Megan Partin is like a lot of young women, she likes to smoke a little pot, have a few drinks and take pictures with her camera phone. Like many pot heads her judgment is often impaired which may have factored into the types of pictures police found on the Louisiana party girl’s phone:
GONZALES — A 19-year-old Gonzales woman was arrested on sex-related counts involving a boy under 7 years of age, Police Chief Bill Landry said Friday.
Megan N. Partin, 42157 Conifer Drive, was booked with possession of child pornography, indecent behavior with a juvenile, two counts of molestation of a juvenile and contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile, Landry said.
Partin initially was arrested March 11 and booked with possession of marijuana. But during that arrest, her cell phone camera confirmed drug use, Landry said.
Officers obtained a search warrant to examine the contents of the cell phone and discovered “explicit videos involving the boy,†Landry said.
Another innocent pot smoker minding their own business. In the Dreamin’ Demon forums it was mentioned that it’s unusual behavior for a pretty young 19 year old to molest a young boy and film it. It’s almost as if there was something in her life altering her perceptions and subtly changing her ability to distinguish between right and wrong.
Partin has a MySpace in which she presents herself as a typical Hot Topic gangsta’, replete with blog posts about how she’s a “real bitch” which stand in stark contrast to the almost professional pictures of her in tasteful black and white or posing in her prom dress. Interspersed throughout are references to her drinking and drugging.
It seems like such a normal MySpace page for a normal young girl, typical of any teen. But Megan isn’t typical is she? Megan filmed herself sexually assaulting a boy under seven and kept the film on her phone, to watch repeatedly, perhaps to share with others. Why? What was she thinking?
I’d put forward that after a few weeks, or months or years, of drug use she wasn’t thinking anything. Megan is a recent graduate who seems to spend most of her time partying. She’s also troubled, to say the least, a woman who at 19 is already acting out the most depraved of acts on the most innocent of victims. What drives her we will probably never know, but we do know that she was the last person in the world who needed her inhibitions lowered.
She is clearly not the type of person who needs to smoke pot.
Megan Partin is a monster. I don’t now whether her pot smoking simply hastened her descent into this madness or if drug use brought to the fore some malignancy she would have otherwise suppressed. But what I do know is that there are very few nineteen year old girls filming themselves raping six year olds. Fewer still keep the videos on their cell phones.
The one we do know of likes her weed.
Mr. Rob Taylor,
I stand corrected Mr. Taylor, and grant you my deepest apologies on the false allegations sent forth on the misinterpretations delivered by myself. I was confused with some of the other articles read pertaining to this particular case, as well as some of the others blog post to your site. I have been to the other sites, but as you could imagine, they have no truth or any basis of, for that matter. This is why I show so much attention to your blog material.
As stated in my first blog, I know that you can see my IP address, that is just fine by me. I know all about tracking IP’s, I have done a lot of work on networking and computer software, as well as programming. Your abilities do not scare me, what worries me is that someone of your with your education level would degrade these less intelligent individuals, by calling them names as though you were some sort of 12-year old texting peer in some sort of rival.
I do not know what your point was when you stated that you could see my IP address, but if you could explain I would be more than happy to read it. The anger that you show to people commenting you seems to fuel some sort of void. I personally like you calling me names; it speaks of your character quite well.
I completely understand your compassion to this particular case. I have a Godson, hope the name God is not offensive to anyone, that I love dearly and if anything of this nature would happen to him I would be angered, but only after the truth was revealed. You see, the world is full of jealousy and impressionable people, and if everyone would believe what they heard all the time, then we would probably have no United States. Rather an Un-united States, because a second Civil War would have us divided because of bigotry, racism, and critical dilemma’s that we face in the world.
I am not slamming you, and do not mean to degrade you in any way shape or form, and I apologize if I have. I am only human seeking out questions for things that I have questions about.
A couple questions that I do have, in which you might be able to help me with are as follow:
1) Do you have any children? And if so have you ever taken a “cute” picture of them in their or his/her diaper, or possibly naked?
2) If you do not have any children, but you have a really close friend that has children, in which you are not related to but have an understanding bond with and you take a “cute” picture of, and are caught with that picture, should you face five to twenty years of your life in jail just because you have more love for the child than that of the parent?
