. Or you could say that about lots of people.

For instance, I know this fellow from Iowa that believes he was....well,
never mind. 0:-

I have always had certain standards

The question isn't if you have them or not, but what ARE they.

and actually was IN
a situation where I risked going to jail by stopping an abuser.

Good for you. I just knew that someday I'd learn something about you that
didn't cause me to gag.

Want to share the circumstances with us?

Kane wrote
You who have claimed that children lie about these things?

Sometimes they DO,

Yep. But when it's someone YOU see as an authority figure, or more
specifically those involved in the justice system (which includes CPS, by
the way) you ALWAYS GO FOR THE INSINUATION THEY HAD TO BE DOING THE BAD
THINGS.

and you know it

Of course. I've said it myself. I simply don't assume that they are guilty
because of the organization they belong to or the job they hold.

but you seem
to be championing the AGENCY serving myth that
children never lie about such stuff.

I do?

Where have you EVER seen me say that children do not lie about such
things?

I KNOW they lie, and just as readily by recantation, Greg. Many a
frightened child, WITH THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE PLAINLY TO BE SEEN, withdraws
their claim of abuse...for fear they'll "lose their daddy, or mummy, or
grandpa, or uncle, brother, sister, pets, etc."

You'd be amazed at what perps will do to children they have victimized to
escape punishment.

I knew of a case where a perp took the kiddies in the family to the pet
shop, bought a puppy (they were so excited) took it home and telling them
that if they ever told about Uncle Billy and his games with them he would
to do them what he proceeded to do to the puppy...cut it's head off while
living.

I am not saying they ALWAYS lie.

I have NEVER seen you say that before. Could it be you are no longer so
easily influenced by the Douggies of the world, and the lying ****s that
run the anti-CPS websites?

ARE you waking UP? Wow! Good for you.

You seem to be perpetuating the myth that they NEVER lie.

Opps!

I spoke too soon.

Greg, I won't even ask, I'll tell you. I've never made such a statement in
all the time I've posted to either of newsgroups this thread is in, or
elsewhere.

I even dealt with the problem when I helped relatives with kinship
placement issues. How to deal with a child's lying. Because traumatized
children frequently DO lie as a matter of survival. They are like warriors
... no, they ARE warriors, many of them. And seen horrors you've only read
about....done to them, and to their siblings.

Kane wrote
You who protest that some forms of 'sexual abuse' aren't really abuse at
all?

Please post a link to such a quote from me.

I didn't quote you. But I shall, if you insiste, look for some form of you
having remarked against some sexual abuse being called sexual abuse.

Don't you know better by now than to challenge me to produce evidence when
I've made a claim?

I strongly suspect you are confusing me with Bobb.

Just wanted to add one little thought he
Yes, Kane, you confused Greg with Bobb...kinda.
While the rest of us were telling Bobb that his 'ideas' on what is and is
not sexual abuse, Greg did not join the rest of us in cluing Bobb in on what
is actually NORMAL behavior.
For that reason I, just like you, assumed that Greg doesn't NOT disagree
with Bobb on his wacko theories about sexual abuse.
Greg seems to be quite capable, and more than willing to share when he
disagrees, yet at that point in time, and within that particular issue he
did not.
It very much leads one to believe that Greg thought it was ok.


Oh?

Well, sure could be.

Then you disagree with bobb? How so?

But, I could be confused. You know how it is when someone posts "aborted
attribution" style. One just can't keep track of who said what. 0:-

I thought I'd take a look in your past posts...and what a yuk. I found, of
course, a diatribe about lying teens on the subject of sexual abuse
victimization.

In fact, rather a number of them. You seem a bit obsessed.

But then, happy chance, I just happened to read the whole message, as I am
wont to do, and YOU ARE NOT. It certainly pays off.

You, who calls MSbP a false diagnosis, wrote THIS:

"I believe it was Dan who mentioned a proposed DSM-IV
diagnosis of caseworkers and attorneys who need to
believe that abuse had occurred even when it had not,
as a variation on the Munchausens By Proxy coding."

If you don't believe in it why would you say such a thing....r r r r r

And...oh dear, Greg. I think I found what you asked me for, believing of
course, I would not find it....that you minimized sexual abuse of
children.

