Free-Range Kids

Young Man Arrested for Underage Sex Was Re-Arrested for Sharing a Pizza with a 17-Year-Old

The witch hunt against Zach Anderson continues

|

Zach Anderson
Zach Anderson

Zach Anderson, the young man from Elkhart, Indiana, whose harsh punishment for consensual sex with an underage teenager he wrongly believed was 17 made headlines around the country in 2015, has been arrested for violating his probation.

What, exactly, did he do? He stopped by for dinner at his parents' home. His younger brother was present, and incidentally, so was the brother's friend. The brother thought this friend was 19 years old, but he turned out to be just 17. Anderson, unfortunately, is not allowed to have contact with anybody under the age of 18, except his own siblings.

There was one other thing. Anderson works on the tech team at his local church. Recently, a 17-year-old girl joined the church staff as an intern. While Anderson has never met or spoken with her, the fact that they volunteer on separate teams at the church is a violation of his probation, according to officials who issued a warrant for his arrest last week.

For these charges, Anderson, now 22 years old, is heading back to court in Michigan next week. (Anderson lives in Indiana, but the "crime" was over the border, in Michigan.) Possible outcomes range from dismissing the charges to extending probation, putting Anderson on the sex offender registry, sending him to prison, or any combination thereof.

There is no credible reason to believe Anderson is a danger to anyone, let alone a young woman he has never even met or interacted with—which is why the 17-year-old submitted a letter affirming that Anderson has never approached her, and that she doesn't even know what he looks like. The church director offered a letter of support as well, noting that Anderson has constantly gone out of his way to avoid violating the terms of his probation, even though the terms are pointless. Anderson is so faithful to them, in fact, that he willingly confessed to the pizza incident during a mandatory polygraph examination.

It's worth recalling the absurdity of the original crime that landed Anderson in this situation. More than two years ago, when Anderson was 19 years old, he was sentenced to 25 years on the sex offender registry for hooking up with a girl he met online. The girl said she was 17 but turned out to be only 14.

You may recall that both the girl and her mother begged the judge to throw the case out, since there was no way Anderson could have known the girl's real age. Unmoved, Berrien County District Court Judge Dennis Wiley told Anderson: "You went online, to use a fisherman's expression, trolling for women to meet and have sex with. That seems to be part of our culture now: meet, hook up, have sex, sayonara. Totally inappropriate behavior. There is no excuse for this whatsoever."

The case made it to the front page of The New York Times and Anderson was granted new sentencing. At that point he was deemed eligible for a youth leniency program and given a sentence of two years' probation, which was finally coming to an end next week.

Instead, reports the South Bend Tribune:

After two years of following a laundry list of restrictions from both states and within days of expecting to be released from probation, Anderson was served an arrest warrant Wednesday night, arraigned Thursday, posted a $500 bond, and is due back in the Niles courtroom this Wednesday.

Zach Anderson's parents, Les and Amanda, and his Lansing attorney, Scott Grabel, call the new pursuit of Zach's violations "a witch hunt" by a Michigan probation department that still feels the embarrassment of national criticism that surrounded it in 2015.

A spokesman for the Michigan Department of Corrections, which runs the state's probation operations, countered Friday that officials were required to notify the judge of the violations, and she ordered the warrant and court appearance.

Michigan found out about Zach's "violations" when he confessed them at one of the regular polygraph tests he is required to take, at $300 a pop. When asked if he'd had contact with anyone under 18, Zach dutifully reported the two slices of pizza he'd eaten at his parents' home with his brother's friend, even though they didn't speak to each other. And he confessed to having learned that a new intern, age 17, had joined the worship team at the Granger Community Church.

Here is the letter that Peter Tarwacki, a director of the church, wrote to the authorities:

We are aware of Zach's past at GCC, so we have taken every measure to make sure that he is following his court orders to the fullest. I have experienced Zach asking me many times how old someone is and if ever hearing they were a minor, he would tell me right away "I'm not allowed to talk to them". I have witnessed him ignore a hello from a minor and even go upstairs if a kid would get near him on the main floor. Zach has shown nothing but integrity when it comes to these situations to make sure he is not violating any of the policies put in place for him. When he attends evening rehearsal he will say "I need to leave to get home in time for my curfew". He had told me before that I can't email him because he is not allowed to be on the internet. My entire experience with Zach has been him trying to never violate any of the restrictions placed on him.

