Bingo. The accusations and abuse and assault and rape are tossed around so loosely these days they have no meaning. It's like calling someone a racist.
We? Like you and all the cool people?Yes, we know.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2017
- Messages
- 4,609
- Reaction score
- 1,773
- Points
- 113
I'm far from "cool." Don't even like that description.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2013
- Messages
- 3,081
- Reaction score
- 1,691
- Points
- 113
this thread was started by a man who wanted to paint a 17 year old girl as the one at fault after she had been coherced - led - tricked - seduced.... (however you want to word it).... into an illicit sexual relationship with a man in his mid 50s who was not only the pastor of the church she was a member of - but also a pastor who had been put on a pedestal and worshipped like a god by other people in that church.... other men here chimed in with him and began making slanderous comments about this girl which they then transferred onto all women in general everywhere... .......
the thread got really nasty and went on for a long time ..containing almost twice as many posts as you currently see in it......that should be easy to see if one simply reads it and looks at all the replies where the posts someone replied to can;t be found - and only one side of the conversation can be seen.... ... subllibrms comment that this tread didn;t age well is an under-statement.... it was starting to smell like a decomposing corpse long before it was finally ended and allowed to be buried..... . .. . why anyone would want to ressurrect a thread like this goes beyond me..... ...but then i never understood why so many who took part in this thread back then defended the perpetrator either......
Last edited:
I think it's important to point out she was younger than 17 when this all started. I think that is important in this discussion. We have chosen, as a society, 18 as the age in which a young girl can make her own choices in this regard. If a similar situation were to happen and the young girl is slightly older, lets say just past her 18th birthday would that have changed anything. If he started councling her after her 18th birthday would that change anything regarding her responsibility, would she still be a victum? it's still sin and immorality and infidelity, but would her culpibility be any different. He is surely guilty of his own actions and intentions as a preditor ,but woould it change anything regarding how we perceive her.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2013
- Messages
- 3,081
- Reaction score
- 1,691
- Points
- 113
in my opinion.... and also according to the law..... she would still be perceived a victmi and he would still be the guilty perpetrator regardless of what age she was when the relationship started ... even if she was in her 30s... .. because their relationship was that of a leader being held up as Gods annointed.. and a member of his church who had been taught all her life to honor and obey such men........
it;s apparent to me that very few people read what i wrote in another thread asking men to consider how they would feel if confronted by a man twice their size and many time more times more powerful... who could easily ruin thier life or reputation... maybe even kill them if they refused.... and demanded they go along with whatever he wants... .... maybe i didn;t write it a way easy to understand.... or maybe men don;t want to admit or even imagine what they would do in a similar situation if it wall reversed and they were the one being solicited..... .
there are many reasons people are leaving fundamentalist churches these days...... this is a major one....
I responded That's exactly why I try to get my wife to carry a 40 cal or a 10mm instead of the little 9 she prefers
You seem to think guys with mothers, wives and daughter don't think about such things but you would be wrong.
I also commented about the need for self defense classes and my preference for jiu jitsu. I understand you are at a disadvantage living where you can not carry a fire arm. I would consider moving.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2013
- Messages
- 3,081
- Reaction score
- 1,691
- Points
- 113
i would not be able to legally carry a firearm in any state of union.... (and trust me - you would not want me to either)..... ... so even if i wanted to move it would serve no purpose in that regard........ but i don;t want to move... and don;t want to handle firearms anyway... .. .
but i am also not in any danger personally... .....i didn;t earn the nickname chupacabra as a pre-teen....(which i briefly used as my forum name when i first joined).... because i was easy to push around or not dangerous if pushed too far... .. ... .i was helpless and easy to abuse as a small child... but that person does not exist anymore...... .i have not only learned how to live safely around the people i find in my company but also learned what kind of person to never be alone in the company of......
in short... i am well protected.... what i try to do is speak for those who are not - and have not been.... ....i come across them on the street all the time when i;m working in the ministries i am a part of...... there are women out there who feel truly trapped in the situations they live with.... and when you hear their stories it;s hard to argue..... not all of them are under the age of 18 either but they are still victims...
