Based on the detailed information the two boys gave, it sounds like they were trying to get someone specific in trouble. Sounds like a revenge type of accusation, to me at least. This isn't our usual kind of story, but based on the statement by the boys that the girl was screaming "Help! Rape! Rape!", I decided to post this.
And sad to say, I left the misspellings of the word "juveniles" as they appeared in the story. Haven't news organizations ever heard of spell check?
2 boys falsely claim they witness a kidnapping.
LORAIN — Lorain police say an abduction reported by two juvenilles on Friday was made up.
According to Lorain Police Detective Sgt. Mark McCoy, two boys told police they saw a 14-year-old girl yell “Help! Rape! Rape!” and then run from a vehicle. They told police she was chased by a man with a gun and forced back into the vehicle.
The juvenilles also told police the man began chasing them, according to a police report.
McCoy said police were put off by an extraordinary amount of detail the two witnesses were able to remember, including a description of rings the suspect was wearing, specific tattoos, a scar on the victim’s cheek and the car’s missing a muffler.
“We all kind of thought this was an incredible amount of information,” McCoy said. “It was very unusual from our perspective.”
The two boys admitted to fabricating the story when called back for a second interview with police, McCoy said.
No charges have been filed against the boys yet, but McCoy said charges are likely.
See Wednesday’s edition of The Morning Journal for more on this story.
Link:
http://www.morningjournal.com/articles/2010/04/20/news/doc4bcdd307ec800360376150.txt
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
36 comments:
Lock them up and throw away the key. These boys are worthless.
It is likely they will be charged.
I see...
So if you are a 20 or 29 year old woman who falsely accuses guys of rape and makes them indure a year of hell and 3 million in legal fees or time in jail like the Duke and Hofstra case there is no charges.
BUT if you are 14 year old boys who hurt no one with their lies then there are charges.
Children raised in the "New Matriarchy", are the fattest, greediest, and selfishest children in the world. These are called "Matriarchal Values".
As long as they're boys, they will be punished. Thank you, America.
BUT if you are 14 year old boys who hurt no one with their lies then there are charges.
***
They hurt MEN with their lies. No mercy for these punks.
I'm curious as to who taught them to lie about something such as this. IMHO, this is more proof why it is dangerous for grown men to be anywhere within sight of children. As soon as my time with the military is up, I'm expatrating and moving somewhere where there are no children or anyone else who can claim to be a victim and have my life harmed or ended.
Why no scholarship or book deal????
How come they are not "troubled" and must not be charged?????
Who cares? I celebrate every time a false rape accuser gets nailed.
If anything they are even worse because they are boys, who owe their loyalty to their fellow men.
"If anything they are even worse because they are boys, who owe their loyalty to their fellow men."
Sorry, but that comment strikes me as kind of silly.
It would, to someone who doesn't take false rape accusations seriously.
Incidentally, what makes you think that the idea that men need to be on the side of men is silly? The feminists certainly have no problem believing that women need to be on the side of women. To them it's just common sense.
Do you believe that men do not have an obligation to support other men?
The last thing we need to do is to ever defend men or boys who have committed false rape accusations. That is not only the ultimate crime, it is treason against men. It is never forgiveable.
Those boys could have sent an innocent man to prison for the rest of his life.
Who is being "Empowered" by the Rape hysteria of the last 10-15 years??
"The feminists certainly have no problem believing that women need to be on the side of women. To them it's just common sense."
Exactly.
Rape hysteria and domestic violence hysteria has served its purpose..It has "Empowered" the white middle class Gender/Raunch community.
Come on people, you "know" children never lie.
Fri, Apr 30 2010WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Murders and auto thefts fell sharply in the United States in 2009, extending the downward trend in violent and property crimes, according to preliminary statistics released by the FBI on Monday.
U.S.
It was the third straight annual decline in violent crimes and seventh straight annual decline for property crimes, which occurred despite a weak economy, which is often linked to spikes in criminal activity.
Each region of the country experienced a drop in crime, with the southern United States experiencing the largest decline -- a 6.6 percent drop -- according to the FBI.
It did not provide a reason for the overall decline, which came as the economy started to show signs of growth after one of the worst recessions since the Great Depression. Experts and politicians often link a sour economy with higher crime.