My statement actually being: "You who protest that some forms of 'sexual
abuse' aren't really abuse at all?

From your post at:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...e66275 6827c5
http://tinyurl.com/gna6u

"Well, you did. Seems to me that the whole issue of sexual abuse (however
you define it) rests on societal opinions of when an individual can
knowingly and reasonably consent to engaging in sexual behavior with
another individual.

Of course, there are also those who disagree on what is sexual and what is
not. "

The interesting thing about this post is that you did such a butcher job
on who is saying what....no significant attribution signs, poor quote
marking, that it might have been bobb you were quoting, or, since it's the
very last paragraph in the post, your response to the exchange you quoted.

Care to enlighten us?

And in another post, you seemed to be mounting an argument against what
another labeled (from a news article) sexual exploitation. You seemed to
want to blame the teens involved.

http://tinyurl.com/hulmr
"1. Subject line said this was US, but report said 17 of the 28 cities
were
US.
2. They only sampled 1000 teens total from 28 cities?
3. NASW has both a political bias, and a financial interest in the
outcome.
4. The study clearly said that the biggest consumers of the porn were
the teens own peers at school, but continues the old assertion
about married men with kids being big consumers.
5. No explanation was given about how the teens were found or sampled. "

Sure looks like minimizing sexual abuse (exploitation) of children to me,
Gregg.

And more Yuks Aside. Ran across this too...and given your high blame
quotient postings when it comes to CPS and "The State' this really did put
me laughing out loud....as long as it's NOT CPS and the State, we must be
"understanding."

http://tinyurl.com/qu5j5


Then in this post:
http://tinyurl.com/rqqgm

You have entered into a debate on the issue of sexual abuse between young
people that marry.

WE can presume the issue is that the abuse happened before the marriage
because one or both were younger than the legal age for consensual sex and
the gap in age met the state's criteria for sexual abuse of a minor.

Yet you are screaming your usual 'questions' that insinuate that it should
not have been sexual abuse because of 'custom.'

Now that I've had my fun with you, Greg the munificent and benificent
lover of children, and one who would NEVER defend sexual abuse by
suggesting " ... that some forms of 'sexual abuse' aren't really abuse at
all," enjoy:

http://tinyurl.com/o2nbp
I'll quote it in full for you at the end of this post, so you won't have
to trouble your lazy self with actually clicking on a link and waiting for
it to load.


Kane wrote
Are my claims not true?

You tend to use HALF TRUTHS and then ask oversimplified questions.
It's kind of a juvenile tactic really.

No, I do no such thing, Greg. You are projecting. That is YOUR MO to a
'T.'

In fact, if you want to fault me it should be for the density of my proof
of claims and the complexity of my questions.

In fact I believe you have complained of that before.

So which is it then?"

Whatever is most convenient for you at the moment?

I asked you a question.

Are my CLAIMS NOT TRUE?

I asked both if you have claimed children lie about being sexually
abused...and we have proven that you DO, by my posting of links to posts
where you did that. And I left a great many of them uncited....just too
sickening, Greg.

Then I stated, "You who protest that some forms of 'sexual abuse' aren't
really abuse at all?"

You did NOT answer me, so I had to answer FOR YOU.

Now do you see that that is exactly what you did?

Have a good read. Think about who you are. And what you are.

Think hard, because I doubt you can maintain your self delusions about
yourself for very many more years, and the truth is going to be very hard
for you to handle. Now's the time to wake up, Greg.

Greg's defense of child sexual abuse on the grounds that some of it isn't
even sexual abuse:

From: Greegor - view profile
Date: Fri, Feb 25 2005 4:39 pm
Email: "Greegor"
Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services
Not yet rated
Rating: show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

Chickeyd:
At the distinct risk of being mislabeled by
motivated opposition, I've gotta express something.

The Quaker Oats Man on the box?
He was likely married to a fourteeen year old girl.

I have not investigated, but I suspect it is VERY
likely that several of our past US Presidents
were married to fourteen year old girls.