By no means am I justifying drug use and or child molestation. Its when that is not the case and an individual, like Partin, is striving to better herself after a mistake that she made months ago, and is now facing imprisonment for what she thought was a “cute” video or picture. I have personally seen the pictures as well as the video in question, and there is no proof that she ever made any inappropriate contact with the child. I know what your defense to this will be Mr. Taylor, I am high or drunk aren’t I? But that is not the case, I am completely sober and have no intentions on touching a kid inappropriately, so you can save your key strokes on that one. It would have been a good defense if you were not so predictable, but in your defense on most things, not all, someone is high or on some sort of chemical trip.
As stated by you, “the parents of the child should probably get a visit from social service.” This is the most intelligent and factual based comment made on this site. If Ms. Partin was actually guilty of the charges brought against her, and the evidence was more concrete wouldn’t the family have gotten a visit already, which would have been aired on some sort of television, radio station, and/or even in the ever-so believed advocate?
As you iterated in one of your initial blog posts, this is an opinion based blog, and you should probably lighten up a bit. Lets face it, everything in this blog are opinions, therefore you should not take what these people say so personal, nor should you feel intimidated by people, like Jon, who you no longer allow to express his opinion. It seems as though the only opinion you want you to hear is your own.
Sincerely,
Troll (Good name, did you look it up in the dictionary)
If you know what the pictures are by all means describe them. Explain why police would think innocent pictures are grounds for both indecent behavior with a child and molestation of a child. In most states, though I admit to not being sure about LA, molestation charges are filled when physical contact occurs. Are you saying the police are lying about there being molestation in this case?
And no, I have no kids, and yes, if I thought a picture of a child was too provocative, if I thought it indicated molestation I’d gladly see my friend or family member go to jail. There is no excuse for molesting children and it helps no one to forgive people who do.
Who’s Jon? The only people I have banned from this blog are people who are outrageously vulgar or people using my comments to promote spam sites.There was a guy who called my wife a very disrespectful name. Those were both in different threads. What have they to do with this thread?
Troll is a common term meaning someone who comes to a blog to argue. Troll as in trolling for attention. You fit the definition. It’s amusing that, even after all your wild accusations you think I’m inhibiting people from posting.
Just another way to keep the argument going?
Mr. Rob Taylor,
I am by no means arguing with you, like I said I’m seeking answers to questions that I have. While seeking these answers I’m giving you little tid-bits of truth to see your reaction. Jon, in case you do not read your thread, was what seemed to be an educated man, stated law facts and things of such. You did ban him, and if he disrespected your wife, then that is a good enough reason for me.
Also, I never said that the police lied or were lying, that is you throwing words in to my mouth, what I was implying is that they maybe interpreted what they had seen in the wrong manor, much like what you are doing to my last post. I am not here to start argument if I were I would not have apologized to you.
If you have ever studied criminal justice though, which you probably have at least taken some basic courses in; you would know that prosecutors as well as law officials will “charge” a suspected criminal with anything that could be in question in order to get a conviction on at least one charge. That is all that I’m stating.
As I stated before, she never touched the child in the video that she had, nor had anything in the video that gave them grounds to charge her with the child molestation. The only thing that I believe that they could even remotely have a chance at charging her with, if even, would be the count of child pornography. This would not hold up if the family of the child would step forth and defend what is morally right, which is Ms. Partin’s innocence. Instead, they probably fear retaliation by the cops for having the child in an inappropriate atmosphere, which is more than likely what is going to happen.
And yes, I fully agree, that if I knew someone or knew of someone that would touch a child in a vulgar, inappropriate, or molesting manner than I would have them booked as well. I believe that this is not the case though.
Thanks for clearing up the troll statement though; I am unfamiliar with blogger terminology. I first thought that you were calling me a mythical creature that behaves in a violent manner.
Thanks,
Tyson
I’m sure Taylor would remove this webpage if Megan is found not guilty of the charges. Tyson sounds confident that that’s what will happen in the end, so it will be his responsibility to send proof of her acquittal when the trial ends. In the meantime, why can’t he tell us how she plead? Why can’t he tell us when the trial begins or whether it already has? For all we know, Megan could already have plead guilty to the charges and now waits for sentencing.