Murders fell 7.2 percent, while forcible rapes decreased 3.1 percent. Cities with 500,000 to 999,999 inhabitants saw violent crime, which also includes manslaughter and robbery, drop the most among city groupings, down 7.5 percent.
There was an increase in the number of murders in cities with populations of 25,000 to 49,999, jumping 5.3 percent. Additionally nonmetropolitan counties experienced a small increase as well, up 1.8 percent, the statistics showed.
In the nonviolent crime category, motor vehicle theft dropped 17.2 percent, while burglaries fell 1.7 percent, according to the preliminary figures released by the FBI. Arson also fell 10.4 percent in 2009.
(Reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky, editing by David Alexander and Paul Simao)
U.S.
It also happened in spite of declining prison budgets. Obviously there are factors influencing crime rates that have nothing to do with locking up criminals.
Notice how rape goes down along with everything else -- if there was a vast pool of unreported rapes that probably wouldn't happen. If that was the case then the rape reporting rate should be very volatile.
"Notice how rape goes down along with everything else -- if there was a vast pool of unreported rapes that probably wouldn't happen."
The probability of a given prevalence of un-reporting isn't dependent the number of rapes reported. The number of unreported rapes could have gone down as well.
"If that was the case then the rape reporting rate should be very volatile."
That isn't true either.
Yes, it is true. The fact (try looking that word up!) that rape reporting goes up or down in small, predictable ways proves that there is a very close correlation between rape reporting and the actual number of rapes.
I'm tired of know-nothings coming in here and blowing smoke without ever posting anything to back it up. There is such a thing as facts, and that is one of them.
But the number of unreported rapes probably has gone down as well. The problem is that supports what I just said, it doesn't contradict it.
"I'm tired of know-nothings coming in here and blowing smoke without ever posting anything to back it up. There is such a thing as facts, and that is one of them."
First off, you need to turn it down a notch.
Secondly, that isn't what "correlation" means.
Thirdly, regardless what the percentage of reporting is, whether it is 1% or 99%, if the number of total rapes changes by a small percentage, then the number of reported rapes would change by a small percentage. The math on this is easy.
For example, if 100,000 reports are 10% of 1,000,000 rapes, and the number of rapes goes down 5% to 950,000 rapes, then that's 95,000 reports, a change of 5%. If 100,000 reports are 90% of 111,000 rapes, and the number of rapes goes down 5% to 105,000 rapes, then that's 95,000 reports, a change of 5%. In both cases the reported number of rapes is the same, so it doesn't tell us how many are unreported.
For example, if 100,000 reports are 10% of 1,000,000 rapes, and the number of rapes goes down 5% to 950,000 rapes, then that's 95,000 reports, a change of 5%.
*****
No, you don't get it. The point is that there would be no reason for the percentage to stay the same over time, if there is such a large pool of unreported rapes. It would change, and even small changes would generate huge swings in the number of reported rapes.
Let's take that figure of 1,000,000 real rapes, and let's say that in 2009 100,000 rapes were reported -- 10%. (In case anybody gets confused at this point -- THESE ARE NOT THE REAL NUMBERS; WE ARE DISCUSSING A HYPOTHETICAL.)
To keep this simple, let's suppose that the number of real rapes remains stable (as it most likely does): in 2010 there are another 1,000,000 real rapes.
But since there is nothing carved in stone causing that 10% figure to stay the same (why the hell would it?), let's say that this year there is a slight shift: instead of only 10% of rapes being reported, 9% are reported, or 11%.
That 1% change is miniscule, assuming such a large pool of unreported rapes. But the effect on the rate of reporting is drastic. This year, there will either be 10% more or fewer rapes reported, because of a very slight shift.
It's like putting a small boat on the ocean: the waves will be much bigger, and the impact on the boat far greater. But if the boat was on a medium sized lake, the waves will be smaller and changes caused by them much more modest.
Rape reporting rates don't change that much. This year they are a couple of percentage points lower. Why don't they change more dramatically? The reasonable interpretation is that there really aren't that many unreported rapes; therefore when the rate of reporting drops slightly, that means that the overall number of rapes has dropped with it.
With a huge pool of unreported rapes, the numbers would be far less well-behaved. The real number of rapes would change slowly, but the rate of reporting could jump wildly from year to year.