I have mentioned it before, and it ties in a bit
with some of what you are chiding Bobb for,
but a great amount of normal marital and
sexual relations (respectable even) from only
100 years ago would today be considered
perverted and child sexual abuse.

People are coming here from Mexico and
other countries MARRIED to 13 year old ""women"".
Here they are then caught in a situation
where sex with their legally married spouse
is then considered to be child molestation.

As recently as two years ago there was one
or two southern state that actually allowed
14 year olds to be married with parents
permission, and those people have been
caught in a legal limbo or charged with
child molestation for sex with their legal wife.

I am in no way ADVOCATING this stuff but
I mention this to try to point out that our
standards are new and local, and that our
societal attitude about it being perverted
is not as REASONABLE as it is Politically Correct.

How do you reconcile the huge change in
attitude and perception on this in only
100 years and with such huge variation from
country to country?

I find it much easier to have disdain for
somebody who molests a child under 13
than somebody who might get a woodie
in the peter meter from seeing action
involving fully formed anatomy that just
happens to be 15.

When I drove taxi I hauled numerous
prostitutes who were like 14 years old.

At one point there was a whole HOUSE
in town full of them. Not a one was "of age".

One in particular routinely went to a
VERY upscale house twice a week or more.
Clearly her youth was a HUGE financial asset.

I don't CONDONE any of this crap, I am
just reporting it in an effort to bring about
better connections to reality.

The idea that these teens are victims
just doesn't work.

They very much seemed more like they
were working the reality of the streets
quite well to their advantage.

I've seen conflicting information about what
the legal definition of statutory rape
even IS in Iowa. A corrections guy told me
that guys are not being charged for sex with
17 year olds but then I see arrest reports
in the newspaper that conflict.

There really is still a problem with "jail bait"
and how society views the whole issue.

I think the simple legalistic view of these
problems just can't cope with the realities
of the situation.

Simple answers just don't cut it.

I'm not saying Bobb is right about all of the
stuff you don't like, but is it possible that
you are just not giving his presentation a fair shot?

Are you just doing a "knee jerk" about teen sexuality?

Remember I don't think simple answers cut it.

Remember the Quaker Oats guy.

...end, gag ......

With ALL your protestations, Greg, you are clearly SUPPORTING THIS AS
ACCEPTABLE.

You, child, DID NOT REPORT THE 14 YEAR OLD PROSTITUTES.

Yet you claim you once put yourself in danger of jail by stopping a child
molestation.

Your morals are as flexible as your narratives are suitable to your need
of the moment, even if in conflict with a need in the past.

And I suggest you go to considerable trouble to NOT let the court know
that you post here.

That is NOT a good post as evidence goes. Not good at all, for you.

0:-



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

dragonsgirl wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:ysednSblDsE0y1jZnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
Do you think that all child molesters get jail time?
Why do you think Walt Bevel did not?
Provide more information and I might find something that would matter.
So far, there isn't.

Are you suggesting it's because he's was a cop?

Kane wrote
And have you suddenly become a protector of children, Greg?
While I am not on a CRUSADE like you claim to be,
When did I make this claim, Greg? Being against something doesn't mean a
crusade is underway. Or you could say that about lots of people.

For instance, I know this fellow from Iowa that believes he was....well,
never mind. 0:-

I have always had certain standards
The question isn't if you have them or not, but what ARE they.

and actually was IN
a situation where I risked going to jail by stopping an abuser.
Good for you. I just knew that someday I'd learn something about you that
didn't cause me to gag.

Want to share the circumstances with us?

Kane wrote
You who have claimed that children lie about these things?
Sometimes they DO,
Yep. But when it's someone YOU see as an authority figure, or more
specifically those involved in the justice system (which includes CPS, by
the way) you ALWAYS GO FOR THE INSINUATION THEY HAD TO BE DOING THE BAD
THINGS.

and you know it
Of course. I've said it myself. I simply don't assume that they are guilty
because of the organization they belong to or the job they hold.

but you seem
to be championing the AGENCY serving myth that
children never lie about such stuff.
I do?

Where have you EVER seen me say that children do not lie about such
things?