Fuck her…and fuck her cousin. She should be hung from the nipples and have her snapper sewn shut. Or maybe one of those clitorectemys they do in muslim countries?
Jail is too good for her hot little ass.
Mr. Joseph,
Well said, I’m glad you are so intellectual, and your vocabulary is so extensive, why wouldn’t everyone in the world take your side. Your sentencing options here astound me. Maybe you should be a lawyer, prosecutor, or even the judge. In fact I’m asking myself right now: why isn’t this Joseph character running for president? Because I think you may be on to something. As for your wide spread vocabulary, where did you learn to speak like that; Harvard, Yale, etc. It amazes me how you have no idea about what is going on here, much like alot of other people, but yet you proceed to share your idiocracy with us, and I personally, would like to thank you.
Thanks for the well written blog.
Tyson
For the past few months I have sat back and read these posts quietly. I have tried to contain myself and refrain from dignifying any of these comments with a reply. After reading Joseph’s post, however, I feel compelled to respond. If my daughter were guilty of these charges Joseph I would whole-heartedly agree with your point of view, although not your methods. Actual child molesters should be dealt with in the most severe manner allowed by the law. What I want you all to know is that Megan never touched the child in this video. Nor did this child touch her in any way. This was told to me by a detective investigating the case. The parent of the child in question has assured me that she knows nothing inappropriate transpired between my child and hers.She has made that known to investigators that have spoken with her. An attorney not affiliated with the case shared with me that in his eyes this is not a molestation case, nor a child pornography case. A case of drug-induced stupidity – yes. We are dealing with the drug issues. I am trusting the system for the rest of these issues to be resolved.
I am certain that many of you will now feel free to crucify me as you have my child repeatedly over the past months. You can say anything about me that you wish. Until my daughter is found guilty in a court of law of these charges, however, I will ask you to please keep your opinions about her to yourselves. I will most likely not respond to any further comments.
Mr. Taylor – I am respectfully asking you to remove your page.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Partin
Your daughter is charged with very serious (and very public) offenses which even you admit are largely due to drug abuse. This story serves as a warning to other potential drug abusers of what can happen when they, or their children, are allowed to carte blanche to act out with no regard for the law or morality. It also is a powerful answer to those people who pretend people smoking pot are harmless.
It’s unfortunate that you have to see the reaction to your daughter’s perfidy; on the other hand you’ve not publicly corrected the record. Megan Partin, by your own comments admission, at the very least was getting high around children. Is it really crucifixion for people to be angry about that? Is Megan the victim here? Are you?
I won’t be removing this page or any other. If you have evidence that the police over reacted and there was no child exploitation we’d be glad to hear it. However the fact that you are offended by the random comment on the blog is not a reason for me to remove this post.
“Megan N. Partin, 42157 Conifer Drive, was booked with possession of child pornography, indecent behavior with a juvenile, two counts of molestation of a juvenile and contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile”
So how does one molest (twice) without touching? Are these the charges those pesky, meddling police have all wrong? I can see the indecent behavior if she simply did a strip tease or lap dance in front of the kid and the child pornography if the kid can be seen watching on the video. That would be the equivalent of a man waving his pen0r in front of a little girl on video. If that is the case, then she should do some time in prison the same way a man most definitely would. Oh, and what’s with the contributing to the delinquency of a minor thing all about? Was she getting the kid high or giving him alcohol?
Not to worry… if she does end up going to prison for any length of time, she will be well protected. Megan would be considered a trophy wife by just about any jail-butch standard. Just don’t be suprised if she leaves the place whistling Indigo Girl tunes.
This page is a fine example of how this kind of sensationalist reporting can get out of hand. Pointing out the follies of drug abuse is one thing, but gratuitous mocking, threats of genital mutilation, and wishing that an accused person be raped or tortured in prison is totally irresponsible behavior. Any real professional reporter with a modicum of ethics would have moderated out all these hateful irrelevant comments that have nothing to do with people “learning any kind of lesson.”
And at the beginning of the article the author acts as if Megan is guilty of all the charges. This means he has no appreciation of an American citizen’s Constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, which also means he is entirely unqualified to judge the accused person or her family. People who are summoned for jury duty, and who are found through examination not to have an appreciation of the principle of being innocent until proven guilty, are dismissed from jury duty at the outset. This is why you are wholly unqualified to pass judgment on her, Mr. Taylor. Have some standards, sir.