Why doesn't that happen, if the feminist claims about only 1 in 12 rapes being reported are true?
I'll repeat this point: to explain the numbers, the percentage of rapes not being reported would have to remain almost exactly the same, over a very long period of time.
That just isn't very likely.
There is no Rape crisis epidemic of unreported rapes, But by saying there is..it is "Empowering" to the Gender / Raunch community.
This would seem silly if it were not the truth!!
"To keep this simple, let's suppose that the number of real rapes remains stable (as it most likely does): in 2010 there are another 1,000,000 real rapes.
But since there is nothing carved in stone causing that 10% figure to stay the same (why the hell would it?)"
There is nothing "carved in stone", but just like "the number of real rapes remains stable", there aren't double-digit percent changes in the number of murders or parking tickets from year to year either.
"let's say that this year there is a slight shift: instead of only 10% of rapes being reported, 9% are reported, or 11%. That 1% change is miniscule"
But that's not a 1% change, that's a 10% change, in both the rate of reporting (10%/11%)) and the resulting number of reports (100,000/110,000). A 1% change of 10% is 10.1% or 9.9%.
"assuming such a large pool of unreported rapes. But the effect on the rate of reporting is drastic. This year, there will either be 10% more or fewer rapes reported, because of a very slight shift."
No, there would be 10% more rapes reported, because of a 10% increase in the rate of reporting. Which is not a very slight shift. If 100,000 reports was 50% of 200,000, then a 10% increase in the reporting rate would be 55% or 110,000 reports. Which is still 10% more rapes reported. So it's not dependent on reporting rate (or the size of the "pool").
"Rape reporting rates don't change that much. This year they are a couple of percentage points lower."
You seem to be confusing terms. We don't know what the rape reporting rate is, but I agree that it wouldn't change that much from year to year.
No, there would be 10% more rapes reported, because of a 10% increase in the rate of reporting. Which is not a very slight shift.
***
It would be a slight shift relative to the overall number of rapes. I am not confusing terms at all here.
The vast, vast unreported pool of rapes would be the ocean, while the reporting would be the small boat floating on the ocean. It would be a tiny and wildly varying sample of data coming out of a very large data set.
"It would be a slight shift relative to the overall number of rapes. I am not confusing terms at all here."
You are confusing rates with quantities.
"The vast, vast unreported pool of rapes would be the ocean, while the reporting would be the small boat floating on the ocean. It would be a tiny and wildly varying sample of data coming out of a very large data set."
Putting aside that's not what "data set" means, there is no reason to believe that "small boat" isn't relatively stable.
Let me put it another way, if there are 90K rapes out of a population of 300M (a vast pool of potential victims) that's .03%. If we add your "slight shift" of 1%, that's 1.03%, or roughly 34 times the number of rapes.
Regardless whether there are 100,000 reports out of 1,000,000 or 100,000 out of 200,00, whether they are 10% likely or 50% likely, that's the way people behave. The size of "pool" is irrelevant. A billion times a year, people might feel like kicking someone's ass, but the number of assaults doesn't fluctuate wildly. Far fewer would have a reason to kidnap someone, but that number isn't any less stable.
You still don't get it.
Yes, the number of overall rapes will change by only a slight amount each year. But there is no reason for the rate of reporting to remain the same rock solid percentage year upon year -- if there really is a vast pool of unreported rapes.
This is getting tedious, and I'm about to give up; lately it seems that the more obvious and common sensical something is the harder it is to convince anybody of it on this blog. But I'll try one last time.
Contrary to what you just said, a small data sample is going to have far more variance than a large one. If you are sampling from a huge data set (and "data set" just means "a collection of information," such as the numbers that would describe of all of the rapes that occur in the United States) then your sample is less likely to be representative.
Why anybody would find this idea to be confusing is beyond me; the factors that influence reporting rates are going to impact everybody who is raped, not just the ones who actually report it. For example, if there is a high profile rape trial that results in acquital, victims *may* (for example) be slightly less likely to report as a result.
That does not mean that the number of reported rapes will change by a small amount, though. Even slight changes in the likelihood of reporting would cause a vast shift in the number of reported rapes, if there really is such a large pool of unreported rapes.
Similarly, if there are high speed winds, you're in a lot more trouble if you are sailing on the ocean than if you're on a lake.