The fact that Anderson's probation requires him to be home by 9 p.m. every day already seems harsh. So does the fact he is not allowed on the internet for any reason other than school homework. And so does the fact he had to move out of his parents' home because it was too close to a dock, and "sex offenders" are not allowed to live near any place children congregate (like, um, docks).

In the name of protecting children from a completely harmless person, the state has literally prohibited Anderson from living life as a normal human being. It's not just harsh; it's torture.

After Anderson received the warrant for his arrest last week, he and his parents arrived at court with the letters of support. Anderson's father told me it was good they had their attorney, Grabel, with them, because although the bond was set at $5,000, the lead prosecutor showed up hoping to raise it to $20,000. When Grabel showed the prosecutor the documents, the bond stayed at $5,000.

This whole case reeks of payback for the negative publicity this case brought to the justice system in both states. And yet, Indiana was ready to release Anderson from probation, so it is only Michigan that can't admit it's ruining a young man's life for absolutely no reason.

Anderson will be back in court this Wednesday, along with his witnesses.

NEXT: Is Secession by Referendum Libertarian?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “You went online, to use a fisherman’s expression, trolling for women to meet and have sex with. That seems to be part of our culture now: meet, hook up, have sex, sayonara. Totally inappropriate behavior. There is no excuse for this whatsoever.”

    And what Indiana statute say that?

    1. Isn’t it weird that his condemenation doesn’t mention the crime he was actually charged with.

      1. The charge is horny by teenager.

        1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link,
          go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,, http://Onlinereviewtech.com

      2. The crime was crossing state lines to fuck a 14 year old girl in a playground. I don’t think mentioning that would have detracted from the judge’s comments.

        1. Mentioning that it was underage at all would have. His condemenation is that he wanted to have sex and looked online for it.

    2. “trolling for women to meet and have sex with”

      Plus, I heard he used the Lord’s name in vain once.

    3. Wait. All these years before I could’ve had sex workout getting married? Why didn’t someone think of this more soon? I mean, just think of all the chicks I could’ve been with, had only the internet existed when I was young. My parents told me in their time NO ONE had sex outsider of marriage, and I 100% believe them. That judge has scared me that people do in fact only in the last five years have casual sex.

  2. “This whole case reeks of payback for the negative publicity this case brought to the justice system in both states.”

    Yep. And the solution to negative publicity is…to generate even more negative publicity by hauling him back into court over trivial and innocent probation ‘violations’? You’d think the probation departments would just want this case to be over and forgottten, but I guess that’s because you’re not thinking like a bureaucrat. My prediction — they can’t get away with revoking probation, because that would generate a lot more bad press, but they probably can get away with extending the probation so they can keep making his life unlivable, so that’s my guess of what they’ll do.

  3. Zach Anderson’s parents, Les and Amanda, and his Lansing attorney, Scott Grabel, call the new pursuit of Zach’s violations “a witch hunt” by a Michigan probation department that still feels the embarrassment of national criticism that surrounded it in 2015.

    A spokesman for the Michigan Department of Corrections, which runs the state’s probation operations, countered Friday that officials were required to notify the judge of the violations, and she ordered the warrant and court appearance.

    Professional embarrassments all around.

    1. We have procedures, if they are not followed then it could easily lead to global extinction level events.

    2. officials were required to notify the judge of the violations

      Is this the same judge that made the comments about how “hooking up” in general was “totally unacceptable”? Any way they can move to have a different judge hear the probation violation case?

    3. To be fair, the idiot did tell them about two incidents that weren’t actually violations of his probation.

      1. Yeah, they were actually violations of his parole. None of the idiocy in this case is his.

  4. Who still has faith in our system? How long until the music stops?

    1. Maybe a few who draw a paycheck and political cred still (claim to) have faith in the system.

  5. Though I will say this. If Lenore doesn’t understand us kids nowadays and our love of hanging out with longshoremen at the docks, then Lenore is out of touch.

  6. When will our nation finally wise up to the pizzapedo connection and finally ban it?

    1. Just switch to stromboli and there’s no problem.

  7. Jesus. Can’t an asteroid just plow into the planet already and get this stupidity over with?

  8. “It’s worth recalling the absurdity of the original crime that landed Anderson in this situation. More than two years ago, when Anderson was 19 years old, he was sentenced to 25 years on the sex offender registry for hooking up with a girl he met online. The girl said she was 17 but turned out to be only 14.”