Mwork are you high?
1) If you cared about American citizen’s Constitutional rights you wouldn’t want me to delete comments you don’t like. The Red Alerts policy is to only delete comments that are serious death threats against or are in such poor taste that they would be offensive to 100% of readers. I have left comments up that contained death threats against me, racist insults against me and even ones that claim I’m an illuminati spy. Those things are hurtful but because the First Amendment, and open public debate, is so important I let them stand.
2) This isn’t a jury, it’s a blog. Everyone here is qualified to make their own personal judgments based on public news reports. You and your Partin lovers (many of whom still post from the same couple of I.P. addresses) seem to think that we should take your word for it that Partin is innocent and provide no conclusive evidence beyond claiming “some one told you” she was innocent. As Voula said, the authorities charged her with crimes that preclude the idea that she basically had some innocent pic on her cell phone. So what you are really saying is that the Gonzales LA police are corrupt bunglers setting up your innocent pot smoking little girl.
Have the guts to say that. And have the guts to say it to the newspapers that would no doubt jump all over a story where people accused the local cops of being dirty. Such a story would even end up widely circulated on the crime blogs, including this one. Why won’t you guys go on record saying this girl’s being railroaded by corrupt system?
3) Speaking of other crime blogs, why are you guys bothering me and not Dreamin’ Demon and the other crime blogs that ran this story? Did you already get banned there or are you too high to follow the links in the story?
The First Amendment concerns government abridging free speech, not private entities like websites. You have the right to remove anything at will. It goes without saying this blog is no jury, but don’t you know why both prosecutors and defense attorneys only choose jury members who appreciate the presumption of innocence? There’s a good reason for it and you know it. This reason is respected by both journalists, reporters, and any professional news commentator who is supposed to abide by a good work ethic. You mentioned Dreamin’ Demon, but that page looked more like a forum or chat room. There’s a difference between a forum and writing an article about something, which is at least partly why your material is taken more seriously.
I have read blogs created and run by professional news analysts (like those of CNN and Real Clear Politics), and none of them would have outright tarred their subjects, yet to be convicted of a crime, in so peremptory a tone and with such dehumanizing epithets (“monster, “pot head,” and “child molester”) as the ones you used. You say this is just a sermon, although it sounds more like a lynching. You say this page is only supposed to be about contradicting people who say illegal drugs are harmless, but why did you go beyond that with the gratuitous and un-American pre-trial demonization of the accused person? I’m not of Mrs. Partin’s mind that this page should be removed, just expurgated so it is fair to everyone involved.
Putting words in my mouth by insulting the police isn’t fair either. And presuming that I am a “Partin lover” who knows Megan is supremely false. I am debating with you on principle, just as you say you wrote this entry on principle. I don’t know Megan personally, don’t live near her, and would never want to encounter her. This only remains to be answered: if the sexual charges are dropped or overcome, will you change anything on this page, Mr. Taylor? Should I give you the benefit of the doubt in this regard, which was what you so meanly robbed Ms. Partin of?
The First Amendment doesn’t extend to private entities? What?
I assume you’re saying I could pull this post down if I wanted to, which is true but never the point. The point was that the commenters here have just a much right to express their opinions as anyone else. That’s because we all have First Amendment rights.
Dreamin’ Demon is a blog with a forum. This is a blog without one. The CNN blogs are merely marketing tools for a big corporation. All are different and thus look different. Red Alerts is a website that provides commentary and opinion. Again you’re conflating issues that have nothing to do with each other. CNN’s blog is part of a corporate entity, my blog is privately owned. Why would you expect them to be the same?
Does the Marxist ‘zine handed out in health food store read the same as the local newspaper? Do either of those have articles similar to ones in Guns and Ammo? Are those going to have the same tone as Michelle Malkin?
I’m glad you “take my material seriously” but you don’t seem to take it to heart. Megan Partin, despite what her defenders claim, was charged with crimes that people are only charged with if they’ve molested someone. Indecent behavior with a juvenile, molestation child pornography. Partin did more than get caught with “innocent” pictures of an infant with no diaper as some here are trying to claim.
Re-read my post, I go out of my way to give Partin the benefit of the doubt. I go out of my way to indicate that these charges might be due to a drug problem and not just soulless degeneracy. How is that demonization?