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2017
- Messages
- 4,609
- Reaction score
- 1,773
- Points
- 113
In response to "if she were 18" and then had a relationship with the perp would she still be the victim? I would have to say that she was. I'm basing this on the fact that he is in a place of leadership and abusing his position and commitment to Christ. It's called abuse by an authority figure. Yes, she would be considered of legal age, but, she also is still someone who was going through counseling from himself, he was her pastor, he was married, and HE KNEW BETTER. Yes, she did as well, even if she was 16 or 17. It was poor judgment on her part. And why didn't she speak up if she wasn't a willing participant? this could be seen both ways. But, having been in pastoral leadership, having counseled women in the church there were many ways to handle counseling without being alone with the girl. The door opened during sessions is one. I truly thing that Billy Graham had it right, and we were taught in Bible college to never be alone with a woman who wasn't our wives unless there was an open door or another person present.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,397
- Reaction score
- 2,411
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
The age of consent in Indiana is, in fact, 16. This is the relevant law. However:
1) As her pastor, Schaap was in a "position of authority or substantial influence over the victim," meaning the 16-year age of consent did not apply.
2) He was specifically convicted of violating the Mann Act, which prohibits taking women under 18 across state lines for immoral purposes. This is a federal law, and again, Indiana law does not apply.
All other things being equal, if she was 18, she might still very well be a victim of an exploitive authority figure. Schaap would then be guilty of both adultery and professional misconduct, which would be more than enough for him to be thrown to the curb forthwith and never employed by a church again.
However, it's doubtful that his conduct would have been criminal. Not everything grossly immoral is illegal.
I would think having an affair, regardless of the details, should be grounds for removal.
I don't personally know anyone who defends his behaviour or actions, though I'm sure there are some out there that do..
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,397
- Reaction score
- 2,411
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Should be. He really went above and beyond the call of duty on that one.
Indiana law is a little confusing because of the way it is laid out, but this is incorrect.
A person of authority would negate the ability of defense if the victim was under 16 and "The person is not more than four (4) years older than the victim." and "The relationship between the person and the victim was a dating relationship or an ongoing personal relationship. The term "ongoing personal relationship" does not include a family relationship." I quoted from the 2012 version of the law in case there is a discrepancy if you were to view it now. Basically, that subsection (e) refers to what is commonly called "Romeo and Juliet" laws. Schaap would not have been eligible for this defense as he is also older than 21.
IC 35-42-4-9
Sexual misconduct with a minor
Sec. 9. (a) A person at least eighteen (18) years of age who, with
a child at least fourteen (14) years of age but less than sixteen (16)
years of age, performs or submits to sexual intercourse or deviate
sexual conduct commits sexual misconduct with a minor, a Class C
felony. However, the offense is:
(1) a Class B felony if it is committed by a person at least
twenty-one (21) years of age; and
(2) a Class A felony if it is committed by using or threatening
the use of deadly force, if it is committed while armed with a
deadly weapon, if it results in serious bodily injury, or if the
commission of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the
victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined
in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in
IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victimwas furnished with the
drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge.
(b) A person at least eighteen (18) years of age who, with a child
at least fourteen (14) years of age but less than sixteen (16) years of
age, performs or submits to any fondling or touching, of either the
child or the older person, with intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual
desires of either the child or the older person, commits sexual
misconduct with a minor, a Class D felony. However, the offense is:
(1) a Class C felony if it is committed by a person at least
twenty-one (21) years of age; and
(2) a Class B felony if it is committed by using or threatening
the use of deadly force, while armed with a deadly weapon, or
if the commission of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the
victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined
in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in
IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victimwas furnished with the
drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge.
(c) It is a defense that the accused person reasonably believed that
the child was at least sixteen (16) years of age at the time of the
conduct. However, this subsection does not apply to an offense
described in subsection (a)(2) or (b)(2).
(d) It is a defense that the child is or has ever been married.
However, this subsection does not apply to an offense described in
subsection (a)(2) or (b)(2).