    Of course that should be a crime, but if this guy is trying to shape up and reform for a single incident, tell me why the government should be persecuting him?

    Do they think it’s likely he will make a similar mistake again? I mean, anything is possible, but come on…

    1. If he turns out to have committed a technical violation of his parole, give him a day in prison or extend his probation by a week. That should satisfy justice, if not the Michigan authorities.

    2. “but if this guy is trying to shape up and reform for a single incident, tell me why the government should be persecuting him?”

      Because, twenty years ago, everyone accepted the “settled science” that “pedophiles,” overdefined to include sexual relations with underaged teens, were drooling, subhuman monsters with 100%+ recidivism rates because they were supposedly incapable of controlling their supposedly uncontrollable perverse impulses. This “settled science” proved to be junk science, yet its influence remains embedded in state laws across the country. The political benefits of being credited with devising new and increasingly-draconian ways of “cracking down” on “dangerous pedophiles” proved irresistible to politicians. Hence, what we see here.

      1. Let’s not forget the move towards Disneyfication of the world, where everything is family-friendly and appropriate for children. I see the long arm of this reaching out from this to everything from the Trophy Generation to the kangaroo courts of Title IX trials. Place a childproof cap on society so your Montessori investment isn’t tainted by the world, and then spit him out at 24 to try and make sense of it.

        Add in Puritanism against sex, and you’ve got a vehicle to justify nearly anything.

        The only solace I get is eventually these snowflakes will be running the show, keeping grandma and grandpa safe in their padded cells.

      2. Speaking of junk science:
        “Michigan found out about Zach’s “violations” when he confessed them at one of the regular polygraph tests he is required to take, at $300 a pop.”
        Seriously? The state of Michigan requires this kid to be hooked up to a Voodoo machine as a requirement of his parole? The “lie detector” doesn’t even rise to the level of junk science.
        Kid needs to move to Berkeley and join the police force. Only way he’ll get a, get out of jail free card.

        1. He should sue the state for all this bullshit. That polygraph thing is probably worth half a million dollars by itself.

      3. > 100%+ recidivism rates because they were supposedly incapable of controlling their supposedly uncontrollable perverse impulses

        Actually there are only 3 crimes with a lower recidivism rate than sex offenses: murder, treason, and espionage.

        1. I don’t buy the second one, this website commits TreasonNN every day.

    3. Do they think it’s likely he will make a similar mistake again? I mean, anything is possible, but come on…

      Haven’t you been paying attention?? This kid had PIZZA with a 17yo! If that isn’t a precursor to a life of sex crimes, I don’t know what is.

    4. Why should that be a crime? A crime requires intent, and he had no way of knowing the slut’s age.

      1. Unlike the Civil Rights Act, judges have decided that mens rea isn’t necessary.

      2. He could have asked for ID.

        1. Seriously – unless she showed a fake ID or birth certificate, I’d say the guy was at least reckless.

          The point, to me, is that it sounds like he’s trying in good faith to obey his probation but they want to dick with him.

          And the sentencing judge doesn’t inspire confidence – see below.

          1. “Seriously – unless she showed a fake ID or birth certificate”

            Nothing spices up the evening quite like whispering softly into your lover’s ear that “I need two forms of picture ID.”

        2. What world do you live in?

      3. Your name is so appropriate, given the repugnance of your penultimate word. Women. You just don’t understand them, do you?

  9. The moral is: If you find out someone you had sex with was under age, kill that person. Things’ll go better for you.

  10. What unacceptable is this judge wasn’t given the same treatment as his zombie god

    1. The judge passed judgment, and in a separate case, judgment got passed on him (see below).

  11. “Berrien County District Court Judge Dennis Wiley”

    Is this the same Judge Dennis Wiley who got reassigned last May from the criminal to the civil division?

    According the the article, he had previously been reprimanded by the Michigan Supreme Court for violating the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct in an unrelated case.

    1. If I were governor of Michigan, I’d ask people who had been sentenced by this judge to come forward if they thought their sentence was out of whack. Then I’d review the applicatins and if I found the judge being overly vindictive, I’d cut the sentences.

      When a judge signals vindictiveness like this, further review is warranted, and the prerogative of mercy – possessed by even otherwise-bad governments – gives an outlet for correcting injustices.