And how is being disgusted with a pot head (and being that she likes to smoke pot whys that a dehumanizing epithet?) who’s charged with having pictures on her camera phone so vulgar that she gets slapped with multiple counts of molestation, contributing and indecency Un-American?
Isn’t what’s un-American defending a child molester because she’s pretty and White in a way I’m sure you don’t defend some Black guy when he get accused of this and that?
Do you defend Republicans when people put the bad mouth on them? Bush? Clarence Thomas when people say he isn’t really Black? How about when White liberals thought it was extra funny to put Michael Steele in Black face? Were you trolling Firedoglake and Huffpo then?
I bring up the race examples because I was amused by that lynching comment. Since you’ve been trolling here and no doubt have looked around, I assume you know I’m Bi-racial. I guess that’s why you’re claiming criticism of drug induced child exploitation is said by you to be akin to White Democrats (as all Klan members are by the way) torturing and murdering innocent men women and children to death. Because you think that’s funny. It isn’t. It does expose the kind of person you are however.
If Megan Partin was proved to be innocent, which would mean the police and D.A. were literally setting her up, of course we’d update that. But until then I’ll take the word of the cops, via the local media, that Partin is a pot smoking child molester.
But they don’t have a right to do anything on this blog precisely because you privately own it. My ability to post here is a privilege, not a right, and I thank you for at least allowing the possibility of discussion. Reading some of the posts above, I find it incredible that you have not moderated material such as insults lodged at you personally or your family. You have to be one of the most lenient webmasters that exists, because you must know about discussion forums whose rules are very strict. If you do this out of respect for the principle of free speech, it’s admirable and you ought to be commended for it. I’m only saying another principle, that regarding pre-judicial innocence, has been left at the wayside.
My reference to CNN was made just to demonstrate how standards vary widely among media outlets. Reporters from CNN and all the other major news networks report on crime and arrests all the time, but their writers would never vituperate their subject matter. It’s a matter of standards. CNN, CBS, and NBC also provide news commentary and opinion segments, but again their reporters would not do what you have done. The difference is standards. I notice you avoided my question about the presumption of innocence, but it’s an important one in this country.
As to Partin’s more serious charges, I admit that one would be hard-pressed to read of their circumstances and not be overcome with the sense that the D.A. involved has an easy task ahead. However, I have to admit also that the Advocate article is not very detailed and could contain gaps. It is also possible the police overreacted or were overzealous (they do not have to be corrupt). Everyone makes mistakes. Our justice system is not perfect. Even the lowest among us, charged with the most heinous of crimes, deserves the benefit of the doubt, which you have not given her since you refer to her in terms as if she has already been declared guilty. Megan is not yet a convicted sex offender, so she doesn’t deserve to be called a child molester, at least for the meantime. Neither the police nor newspapers go around calling people that if they have not yet been convicted.
As to Megan being pretty and white, isn’t this at least in part why you made this article? You certainly liked to show her own photographs. And how do you know she is wealthy and spoiled? Gonzales, as even you admit, is a rather backwoods area of LA. Why can’t she be the daughter of a working class family that isn’t privileged?
I’m not defending Partin my friend, but a principle. Defending her is a job for her lawyer. I admit that she could be found guilty and would thus deserve the censuring. But she has not yet, and until that day comes, and the verdict is finally read, she deserves to be treated with the presumption of innocence. Like the free speech that you have so much respect for yourself, it’s a principle and nothing more.
I’m not lenient, I’m just careful to ensure that my blogs do what blogs are supposed to do, allow for public discourse. The public has very few places it can go to and be heard. The CNN’s of the world have stolen the average Americans voice and frankly most blogs do a terrible job of giving it back. The free flow of ideas should be wild and sometimes shocking, and if the debate can’t get you to care about the issue than it’s being framed wrong.
Presumption of innocence is for the jury and court, but not the public. You’re applying a legal principle to public discourse is my point, and one that most people wouldn’t adhere to anyway. Forget Partin for a second; let’s take the Hell’s Angels. Or MS-13 or the Klan.
Any member of these groups is innocent in a court of law until proven guilty, but does that mean you and me as rational people can’t judge members of those groups? Would you be wrong to avoid MS-13 members? Would you be wrong to call the Klan an evil organization?