(e) It is a defense to a prosecution under this section if all the
following apply:
(1) The person is not more than four (4) years older than the
victim.
(2) The relationship between the person and the victim was a
dating relationship or an ongoing personal relationship. The
term "ongoing personal relationship" does not include a family
relationship.
(3) The crime:
(A) was not committed by a person who is at least
twenty-one (21) years of age;
(B) was not committed by using or threatening the use of
deadly force;
(C) was not committed while armed with a deadly weapon;
(D) did not result in serious bodily injury;
(E) was not facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the
victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in
IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in
IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with
the drug or controlled substance without the victim's
knowledge; and
(F) was not committed by a person having a position of
authority or substantial influence over the victim.
(4) The person has not committed another sex offense (as
defined in IC 11-8-8-5.2) (including a delinquent act that would
be a sex offense if committed by an adult) against any other
person.
As added by P.L.79-1994, SEC.15. Amended by P.L.33-1996, SEC.9;
P.L.216-1996, SEC.21; P.L.31-1998, SEC.8; P.L.266-2003, SEC.1;
P.L.216-2007, SEC.45.
Sexual misconduct with a minor
Sec. 9. (a) A person at least eighteen (18) years of age who, with
a child at least fourteen (14) years of age but less than sixteen (16)
years of age, performs or submits to sexual intercourse or deviate
sexual conduct commits sexual misconduct with a minor, a Class C
felony. However, the offense is:
(1) a Class B felony if it is committed by a person at least
twenty-one (21) years of age; and
(2) a Class A felony if it is committed by using or threatening
the use of deadly force, if it is committed while armed with a
deadly weapon, if it results in serious bodily injury, or if the
commission of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the
victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined
in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in
IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victimwas furnished with the
drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge.
(b) A person at least eighteen (18) years of age who, with a child
at least fourteen (14) years of age but less than sixteen (16) years of
age, performs or submits to any fondling or touching, of either the
child or the older person, with intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual
desires of either the child or the older person, commits sexual
misconduct with a minor, a Class D felony. However, the offense is:
(1) a Class C felony if it is committed by a person at least
twenty-one (21) years of age; and
(2) a Class B felony if it is committed by using or threatening
the use of deadly force, while armed with a deadly weapon, or
if the commission of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the
victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined
in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in
IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victimwas furnished with the
drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge.
(c) It is a defense that the accused person reasonably believed that
the child was at least sixteen (16) years of age at the time of the
conduct. However, this subsection does not apply to an offense
described in subsection (a)(2) or (b)(2).
(d) It is a defense that the child is or has ever been married.
However, this subsection does not apply to an offense described in
subsection (a)(2) or (b)(2).
(e) It is a defense to a prosecution under this section if all the
following apply:
(1) The person is not more than four (4) years older than the
victim.
(2) The relationship between the person and the victim was a
dating relationship or an ongoing personal relationship. The
term "ongoing personal relationship" does not include a family
relationship.
(3) The crime:
(A) was not committed by a person who is at least
twenty-one (21) years of age;
(B) was not committed by using or threatening the use of
deadly force;
(C) was not committed while armed with a deadly weapon;
(D) did not result in serious bodily injury;
(E) was not facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the
victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in
IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in
IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with
the drug or controlled substance without the victim's
knowledge; and
(F) was not committed by a person having a position of
authority or substantial influence over the victim.
(4) The person has not committed another sex offense (as
defined in IC 11-8-8-5.2) (including a delinquent act that would
be a sex offense if committed by an adult) against any other
person.
As added by P.L.79-1994, SEC.15. Amended by P.L.33-1996, SEC.9;
P.L.216-1996, SEC.21; P.L.31-1998, SEC.8; P.L.266-2003, SEC.1;
P.L.216-2007, SEC.45.
Legal theory does not absolution bring. A girl effectively 17 years old is a child only in the eyes of the court. Not in the eyes of God. And she is responsible for her sin.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,397
- Reaction score
- 2,411
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
The questions sword raised were:
a) whether such a relationship would be legal between a pastor and an adult woman; and also
b) a mild correction on the age of sexual consent in Indiana, for the sake of precision.