I KNOW they lie, and just as readily by recantation, Greg. Many a
frightened child, WITH THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE PLAINLY TO BE SEEN, withdraws
their claim of abuse...for fear they'll "lose their daddy, or mummy, or
grandpa, or uncle, brother, sister, pets, etc."

You'd be amazed at what perps will do to children they have victimized to
escape punishment.

I knew of a case where a perp took the kiddies in the family to the pet
shop, bought a puppy (they were so excited) took it home and telling them
that if they ever told about Uncle Billy and his games with them he would
to do them what he proceeded to do to the puppy...cut it's head off while
living.

I am not saying they ALWAYS lie.
I have NEVER seen you say that before. Could it be you are no longer so
easily influenced by the Douggies of the world, and the lying ****s that
run the anti-CPS websites?

ARE you waking UP? Wow! Good for you.

You seem to be perpetuating the myth that they NEVER lie.
Opps!

I spoke too soon.

Greg, I won't even ask, I'll tell you. I've never made such a statement in
all the time I've posted to either of newsgroups this thread is in, or
elsewhere.

I even dealt with the problem when I helped relatives with kinship
placement issues. How to deal with a child's lying. Because traumatized
children frequently DO lie as a matter of survival. They are like warriors
... no, they ARE warriors, many of them. And seen horrors you've only read
about....done to them, and to their siblings.

Kane wrote
You who protest that some forms of 'sexual abuse' aren't really abuse at
all?
Please post a link to such a quote from me.
I didn't quote you. But I shall, if you insiste, look for some form of you
having remarked against some sexual abuse being called sexual abuse.

Don't you know better by now than to challenge me to produce evidence when
I've made a claim?

I strongly suspect you are confusing me with Bobb.

Just wanted to add one little thought he
Yes, Kane, you confused Greg with Bobb...kinda.
While the rest of us were telling Bobb that his 'ideas' on what is and is
not sexual abuse, Greg did not join the rest of us in cluing Bobb in on what
is actually NORMAL behavior.
For that reason I, just like you, assumed that Greg doesn't NOT disagree
with Bobb on his wacko theories about sexual abuse.
Greg seems to be quite capable, and more than willing to share when he
disagrees, yet at that point in time, and within that particular issue he
did not.
It very much leads one to believe that Greg thought it was ok.

Hmmm.....I'm not so sure.

While I played with him (this subject has been covered in depth before
and he's just time wasting and dodging and repeating himself as though
he had not been totally refuted in prior argument) in this post with a
lot of material, the key piece was a cut and paste from his own post on
the subject repeated in this post....I'll mark the start with !!!!! to
make it easy to locate quickly.

He goes on at length discussing justification of child sexual abuse (old
men marrying young girls under some historical and or cultural 'norms')
all the while trying to weasel out of his supporting of it by simply
claiming he doesn't.

Someone who truly doesn't would not post the incidences in rebuttal to
someone else's post decrying such practices.

They'd just say, I agree.

He's his usual smarmy sneak in this as he is in other posts and arguments.

Thinks he's clever with words, when in fact he's bumbling idiot.

A clumsy liar. Attempting to mislead, to plant seeds of doubt about
child sexual abuse laws, but wash his hands of having done so.

Best, Kane






Oh?

Well, sure could be.

Then you disagree with bobb? How so?

But, I could be confused. You know how it is when someone posts "aborted
attribution" style. One just can't keep track of who said what. 0:-

I thought I'd take a look in your past posts...and what a yuk. I found, of
course, a diatribe about lying teens on the subject of sexual abuse
victimization.

In fact, rather a number of them. You seem a bit obsessed.

But then, happy chance, I just happened to read the whole message, as I am
wont to do, and YOU ARE NOT. It certainly pays off.

You, who calls MSbP a false diagnosis, wrote THIS:

"I believe it was Dan who mentioned a proposed DSM-IV
diagnosis of caseworkers and attorneys who need to
believe that abuse had occurred even when it had not,
as a variation on the Munchausens By Proxy coding."

If you don't believe in it why would you say such a thing....r r r r r

And...oh dear, Greg. I think I found what you asked me for, believing of
course, I would not find it....that you minimized sexual abuse of
children.

My statement actually being: "You who protest that some forms of 'sexual
abuse' aren't really abuse at all?