Newspapers and courts are very different than blogs, which are more like the self-published papers of the Founding Father’s time. They two were rough and tumble affairs where people were raked over the coals and had their feelings hurt. Ben Franklin put one out himself, was he wrong?
The question is this: Is drug use a victimless crime? I have a category devoted to exposing the victimless crime concept as the lie it is. Partin is a good example of it because, let us be frank, whatever happened was the product, in part, of drug use. Partin’s an unusual suspect, that’s why I use her and the picture shows that. When I want sexy traffic I throw up a Tila Tequila post, not a horror story involving molested children.
Free Speech is different than the court’s requirement of presumed innocence. It’s apples and oranges and if we allow your argument to stand it would stifle debate on the ‘net. By your logic O.J. Simpson isn’t a murderer, so we shouldn’t blog about him.
But wouldn’t that destroy the very concept, and value, of Free Speech?
And feel free to post as much as you want here, I appreciate the discussion.
I know that presumption of innocence (PI) is mainly a legal principle and applies primarily to courts. I know that the public does not have to abide by it; but morally, I can argue that they should but for the fact that charges are sometimes dropped and that defendants are many times eventually declared not guilty of the charges. I know that a citizen may express any opinion on someone’s factual guilt, but even this right isn’t always free. Not guilty verdicts or dropped charges can render public accusations civilly liable. It is much safer, and fairer to everyone involved, if reporters use epithets like child molester only after guilt is proven.
Journalists are trained to abide by a code of ethics which precludes them from treating accused persons as if they were certainly guilty. Check any major news network and the reporters there will be seen to use words like “suspect” and “alleged” when referring to persons charged, but not yet convicted, of crimes.
The examples you give don’t coincide here. The KKK and MS-13 have a proven record of committing crimes and engaging in illegal activity, so negative portrayals of them aren’t objectionable. Megan Partin doesn’t have such a record. O.J. Simpson’s case was complicated by factors like his celebrity status, an allegedly biased jury, and racism on the part of detectives like Mark Fuhrman. Such factors don’t exist or don’t yet exist with the Partin incident.
It’s possible to expose the follies of drug abuse without using language and epithets that severely bias your readership against your subject when there’s a chance the accusations could be false. If you can apply the principle of free speech to your own privately owned site, I can apply PI to more than just courts. There’s a principle behind the formalities of it all, a principle that doesn’t have to be restricted to just one venue.
I’d suggest that journalists certainly do not abide by the “presumption of innocence” when they report on the Bush administration, oil companies and Black men. Certainly the editorial pages don’t, nor does Keith Olbermann or all of MSNBC.
By the way, how many retractions have you seen about the Haditha Marines? They were all cleared you know. Or how often do you hear journalists report that it was Richard Armitage who “leaked” Valerie Plame’s name, something he admitted to?
You could provide PI to privately owned sites, your privately owned sites. But what your arguing for is that opinion blogs constrain both themselves and their commenters based on a supposed standard of ethics newspapers only use when 50% of the time. Newspaper websites also have no problem allowing vicious comments on their websites.
I happen to think that as long as it is clear that this is my opinion, and that opinion is based on information I provide, it isn’t slanderous and it provides ample opportunity for debate. The debate is what’s important because it’s what distinguishes blogs from newspapers.
The post doesn’t hurl epithets at her as you claim, but there are comments that do. Isn’t it illegitimate to censor the views of the people in an attempt to mimic a failing informational paradigm that serves an entirely different purpose?
It looks as if our disagreement in the ethical matter will just have to be left a gentleman’s disagreement. On another note, allow me to write a critique of your article with the controversial parts: The drug use isn’t really objectionable. The possession of marijuana appears to be a misdemeanor. On to the more serious part by the fourth paragraph. You say she ‘sexually assaulted’ the boy. However, the charges levied against her do not imply such an act. Sexual assault implies violence (a ‘crime of violence’, defined on Revised Statues, ‘Definitions’, 14:2) and entails such charges (using again legis.state.la.us/lss/tsrssearch.htm, ‘Revised Statues’ checked) as ‘sexual battery’. A sexual battery charge means she inappropriately touched him. Likewise, on the sixth paragraph, you declare she was ‘raping’ him. Rape means she forcibly had intercourse with the boy. However, the police didn’t charge her with rape. Using the state website on the Revised Statutes, it is clear that LA has many definitions of rape, such as Aggravated rape, Forcible Rape, and Simple Rape, yet she wasn’t charged with any of these.