In terms of the specific law I cited, you may be right. However, in finding that specific statute, I came across multiple Indiana law sites that said, generally, that the 16-year-old age of consent did not apply when one partner was in a position of authority over the other. That prohibition actually comes from Ind. Code 35-42-4-7. (Which does not specifically indicate clergymen, so far as I can tell, but I think such could be reasonably inferred.)
So I think my point stands: a 16-year-old can consent to sex with an adult, but not if the adult is in a position of authority or influence over her.
The point is moot anyway, since Schaap was convicted under the Mann Act, which does not recognize Indiana's age of consent. Even if the relationship was not criminal, he committed a federal crime by trafficking a minor across state lines.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,397
- Reaction score
- 2,411
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Legal facts are not always actual facts? e.g. innocence? victimhood? Someone had to. Good thing I came along.
Again, that law in 2012 did not even include the word "authority" as it does now, so using google to search IC for authority is not helping you.
IC 35-42-4-7
Child seduction
Sec. 7.
(a) As used in this section, "adoptive parent" has the
meaning set forth in IC 31-9-2-6.
(b) As used in this section, "adoptive grandparent" means the
parent of an adoptive parent.
(c) As used in this section, "charter school" has the meaning set
forth in IC 20-18-2-2.5.
(d) As used in this section, "child care worker" means a person
who:
(1) provides care, supervision, or instruction to a child within
the scope of the person's employment in a shelter care facility;
(2) is employed by a:
(A) school corporation;
(B) charter school;
(C) nonpublic school; or
(D) special education cooperative;
attended by a child who is the victim of a crime under this
chapter; or
(3) is:
(A) affiliated with a:
(i) school corporation;
(ii) charter school;
(iii) nonpublic school; or
(iv) special education cooperative;
attended by a child who is the victim of a crime under this
chapter, regardless of how or whether the person is
compensated;
(B) in a position of trust in relation to a child who attends
the school or cooperative;
(C) engaged in the provision of care or supervision to a child
who attends the school or cooperative; and
(D) at least four (4) years older than the child who is the
victim of a crime under this chapter.
The term does not include a student who attends the school or
cooperative.
(e) As used in this section, "custodian" means any person who
resides with a child and is responsible for the child's welfare.
(f) As used in this section, "military recruiter" means a member
of the armed forces of the United States (as defined in
IC 20-33-10-2) or the Indiana National Guard whose primary job
function, classification, or specialty is recruiting individuals to enlist
with the armed forces of the United States or the Indiana National
Guard.
(g) As used in this section, "nonpublic school" has the meaning
set forth in IC 20-18-2-12.
(h) As used in this section, "school corporation" has the meaning
set forth in IC 20-18-2-16.
(i) As used in this section, "special education cooperative" has the
meaning set forth in IC 20-35-5-1.
(j) As used in this section, "stepparent" means an individual who
is married to a child's custodial or noncustodial parent and is not the
child's adoptive parent.
(k) If a person who:
(1) is at least eighteen (18) years of age; and
(2) is:
(A) the:
(i) guardian, adoptive parent, adoptive grandparent,
custodian, or stepparent of; or
(ii) child care worker for; or
(B) a military recruiter who is attempting to enlist;
a child at least sixteen (16) years of age but less than eighteen
(18) years of age;
engages with the child in sexual intercourse, deviate sexual conduct
(as defined in IC 35-41-1-9), or any fondling or touching with the
intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the
adult, the person commits child seduction, a Class D felony.
As added by P.L.158-1987, SEC.4. Amended by P.L.1-1997,
SEC.148; P.L.71-1998, SEC.5; P.L.228-2001, SEC.5; P.L.161-2003,
SEC.10; P.L.1-2005, SEC.228; P.L.125-2009, SEC.7.
Child seduction
Sec. 7.
(a) As used in this section, "adoptive parent" has the
meaning set forth in IC 31-9-2-6.
(b) As used in this section, "adoptive grandparent" means the
parent of an adoptive parent.