From your post at:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...e66275 6827c5
http://tinyurl.com/gna6u

"Well, you did. Seems to me that the whole issue of sexual abuse (however
you define it) rests on societal opinions of when an individual can
knowingly and reasonably consent to engaging in sexual behavior with
another individual.

Of course, there are also those who disagree on what is sexual and what is
not. "

The interesting thing about this post is that you did such a butcher job
on who is saying what....no significant attribution signs, poor quote
marking, that it might have been bobb you were quoting, or, since it's the
very last paragraph in the post, your response to the exchange you quoted.

Care to enlighten us?

And in another post, you seemed to be mounting an argument against what
another labeled (from a news article) sexual exploitation. You seemed to
want to blame the teens involved.

http://tinyurl.com/hulmr
"1. Subject line said this was US, but report said 17 of the 28 cities
were
US.
2. They only sampled 1000 teens total from 28 cities?
3. NASW has both a political bias, and a financial interest in the
outcome.
4. The study clearly said that the biggest consumers of the porn were
the teens own peers at school, but continues the old assertion
about married men with kids being big consumers.
5. No explanation was given about how the teens were found or sampled. "

Sure looks like minimizing sexual abuse (exploitation) of children to me,
Gregg.

And more Yuks Aside. Ran across this too...and given your high blame
quotient postings when it comes to CPS and "The State' this really did put
me laughing out loud....as long as it's NOT CPS and the State, we must be
"understanding."

http://tinyurl.com/qu5j5


Then in this post:
http://tinyurl.com/rqqgm

You have entered into a debate on the issue of sexual abuse between young
people that marry.

WE can presume the issue is that the abuse happened before the marriage
because one or both were younger than the legal age for consensual sex and
the gap in age met the state's criteria for sexual abuse of a minor.

Yet you are screaming your usual 'questions' that insinuate that it should
not have been sexual abuse because of 'custom.'

Now that I've had my fun with you, Greg the munificent and benificent
lover of children, and one who would NEVER defend sexual abuse by
suggesting " ... that some forms of 'sexual abuse' aren't really abuse at
all," enjoy:

http://tinyurl.com/o2nbp
I'll quote it in full for you at the end of this post, so you won't have
to trouble your lazy self with actually clicking on a link and waiting for
it to load.


Kane wrote
Are my claims not true?
You tend to use HALF TRUTHS and then ask oversimplified questions.
It's kind of a juvenile tactic really.
No, I do no such thing, Greg. You are projecting. That is YOUR MO to a
'T.'

In fact, if you want to fault me it should be for the density of my proof
of claims and the complexity of my questions.

In fact I believe you have complained of that before.

So which is it then?"

Whatever is most convenient for you at the moment?

I asked you a question.

Are my CLAIMS NOT TRUE?

I asked both if you have claimed children lie about being sexually
abused...and we have proven that you DO, by my posting of links to posts
where you did that. And I left a great many of them uncited....just too
sickening, Greg.

Then I stated, "You who protest that some forms of 'sexual abuse' aren't
really abuse at all?"

You did NOT answer me, so I had to answer FOR YOU.

Now do you see that that is exactly what you did?

Have a good read. Think about who you are. And what you are.

Think hard, because I doubt you can maintain your self delusions about
yourself for very many more years, and the truth is going to be very hard
for you to handle. Now's the time to wake up, Greg.

Greg's defense of child sexual abuse on the grounds that some of it isn't
even sexual abuse:

!!!!!

From: Greegor - view profile
Date: Fri, Feb 25 2005 4:39 pm
Email: "Greegor"
Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services
Not yet rated
Rating: show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

Chickeyd:
At the distinct risk of being mislabeled by
motivated opposition, I've gotta express something.

The Quaker Oats Man on the box?
He was likely married to a fourteeen year old girl.

I have not investigated, but I suspect it is VERY
likely that several of our past US Presidents
were married to fourteen year old girls.

I have mentioned it before, and it ties in a bit
with some of what you are chiding Bobb for,
but a great amount of normal marital and
sexual relations (respectable even) from only
100 years ago would today be considered
perverted and child sexual abuse.