  12. The real crime here is Failure To Bend The Knee. When any petty government officer wants to jerk your chain you damn well better respond with a “Thank you sir, may I have another?”

    1. And you damn sure better not bring any attention to the chain jerking that doesn’t paint the officer as an unadulterated hero.

  13. But he didn’t know she was underage..

    https://reason.com/blog/2017/10…..ps-dropped

    1. Yeah, I was going to say the same thing. Maybe he should join the police force.

    2. I was about to post the same thing. Only agents of the state are considered innocent until proven guilty. Hell, they’re innocent until proven innocent. Everyone else is guilty until proven guilty.

      1. No. This idiot was proven guilty of a strict liability offense. If conviction for stat rape required proof of knowledge of age, it would be impossible to convict anyone.

        The Oakland cops getting away with what they did is a travesty, but it has nothing to do with this.

        1. Since the girl admittedly committed fraud by plausibly misrepresenting her age, he should not have been convicted. Case closed.

  14. This whole case reeks of payback for the negative publicity this case brought to the justice system in both states. And yet, Indiana was ready to release Anderson from probation, so it is only Michigan that can’t admit it’s ruining a young man’s life for absolutely no reason.

    Absolutely no reason? You just gave the reason. He embarrassed someone in a position of political power. That is the reason right there.

  15. From the NYT article:

    In December, Mr. Anderson met a girl through Hot or Not, a dating app, and after some online flirting, he drove to pick her up at her house in Michigan, just miles over the state line. They had sex in a playground in Niles, the police report said.

    That sexual encounter has landed Mr. Anderson in a Michigan jail, and he now faces a lifetime entanglement in the legal system. The girl, who by her own account told Mr. Anderson that she was 17 ? a year over the age of consent in Michigan ? was actually 14.

    The judge is being a dick about things and the original sentence was ridiculously harsh, but this guy is a creep regardless. 14 is a little young to claim you didn’t know better.

    1. Irrelevant ad hominem.

    2. My son went out with a girl who as their marching band director said was 14 going on 32. Had she told anyone she was 18, she would have been believed.

      1. So your (hopefully about 14) son was going out with a girl who looked like she was 32 years old?

        1. Acted 32.

          1. There was plenty of this on display at the first bat mitzvah I ever attended. The kids in attendance were all 12-13 years old, as you would expect. The boys were all pretty much little boys.

            The girls… well…. about half of them were little girls and they hung out with the other kids and played kids games.

            The other half of the girls. Holy crap, at 12 or 13? They were dressed like a bunch of 22 year old women at the club, and they looked the part. Most were wearing slip dresses, which were popular at the time, many without underwear. (because it messes up the lines?)

            The 13-going-on-22 crowd hung out together on the dance floor and they were bumping and grinding and dirty dancing all over each other like a bunch of … well… drunk 22 year olds. Except they weren’t drinking.

            If you didn’t speak with them, I can guarantee you wouldn’t have guessed their ages at under 18. A few would have passed for 25.

            It was striking, and uncomfortable. My thought was “where are your parents??” Which was answered with “right over there by the cash bar”.

            So yeah, I can believe someone could get fooled by the right person. Heck, I got carded for the South Park movie and I was 34 years old at the time… pretty much double the age required.

      2. Interesting you bring up a marching band. About a decade ago I was in the audience at a HS football game, & I was very much attracted to the band leader near me. I could hardly keep my eyes off her. I assumed she was faculty. When I asked about her later to get in touch w her, I found out she was a student. She seemed much more mature.

        1. Sounds like a promising Penthouse Letters opening.

        2. This one time at band camp…

          1. Don’t start with those flute stories. Flautists. They’re such teases.

      3. My son went out with a girl who as their marching band director said was 14 going on 32. Had she told anyone she was 18, she would have been believed.

        Pictures or it never happened.

    3. Age of consent laws are political decisions with a long and tortured history that may be completely irrelevant to the parties involved. It seems obvious that the girl was not only a willing participant but lied about her age to avoid scaring off this young man. Whether she was entitled to “agency” in your view or in the view of the state of Michigan, she clearly believed she had ownership of her own body. I don’t see how, under these circumstances, this kid is a predator, pederast or creep. He’s just a guy who had consensual sex with someone he thought was 2 years younger than himself. I personally think 14 is a little young to be sexually active but I don’t favor unleashing the violence of the state on someone who makes that choice or her partner in crime.

      https://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/case-studies/230

      1. He’s just a guy who had consensual sex with someone he thought was 2 years younger than himself.

        Again, there is no proof that he really believed that she was 17.