(c) As used in this section, "charter school" has the meaning set
forth in IC 20-18-2-2.5.
(d) As used in this section, "child care worker" means a person
who:
(1) provides care, supervision, or instruction to a child within
the scope of the person's employment in a shelter care facility;
(2) is employed by a:
(A) school corporation;
(B) charter school;
(C) nonpublic school; or
(D) special education cooperative;
attended by a child who is the victim of a crime under this
chapter; or
(3) is:
(A) affiliated with a:
(i) school corporation;
(ii) charter school;
(iii) nonpublic school; or
(iv) special education cooperative;
attended by a child who is the victim of a crime under this
chapter, regardless of how or whether the person is
compensated;
(B) in a position of trust in relation to a child who attends
the school or cooperative;
(C) engaged in the provision of care or supervision to a child
who attends the school or cooperative; and
(D) at least four (4) years older than the child who is the
victim of a crime under this chapter.
The term does not include a student who attends the school or
cooperative.
(e) As used in this section, "custodian" means any person who
resides with a child and is responsible for the child's welfare.
(f) As used in this section, "military recruiter" means a member
of the armed forces of the United States (as defined in
IC 20-33-10-2) or the Indiana National Guard whose primary job
function, classification, or specialty is recruiting individuals to enlist
with the armed forces of the United States or the Indiana National
Guard.
(g) As used in this section, "nonpublic school" has the meaning
set forth in IC 20-18-2-12.
(h) As used in this section, "school corporation" has the meaning
set forth in IC 20-18-2-16.
(i) As used in this section, "special education cooperative" has the
meaning set forth in IC 20-35-5-1.
(j) As used in this section, "stepparent" means an individual who
is married to a child's custodial or noncustodial parent and is not the
child's adoptive parent.
(k) If a person who:
(1) is at least eighteen (18) years of age; and
(2) is:
(A) the:
(i) guardian, adoptive parent, adoptive grandparent,
custodian, or stepparent of; or
(ii) child care worker for; or
(B) a military recruiter who is attempting to enlist;
a child at least sixteen (16) years of age but less than eighteen
(18) years of age;
engages with the child in sexual intercourse, deviate sexual conduct
(as defined in IC 35-41-1-9), or any fondling or touching with the
intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the
adult, the person commits child seduction, a Class D felony.
As added by P.L.158-1987, SEC.4. Amended by P.L.1-1997,
SEC.148; P.L.71-1998, SEC.5; P.L.228-2001, SEC.5; P.L.161-2003,
SEC.10; P.L.1-2005, SEC.228; P.L.125-2009, SEC.7.
There was internal discussion of using this since Schaap was the chancellor of the schools, but the relationship happened after permanent expulsion, so there was little chance of getting it charged since the law states explicitly "attended by."
As I have stated several times before (here or in the previous forum; I don't recall which one), there was nothing in the Indiana Code that he could have been charged with. That is why his plea agreement does not reference a specific statute but does mention specific Michigan and Illinois laws. The intimate image law or pornography law would not apply either if your next plan is to try to use that as distribution or dissemination did not take place.
The point of this law is if a couple is dating lets say 17 and 19 and he is not in a position of authority that is very different than lets say a 50 years old man who is the bos of a 17 year olg girl and he coerces or pressures her into a relationship.
Ignoring the morality for a min., I feel a couple who are just a couple years apart, and in an on going relationship, should be a very different situation legally.
In Gods eyes, unless they are married it's still wrong.
This is the very heart of laws defining what is commonly referred to as "statutory rape." In fact, it does not matter if it were the minor who "coerces or pressures" the adult into a relationship -- which has occurred. It's "rape" by the adult as set forth by statute. The circumstances, i.e., their feelings, dedications, motives, etc., are of no import.
This is why the statute is written as it is. It recognizes that a 15 year old may be dating a 19 year old and that would not be a crime.
Absolutely. Which is a point I made in an earlier post. While the adult is LEGALLY liable, the actions of a 15 or 16 year old (who generally understands moral concepts of sex outside of marriage) may be responsible to God, the righteous judge of all.