On the contrary, Megan Partin has only been charged with molestation. Molestation is non-penetrative activity. So molestation, unlike sexual battery, does not imply even mere inappropriate touching. If she really became violent with the child and committed sexual assaults, the authorities would have given her additional charges like rape or sexual battery. But they did not charge her with those. So, in all fairness, can’t you at least expurgate those parts?
If what she did wasn’t penetrative, the key to at least reasonably guessing at it is her additional charge of ‘indecent behavior with a juvenile’. LA’s state website defining ‘indecent behavior with juveniles’ (14:81) revolves around an adult exposing the child to the ‘ transmission’ of electronic or any visual communication or image children are not supposed to see. So this means Partin could have exposed the child to pornography recorded on her cell phone (perhaps a sex tape with a guy she knows) or she exposed him to the sexual acts of other people, like if she let the boy see her having sex with someone else. This falls in line with the definition of molestation, which is non-penetrative. And what could have caused her to do even this in front of a child? The drug use you so eloquently outlined.
So with all this being said, I say with all due respect and reason that the parts about her ‘raping’ or sexually ‘assaulting’ the boy should really be removed. Molestation is still horrible of course, but it’s not nearly as evil as rape or sexual battery, acts that truly entitle one to be called a monster. Other than that, your article is a fine read.
But that sort of legalistic hair splitting is a minimization of the trauma abuse victims suffered. The technical definition of rape may not apply to whatever Partin did, but it also likely wouldn’t apply to any boy sexually abused by a woman.
But if a boy is fondled by man and forced to masturbate him, he technically wasn’t “raped” but would you then say he couldn’t describe his assault as a rape?
Molestation isn’t as bad as rape? That’s like saying getting hit with a bat is better than getting stabbed. The difference is really academic and only important to the judge during sentencing.
It can apply if the woman has sex with an underaged boy. Even if the sex encounters are non-violent in nature, it constitutes statutory rape. This was what school teacher Mary Kay Letourneau was convicted of. And in practice, it is possible for a woman to violently force a boy to have sex with her and thus be labeled a rapist. What ties these diverse instances of rape together is that they all involve an adult having sex with the child.
As far as we can tell, Megan didn’t have sex with the child, she didn’t even touch him. A man fondling a boy is a clear-cut example of sexual battery, that is to say, he was inappropriately touched. You must know there is a place in the law for a man to be charged with the rape of a boy, right? These cases exist, but alas, they’re too repellent for me to go into detail.
My point is that molestation isn’t the same as rape. It’s important for reporters to know the difference so that their work be accurate. And in some cases, there is a perceivable level of wrongdoing. If asked which is the worse crime between a forcible rape and an adult who merely exposes a child to pornography, I would definitely have to designate the rape as the worse misdeed.
As to it minimizing a victim’s suffering, I beg to disagree. That is certainly not my intent. A convicted child molester will still have to register as a sex offender for the remainder of life, will have to undergo substantial treatment, and be prepared to spend time in prison. That being admitted, a molestation conviction can be just a misdemeanor, but every rape charge is a felony. It’s the difference between decades in prison, that’s no small difference. No, Partin is not a rapist.
You don’t know Megan Partin didn’t touch the boy, you’re assuming. You’re also assuming that because rape and molestation are technically different the people who do both are different sorts of criminals, which a simply isn’t true. Because the punishment for raping a person or “merely” showing a child porn are different shouldn’t be taken to mean that morally and perhaps pathologically the rapist and petty sex abuser are somehow different.
And remember she’s charged with two counts of molestation and indecent acts, so it’d be surprising if it was shown she never made physical contact with the child or at the very least film somebody who did.