        Whether she was entitled to “agency” in your view or in the view of the state of Michigan, she clearly believed she had ownership of her own body.

        14 year olds can’t smoke or drink alcohol legally, nor can they sign enforceable contracts. Children have to be protected from making decisions that they may not understand the consequences of. If you disagree with that principle, go off and start your own society and convince others to move there. Don’t walk into ours and expect it to cater to your strange beliefs.

        1. Except Anderson was only 19 at the time, and by most state laws also cannot smoke, drink alcohol, vote nor sign enforceable contracts, rent a car, etc. So, yes, I agree with you: children have to be protected from making decisions that they may not understand the consequences of. In many ways, in the eyes of the law, they both were children, and both need to be protected.

          Besides, had this been a 19 y.o. girl hooking up with a 14 y.o. boy who claimed he was 17, we qould not ne in this situation. The state is inherently sexist and misogynistic in this case, effectively treating girls as somehow more fragile and less able to make decisions than boys.

          1. Except Anderson was only 19 at the time, and by most state laws also cannot smoke, drink alcohol, vote nor sign enforceable contracts, rent a car, etc.

            Bullshit. There is not a state in the country where he could not sign a contract, smoke, or vote, and car rental policies are created by the rental companies, not the state. The alcohol age requirement is too high but that doesn’t go against my point.

            1. Man, really zeroed in on his usage of “most” and just ignored everything implied by it.

              1. Huh? The point is this guy was not a child at the time of the crime. He was a legal adult.

            2. I think there are now a couple of states where he couldn’t smoke. Other than that, true enough.

            3. Except Anderson was only 19 at the time, and by most state laws also cannot smoke, drink alcohol, vote nor sign enforceable contracts, rent a car, etc.

              Bullshit. There is not a state in the country where he could not sign a contract, smoke, or vote, and car rental policies are created by the rental companies, not the state. The alcohol age requirement is too high but that doesn’t go against my point.

              Colorado you must be 21 or older to smoke anything and even to buy or see pornography as well. Thanks the puritans that move in here, And then got a big shock when we legalized gambling and pot which also requires you to be over 21.

          2. But girls are more vulnerable and need protection from nasty men. That’s the feminist point, to show that women are stronger than men, errrr… I think that’s it.

        2. How are you going to prove what someone else believed at any moment in time? I agree that children should be protected from making bad decisions. That’s why they have parents. I don’t believe that parents should cede their authority to a state likely to be driven by the latest scandal or social science theory. This girl’s mother appears unwilling to and good for her. Shit happens. People fuck up. People learn. They make good decisions and bad. I don’t know the magic biological age when someone is capable of making the right decisions and neither does the Michigan legislature. But you apparently do. I happen to think that this girl made a bad decision but I don’t see any reason to involve cops, prosecutors and judges.
          If this girl were my daughter, she would not be hooking up with strangers at age 14 based on my track record as a parent. No unwanted pregnancies, criminality or debilitating addictions in my gene pool. Just successful productive happy adults on the other side. And while I can’t take all the credit (my wife helped a bit) I didn’t need a statute to make that happen. That’s my world. In your world the state decides questions of morality and inflicts it’s violence when there is no victim to be found. I like my world better.

          1. If people didn’t think sexual activity was a big deal, it wouldn’t be a big deal, and almost all the bad consequences would go away, only the physiologic ones remaining.

            This is a case of slave off, fucker.

          2. The mother thinks the sentence was too harsh. That does not mean she would have been OK with her daughter fucking this guy. Stop conflating these things together. Clearly she didn’t know about the sex romp that was going on, as she’s the one who called police.

            Regardless, some activities are so dangerous that the state has to protect children from them even if the parents won’t.

        3. If she can give birth to a child, she is no longer a child herself. A pedophile is attracted to prepubescent children, this guy was just a normal 19-year-old.

          1. Oh now, you can’t write that, Fk_Censorship. It’s too true and far too disturbing.

    4. Actually, that’s a federal offence. Buddy of mine is a sex offender and in his court mandated “therapy” (don’t get me started, there’s a shit load of great stories there) there was a guy that got busted for dating / having sex with a 16 y.o., and 16 was the age of consent in her state, but it’s a federal offence to cross a state line in order to have sex with someone under 18.