People are coming here from Mexico and
other countries MARRIED to 13 year old ""women"".
Here they are then caught in a situation
where sex with their legally married spouse
is then considered to be child molestation.

As recently as two years ago there was one
or two southern state that actually allowed
14 year olds to be married with parents
permission, and those people have been
caught in a legal limbo or charged with
child molestation for sex with their legal wife.

I am in no way ADVOCATING this stuff but
I mention this to try to point out that our
standards are new and local, and that our
societal attitude about it being perverted
is not as REASONABLE as it is Politically Correct.

How do you reconcile the huge change in
attitude and perception on this in only
100 years and with such huge variation from
country to country?

I find it much easier to have disdain for
somebody who molests a child under 13
than somebody who might get a woodie
in the peter meter from seeing action
involving fully formed anatomy that just
happens to be 15.

When I drove taxi I hauled numerous
prostitutes who were like 14 years old.

At one point there was a whole HOUSE
in town full of them. Not a one was "of age".

One in particular routinely went to a
VERY upscale house twice a week or more.
Clearly her youth was a HUGE financial asset.

I don't CONDONE any of this crap, I am
just reporting it in an effort to bring about
better connections to reality.

The idea that these teens are victims
just doesn't work.

They very much seemed more like they
were working the reality of the streets
quite well to their advantage.

I've seen conflicting information about what
the legal definition of statutory rape
even IS in Iowa. A corrections guy told me
that guys are not being charged for sex with
17 year olds but then I see arrest reports
in the newspaper that conflict.

There really is still a problem with "jail bait"
and how society views the whole issue.

I think the simple legalistic view of these
problems just can't cope with the realities
of the situation.

Simple answers just don't cut it.

I'm not saying Bobb is right about all of the
stuff you don't like, but is it possible that
you are just not giving his presentation a fair shot?

Are you just doing a "knee jerk" about teen sexuality?

Remember I don't think simple answers cut it.

Remember the Quaker Oats guy.

...end, gag ......

With ALL your protestations, Greg, you are clearly SUPPORTING THIS AS
ACCEPTABLE.

You, child, DID NOT REPORT THE 14 YEAR OLD PROSTITUTES.

Yet you claim you once put yourself in danger of jail by stopping a child
molestation.

Your morals are as flexible as your narratives are suitable to your need
of the moment, even if in conflict with a need in the past.

And I suggest you go to considerable trouble to NOT let the court know
that you post here.

That is NOT a good post as evidence goes. Not good at all, for you.

0:-



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)




--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Oh, and thanks.

If we could bottle that much cuteness young girls would pay a fortune
for it.

HB to wy

0:-)



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

"0:-" wrote in message
news:GLednWouBu7X5FvZnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Oh, and thanks.

If we could bottle that much cuteness young girls would pay a fortune for
it.

HB to wy

Hehe, thanks.


0:-)



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Kane:
When somebody who is your sicofant points out that you
lied, does it make the lie less of a lie?

Does the nice happy face make the admission you LIED less painful for
you?

When caught at a lie, you accuse the target of being a liar?
Nice tactic.

But I especially liked the links which basically have
NOTHING to do with your false accusation, but
simply seem to be out of context quotes of other
comments you just plain don't like.

Now you pose that by not disagreeing with Bobb
I was agreeing with him on some argument?

This logic is about as limp wristed as it gets.
Fagele?

It sounds like schoolgirl "clique" stuff.
One friend badmouths the other friend so you have
to decide which friend you want because peer pressure
will require you to join in the badmouthing of the other.

If you don't "disagree" with Bobb you must agree with him?

By that logic though, NUMBERS of people agreed with Bobb!
(A lot of people did NOT express disagreement with Bobb.)

A double negative is not a positive.

Greegor wrote:
Kane:
When somebody who is your sicofant points out that you
lied, does it make the lie less of a lie?

Who is my "sicofant?"[sic] and what lie did they point out?

Does the nice happy face make the admission you LIED less painful for
you?

What lie?

When caught at a lie, you accuse the target of being a liar?

What lie? What "target?"

Nice tactic.

It depends on facts. If they lied, they are a liar. If they didn't, they
aren't. What lie, what target?