But fine, go ahead and argue against the obvious. Frankly I'm tired of this discussion.
Here, I'll try one more time. Forget the analogy of the small boat being on the ocean. Instead, imagine there is an old fisherman, whose livelihood involves fishing on a lake using a net.
The net is old and worn out, so a lot of fish slip through it. On a typical day, the old man catches 100 fish -- but he only manages to keep 8 of them because the rest slip through the holes in his net.
Naturally, he doesn't get 8 every single day. There is variance. Some days he gets 8, some 7, on others he is lucky and gets 9.
Similarly, he doesn't always catch 100 fish/day year in and year old. Some years, due to changes in the total number of fish in the lake, he only gets about 97/day, and in other years he gets 103. (The lake isn't what it used to be! Back in the good old days he used to catch 250/day, but back to our story.)
Here is the point: how many fish he catches AND KEEPS has more to do with how many fish he can pull out of the net than with how many fish are actually in the lake. The number of fish in the lake changes little from year to year.
But very slight changes in the quality of his net would have a dramatic impact on the number of fish he kept. If his net was a mere 2% better or worse, that would mean 2 more or fewer fish per day -- a change of 25%!
The portion of fish in the lake is the rate of real rapes, the net is the rate of rape reporting, and changes in the quality of the net are changes in the rate of rape reporting.
Correction: these numbers presume that feminist claims about the rates of rape reporting are true. My assertion is that they are not.
As we know, the "old man" catches almost exactly the same number of fish year in and year out. If he really is using a worn-out old net -- in other words, a very low rate of rape reporting -- then you would expect the number of fish he gets to keep to change much more dramatically.
It is very likely that in reality, a 3% drop in rape reporting really does mean that real rapes have fallen by 3%, and that the number of unreported rapes is far, far lower than the feminists claim. That would be much more consistent with a common sense interpretation of the data.
"You still don't get it."
What I get is you want to believe something shows something it doesn't, and are able to believe it because you have poor math skills.
"Yes, the number of overall rapes will change by only a slight amount each year. But there is no reason for the rate of reporting to remain the same rock solid percentage year upon year -- if there really is a vast pool of unreported rapes."
You have it backwards. A vast "pool" of unreported rapes does not mean that the rate of reporting wouldn't be stable. Just like a large population of potential rapists does not mean the rate of rape wouldn't be stable.
"Contrary to what you just said, a small data sample is going to have far more variance than a large one. If you are sampling"
No, I did not say that because there is no sampling. Please stop using words you don't know.
"Even slight changes in the likelihood of reporting would cause a vast shift in the number of reported rapes, if there really is such a large pool of unreported rapes."
Again, you are confusing rates with quantities. A 1% change in the likelihood of reporting would cause a 1% change in the number of reports.
"But very slight changes in the quality of his net would have a dramatic impact on the number of fish he kept. If his net was a mere 2% better or worse, that would mean 2 more or fewer fish per day -- a change of 25%!"
No, a net that catches 25% more fish would be 25% better.
Again, you are confusing rates with quantities. A 1% change in the likelihood of reporting would cause a 1% change in the number of reports.
****
Now I know just how dumb as fuck you are -- so stupid that simple terms such as "sampling" and "date set" completely befuddle you. If you literally can't understand what a sample is or that a 1% change in reporting would cause a large change in the number of reports if there was a vast pool of unreported rapes then I've obviously been wasting my time.
I'd sure hate to see you trying to eat with a fork! Oh-- and don't worry about MY math skills...
I'll repeat that quote, since it wins the short bus championship:
"Again, you are confusing rates with quantities. A 1% change in the likelihood of reporting would cause a 1% change in the number of reports."
I sure wish the short bus didn't stop at this blog, but apparently it does. This is just like saying that an 11% slice of a pie is 1% larger than a 10% slice.
What this feminist tool just said is literally impossible -- even if the rape reporting rate was 99% a 1% increase would still cause a greater than 1% increase in the number of reported rapes.
May 27, 2010 1:11:00 PM
May 27, 2010 2:19:00 PM
Could this commenter actually be that stupid? It doesn't make sense that someone who even in a misguided way seems to support the falsely accused would deliberately troll this site.
Lol!
Post a Comment