      Go figure. (What happened to the full faith and credit clause?)

    5. > 14 is a little young to claim you didn’t know better.

      Bullshit. I grew up with a girl who, at eleven, had C cups, at about 105 lbs. Smart as a whip, too, probably the only student at my school that could give me a run for my money, academic/IQ – wise. She could’ve fooled anyone that she was 18 when she was 12 or 13.

    6. 14 is a little young to claim you didn’t know better.

      I have two daughters. The oldest, at 25, was still being mistaken for 16. The youngest could have passed for a college upperclassman when she was 13.

      As in:
      College Senior – “Is your daughter seeing anyone?”
      My Wife – “She’s 13.”
      CS – “No shit! Look, I didn’t know. If–”
      MW – “It’s okay. You aren’t the first one.”

      1. A buddy of mine had the reverse solution. At 10 his daughter was a precocious C-cup. At ten. Yeesh.

        Anyway, he was a big bearded mountain of a man and the coach of the local high school football team. We were hanging out at the park talking while his daughter played on the playground.

        So this teenage boy…. probably about 17 or 18 years old.. comes over and starts chatting his daughter up while she’s climbing on the monkey bars.

        “Hold on a sec. I gotta handle something”, my buddy says. He walks over to the boy, who clearly is wondering what the heck this old dude is doing.

        “How you doing?” He asks.
        “Fine, sir” the boy replies.

        “That’s a real cute girl right there, isn’t she?” my buddy says.

        “Uh, yes sir.” says the boy, clearly wary of this odd conversation.

        “Well son,” says my friend, “There’s two things you need to know about that girl. The first is, she’s only ten years old. And the second is…. she’s my daughter.”

        To his credit, the boy didn’t say another word. He turned on his heel and ran, never looking back. Smart kid.

    7. I don’t know about you, but i’ve seen plenty of 14 year olds who could easily pass for 25. Different people physically mature at different rates.

  16. There was a time, not all that long ago, when if the local gestapo were making your life a living hell, you could get the fuck out of their jurisdiction and start a new peaceful life. People did it all the time. But the arm of the law grows longer with every passing day. The police state now owns every one of us and if you show up on their radar you’re finished.

  17. punishment for consensual sex with an underage teenager he wrongly believed was 17

    There is no proof that he actually believed she was 17.

    1. Well she told him she was 17 and her mom backs her up. Hafta hook him up to the Lie Detector to divine his innermost thoughts and secrets.

      1. I seriously doubt her mom was observing the conversation they were having.

    2. The burden of proof is on the state to prove that he didn’t believe she was 17. That’s how it’s supposed to work, anyway.

      1. No, it’s not. Strict liability is appropriate for some crimes, stat rape being one.

        1. I can’t see why it would. What quality are we satisfying? The Mom and Girl swear he didn’t know, so the court is avenging their claims. The boy didn’t know, so they’re not teaching him anything he didn’t know already. Oh, the Justice System are showing him their long dick, so I guess that quality is satisfied.

          And as a libertarian, nothing is more appropriate than punishment for punishments sake.

          1. I can’t see why it would.

            Because it would be impossible to convict anybody for the crime if it were mens rea. A 30 year old could molest an 8 year old and claim he thought she was 17, and the state would have to somehow prove that he knew her age.

            The Mom and Girl swear he didn’t know

            There is no way they would know whether he knew. The mother wasn’t involved in the situation, why do you keep bringing her up as if her opinion matters in determination of the facts?

            The boy didn’t know

            We don’t know whether the 19 year old who you are calling a boy really thought she was 17.

            1. Because it would be impossible to convict anybody for the crime if it were mens rea. A 30 year old could molest an 8 year old and claim he thought she was 17, and the state would have to somehow prove that he knew her age.

              There are many ways to reasonably prove he knew, outside circumstances for instance, like he picked her up at a grade school, or that he was family (far and away the most common situation), or that the girl said she told him she was underage. Besides, you keep arguing that they could never convict anyone if it required mens rea. Even if that was true, which I do not believe to be the case, that does nothing to say whether this was just or not. Your entire argument is “how would the justice system fuck people if the law didn’t work this way.” Not a great argument for the law working that way.

              There is no way they would know whether he knew. The mother wasn’t involved in the situation, why do you keep bringing her up as if her opinion matters in determination of the facts?