If what her mother says is true, and she never touched him (so says the ‘detective’ investigating the case’), that is reasonable to assume. It’s possible to be charged with molestation and indecent acts and not have ever touched the victim (she could have taken indecent photos of him, etc.). Both myself and you will never hear the details of the case because judges and lawyers don’t like those privy to the details discussing them with media. Anyway, I make that educated guess on simply the fact that there are numerous examples of people getting arrested on more charges than just molestation. To illustrate my point, here’s a Shreveport man getting arrested for rape and molestation, ci.shreveport.la.us/DEPT/police/2006/112206.man%20arrested%20for%20molestation%20and%20rape%20charges.htm. Here is another being charged with sodomy along with molestation, muskogeephoenix.com/siteSearch/apstorysection/local_story_257001622.html.
So it’s not irrational to then say that other charges like sexual battery or rape would have been tagged on had touching really occurred. Even if she really did touch him, it’s certain she did have sex with him and thus rape him. I find it extremely hard to believe that if she did, she would not also be charged with raping a juvenile along with the molestation.
As to there being two counts, that could simply mean that the cell phone contained 2 of the same or similar acts on different dates. And I never claimed the type of criminal who does this stuff can be mentally ‘different’ from others. They are all sex offenders and pedophiles. But when a reporter can conclude reasonably that something so serious and particular as rape could not have transpired, he ought not to impute it to his subject matter.
Correction on 2nd paragraph: *Even if she really did touch him, it’s certain she did NOT have sex with him and thus rape him.
But you’re still demanding bloggers (who aren’t reporters) make a distinction between rape and molestation that only serves to minimize sex abusers actions. She may or may not have “had sex” with the boy, we can assume that it’s unlikely that the boy was violently raped or penetrated, but she is charged with sexually abusing a child under the age of 7. Splitting hairs and trying to divine whether what she did fits this or that’s state’s definition of rape makes it seem as if Partin is charged with something “not as bad” as rape, which isn’t true in the moral sense.
And if the commenter above was her mother, why would we be able to trust her word? She’d say anything to minimize her daughter’s crimes for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is that it calls her character into question. On the front page there’s a case about Aaron Nichols that illustrates family reactions to charges of molestation quite well.
You know, I went out of my way to reiterate these criminals’ status, whether molester or rapist, as those of sex offenders and pedophiles. I pointed out they would have to live with a most odious stigma forevermore regardless, and that they stand to serve significant time in prison along with the certain jeopardizing of any kind of meaningful future, a self-loathing conscious, and no prospects in life. I never accused you of hyperbolizing Partin’s crimes or inflating their criminality, so I should be accorded the same respect instead of having my motives called into question.
What I did say is simply that whether Megan Partin raped her victim is a straightforward yes or no question since rape is the most specific sexual crime of all. She either raped him or not. The fact is that none of her charges include rape of any kind. You said at the bottom of your article that she was ‘raping’ the six-year-old. This is simply factually wrong. You didn’t talk of a moral equivalence between rape and molestation in the article, and it’s not at all apparent in your article that that is your intent.
No one said you’re hyperbolizing, just that your stance would mean blogs create a morally artificial distinction between child abusers and child rapists based on the legal definitions states use as guidelines for prosecution and sentencing. Lack of penetration is technically not rape in court, but it’s still a rape of a child in the ethical and moral sense.
For opinion pieces (which is more of what blogs are like than a newspaper report) the distinction distracts from the larger points and provide openings for sex offender advocates (and there are such a thing, I’ve had my share of interactions with them) to start claiming their is a hierarchy of abuse, that one sex offender is better than the next because he or she didn’t use force, or “only” fondled a child, etc.
Red Alerts has taken a clear stance, as have many other crime and political blogs, that all sex abuse is as bad as rape. In a court of law it might be different, but in terms of ethics and morality, what Red Alerts deals with much of the time, there’s no difference between a rapist and a person who “just” sexually abuses a child.
How long do you intend to keep this page up here? And do you know Spanish?
I don’t know any Spanish and this page will likely be up indefinitely. When she’s tried/sentenced I’ll write a new post about it.
How did you learn about this arrest since you’re not from LA?
Not sure what the third degree is for but I read about it on another blog, signed up for Google alerts and went to the online version of several articles. I used the local papers for the post because local coverage is often better.
Holy mackerel! Where was this chick when I was being babysat? You go girl!
Sounds like alcohol abuse, not marijuana. These false statements are outrageous.
Do you have evidence that alcohol fuels criminality more than marijuana, or are you like any other addict defending their drug of choice? What false statements are there?