But I especially liked the links which basically have
NOTHING to do with your false accusation,

What links, and what accusation? I linked to posts of yours where you
ranted about children lying about abuse, and to a post where you went on
listing historical instances of sexual contact between children and
adults being accepted. Those links had nothing to do with my questioning
your motives? (I made no "false accusation").

but
simply seem to be out of context quotes of other
comments you just plain don't like.

I might have included other things off topic to show your character or
what appears to me to be lack thereof. I am guilty. I am laughing.

This kind of lazy innuendo by you is your trade mark. You continue to
refer to things you have not included in this post.

Your 8th grade teachers were supposed to teach you clear writing skills.
They failed to break through your need to be a victim and your use of
confusing and obfuscating the facts to maintain your victim status.

Now you pose that by not disagreeing with Bobb
I was agreeing with him on some argument?

I believe I ASKED YOU for your explicit opinion. You have not given it.
Hence I presume since YOU were in the discussion and YOU said what you
said, and you did NOT disagree with him, AND you have used historical
references to what is now classified as child abuse and was not
historically that you were making and argument that current child abuse
laws are in some way not defendable.

Now in all fairness to you, why DID you post those historical references
in relation to child sexual abuse if you were NOT using them to
challenge current laws, mores, and customs in this regard?

Are you going to actually answer, or are you going to dodge to preserve
your victim status some more?

This logic is about as limp wristed as it gets.
Fagele?

Do you consider fag bashing valid argument?

I am not homosexual so it kind of doesn't compute. On the other hand if
I were, it still would NOT make an argument in your favor.

What "logic" is homosexual, and what "heterosexual" that would be
applicable here as negating my logic on this issue?

It sounds like schoolgirl "clique" stuff.

Since I'm not and never have been a schoolgirl, I am completely at sea
as to how it sounds like that. Your experience then would be.....?

One friend badmouths the other friend so you have
to decide which friend you want because peer pressure
will require you to join in the badmouthing of the other.

Oh, I see. And how did you come to learn about schoolgirl "clique" stuff
so intimately?

If you don't "disagree" with Bobb you must agree with him?

No, if you make specific arguments that agree with him you must agree
with him. HIS arguments are like the ones YOU made out of historical
references to adults and children and sexual intimacy being at one time
approved of or at least not disapproved of.

That long descriptive piece you did, that I cited and linked to for you,
is a puzzle. Something one wouldn't post at all without a reason, yet
you claimed you didn't approve, but there you were posting it.

What WAS the reason for posting those "justifying" historical claims if
not to protest the current mores and laws on child sexual abuse
concerning adult and child coupling?

By that logic though, NUMBERS of people agreed with Bobb!

No, they did not. There weren't a number of them that said what you did.
In fact, there weren't a "numbers" of them at all. Mostly bobb, mostly
you. And sometimes me.

(A lot of people did NOT express disagreement with Bobb.)

Yes, but they didn't enter into the conversation. YOU DID. They weren't
there, you were. And the ones that were there that did not express
disagreement with bobb? Yes, I would tend to think if they posted what
you did, they agreed with bobb. You do understand this, do you not?

A double negative is not a positive.

Nope not. 0:-

You do NOT understand the situation. I suspect you have reformatted your
memories of it. Read the thread, if it will help you. Though in the past
you have never done so, or if you have you have still held on to your re
framing into victimhood.

I was amused when you did it with the claim that LaVonne was accusing
you of having forged her name into a To: field in a post.

When she simply said you were not excused from examination by OTHERS.

She doesn't control those others so SHE, unless she says explicitly that
YOU are the subject of their investigation is NOT accusing YOU of anything.

I BROUGHT YOU UP, NOT HER.

And when I did, I POINTEDLY EXPELLED YOU FROM CONSIDERATION AS A SUSPECT.

All she said is that the UofM would not likely NOT include you.

Out of HER HANDS, as it were.

You are so amusing to watch twist and writhe and do everything you can
to case yourself as a victim so you have an excuse to label others as
villains.

Do you get a kick out of it?

0:-


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Similar tactic to your bogus lawyer approved general threat.