              There is no way to know anything happened. That’s why the law requires beyond a reasonable doubt instead of an absolute deductive proof. This falls into being a character trial effectively. So asking the mother is acting as a character witness. This is very common in court trials.

              We don’t know whether the 19 year old who you are calling a boy really thought she was 17.

              We have more proof that he did think she was 17 then we didn’t.

              1. There are many ways to reasonably prove he knew

                Every way you mention is easy to avoid for even the stupidest predator. Tellingly, none of your means of evidence could possibly have existed in this case, but the guy doesn’t dispute what he is accused of.

                Your entire argument is “how would the justice system fuck people if the law didn’t work this way.” Not a great argument for the law working that way.

                You have to be kidding. Do you think it should be legal for an adult to fuck a child regardless of how young they are? If not, then the law against this has to be enforced, which can’t happen if the standard of proof for conviction is so high as to be impossible.

                So asking the mother is acting as a character witness. This is very common in court trials.

                There was no trial — he pled guilty. Beyond that, the mother doesn’t even know him — how could she possibly serve as a character witness? WEAK.

                We have more proof that he did think she was 17 then we didn’t.

                Baloney, we have no proof either way.

            2. “The mother wasn’t involved in the situation, why do you keep bringing her up as if her opinion matters in determination of the facts?”
              Um, she’s the mom. I kinda think she’s involved. And um, she’s the mom. Kinda think her opinion matters more than some fucking judge.

              1. She wasn’t involved in the crime or the conversation that led to it. So her value as a source of information about either of those is zero.

                1. She does know her daughter, and might believe that said daughter could (and probably had) pass for 17.

                  1. She does know her daughter, and might believe that said daughter could (and probably had) pass for 17.

                    If that’s all it is, anybody who has seen her daughter would be able to provide that information. Again, the mother is not a witness and not a viable source of information.

            3. > Because it would be impossible to convict anybody for the crime if it were mens rea. A 30 year old could molest an 8 year old and claim he thought she was 17, and the state would have to somehow prove that he knew her age.

              Bullshit. Reasonable man standard.

              1. Telling someone’s age is far too dicey to use that standard.

                1. So if claiming ignorance, according to libertyequality, would always allow criminals to circumvent the law, it would be impossible to convict anyone ever. “Sorry officer, I wasn’t stealing from the store, I thought it was being given out for free.”
                  But that’s not how the justice system works, and there is a difference between that scenario and “I honestly thought she was 17.”
                  This is where the concept of mens rea comes in.

                  1. Additionally, courts do find for pre-meditation.

                    The opposite side of the coin is that the courts also have to have the ability to find for innocence, which would also be an impossible standard given how easily most documents can be forged, nor is there a requirement for a public notary before having sex.

                    Hence reasonable doubt.

      2. What does this look like, Oakland?

  18. “since there was no way Anderson could have known the girl’s real age.”

    It’s called a drivers license.

    1. Oh and birth certificate.

      1. Cutting her open and counting the rings.

        1. Sawing her in half, you mean. Of course then her utility as a sex object is considerably diminished.

    2. I’ll err on the side of protecting children rather than protecting seekers of random sex encounters.

      1. I don’t think that the 14 y.o. girl would believe that you’re protecting her. Her mother doesn’t either.

        So go fuck yourself.

        1. Well obviously not — she apparently wanted to have sex with the guy enough to lie about her age. Kids who think it’s a good idea to take up smoking, or to sign binding contracts with arduous future consequences wouldn’t consider the law to be protecting them either; that has fuck all to do with whether the law makes sense or not.

          1. Sex is not some innately harmful activity like smoking and as long as simple protection is used does not come with a realistic risk of future consequences. So, please tell me what the state is trying to protect this girl from. An orgasm? Pleasure? If she banged a kid her age it suddenly would be okay, so again. What is the state doing? Protecting someone, or dictating morality?

            1. The current moral consensus is that sex with someone slightly older is really, really bad for a girl. Imbalance of power, apparently, although it doesn’t apply as soon as she reaches 16.

      2. Not sure the child in question is seeking your protection but, soldier on brother. You should probably write your congressman or something. And I heard kids these days are doing drugs, smoking cigarettes and vaping! Better get some Top Men on that cause only government can solve these perplexing problems.

        1. You may have noticed that the law is on my side, not yours. You’re the one who needs to write your congressman if you want to de facto legalize pedophilia.

          1. There is nothing “pedo-” about “-philia” for a teenage girl.

      3. Since I’m not a total douche like LibertyEquality over here, I’ll err on the side of not ruining the lives of innocent people.

    3. Let’s be real, he probably realized she was younger but she was hot to him and willing so he thought “fuck it”. Most of you morons would do the same shit if some horny teen girl threw themselves at you.

  19. Why in the world is “Free Range Kids” listed as a keyword for an article about a creep picking up a 14 year old girl and fucking her in a playground?

    1. Perhaps because both the girl and her mother “begged the judge” to toss the case because they insisted that Anderson could not have known her age. But the judge dismissed the two females’ “testimony” — the two females who would have been most harmed by the supposed crime — because obviously he as a man knows better than the girl’s own mother.

      Your posts ignore the facts, and reek of misogyny.

      1. Well that’s an amusing, if nonsensical take.

        1. Certainly the entire idea of the trial is based in the government knowing what’s better for the girl then the girl or the mother. That’s the whole pretense of the act being considered a crime.

          1. It’s not about what’s better for the girl at this point. It’s about deterring predation on children. What the girl thinks at this point doesn’t really matter. And of course HER MOTHER WAS NOT INVOLVED so the mother’s opinions have nothing to do with anything.

            I seriously doubt the mother thinks it was good that a 19 yo creep fucked her 14 yo daughter in a playground, if that’s what you’re talking about by “better for the girl”.

            1. “What the girl thinks at this point doesn’t really matter”

              You didn’t need to say it.

            2. I seriously doubt the mother thinks it was good that a 19 yo creep fucked her 14 yo daughter in a playground…

              It’s just possible that the mother disapproved of the sex, but knew her daughter well enough to think that the boy involved really did believe she was 17.

              1. How would knowing her daughter give her insight into this guy’s state of mind?

                You people are seriously throwing spaghetti against the wall now.

                1. Anyone who was around the girl frequently would know how old she looked. I’m guessing mom is fully aware of how mature her daughter looked or did not look at the time. That she was actively seeking sexual congress with significantly older males is likely an indicator of how far along her physical development was.

        2. Explain what, exactly, is nonsensical, please

          1. The entire thing.

          2. But the accusation of misogyny is the amusing part, of course.

    2. Wouldn’t kids fucking in a playground be about as free range as kids can get?

    3. Why in the world is “Free Range Kids” listed as a keyword…

      Because Lenore Skenazy, who runs Free Range Kids, wrote it.

    4. She clearly didn’t think he was a creep. So your opinion means fuck all.

  20. It’s Pizzagate all over again!

    * grabs bump stock *

    1. Needed a laugh and there you were. Thanks for that.

    2. BTW, have you seen the Instagram photos of the alleged perpetrators in the dcpizzagate.com story? You might want to check them out before you go all tinfoil-hat on us.

  21. “Judge Dennis Wiley”

    REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED rusty fish hook REDACTED REDACTED secluded area REDACTED REDACTED urethra REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED anticoagulants REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED plane ticket to Ecuador

  22. If anyone knows anything about teenagers, it is that they are all horny as hell and like sex. Our culture is still obsessed with this puritan label they slap on, specifically, teenage girls. Meanwhile, they are blowing dudes, getting fingered, banging, getting eaten out etc.

    Suddenly when one part involved is deemed too old the country and states throws a hissy fit. I am convinced it is because of jealous females because they can’t compete with vibrant younger females and jealous dudes who can’t get a girl their age let alone a younger more attractive female.

    Most of these cases should be familial matters. The state has no place in it. This girl was seeking sex online, as long as the older guy didn’t spread disease or impregnate her then he did not violate the girl’s self-ownership, her property rights and he did not commit an act of aggression. For libertarians, in the legal real, this case is simple. There was no violation from the beginning.

  23. To quote the judge in the case “You went online, to use a fisherman’s expression, trolling for women to meet and have sex with. That seems to be part of our culture now: meet, hook up, have sex, sayonara. Totally inappropriate behavior. There is no excuse for this whatsoever.” None of that is illegal. To most people, it’s not even immoral. It was already established he didn’t know how old the girl was and even the parent of the girl testified on his behalf. So it appears the judge/prosecutor is trying to punish the young man for violating their personal moral code.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.