# Teen Sold Stepsister For Sex



## MJS (Mar 31, 2010)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36119350/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/



> TRENTON, N.J. - A 15-year-old New Jersey girl set up her 7-year-old stepsister to have sex with as many as seven men and boys at a weekend party near their home and also accepted money for herself, police said.
> Trenton police Capt. Joseph Juniak said Wednesday that the older girl started by taking money to have sex with several men at a party in a high-rise apartment. The teen then gave some of the money she had collected to the younger girl to let the men start touching her, Juniak said.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 31, 2010)

wtf.


----------



## MJS (Mar 31, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> wtf.


 
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing when I was reading the article.  Then again, I saw this:

"Juniak indicated that the 15-year-old previously had contact with child services, but he declined to elaborate or discuss the family's makeup, except to say the girls "considered themselves sisters."

and the first thing that came to my mind was, "Yup, child services is doing a wonderful job with this girl."


----------



## Shawn-San (Mar 31, 2010)

Sickening.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Apr 1, 2010)

I am so disgusted by this I can't put it into words.


----------



## MJS (Apr 14, 2010)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36532404/ns/us_news/


----------



## grydth (Apr 14, 2010)

Which is more disgusting: that a teen would sell her 7 year old sister to a crowd for sex... or that she had so many apparent takers?

Already the stories are emphasizing that the accused's rights were supposedly violated by police... and one can be sure the juvenile system will vomit the 15 year old aspiring madam back on the street all too soon. Lord knows what _she'll_ do for an encore....

In Amerika, everyone's got rights. Except the 7 year old girl, that is.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Apr 15, 2010)

MJS said:


> Yeah, I was thinking the same thing when I was reading the article.  Then again, I saw this:
> 
> "Juniak indicated that the 15-year-old previously had contact with child services, but he declined to elaborate or discuss the family's makeup, except to say the girls "considered themselves sisters."
> 
> and the first thing that came to my mind was, "Yup, child services is doing a wonderful job with this girl."



You are probably right, but keep in mind that if they had reacted proactively, the majority of the Americans here would be whining about it in the study and argue that child services had no right to interfere with the family and they should not tell you how to raise your kids etc etc...

I remember that people were arguing against interference in the case where a mother had her kid tattooed with racist slogans (or was it just written on them? can't remember). And remember when a man was fired and went out to buy a handgun and an assault rifle? He was a known hothead, made threats, and his coworkers went to sleep in motels. And some here were arguing that his 2nd amendment rights had been violated when the cops took his guns until they had a chance to evaluate the situation. Someone went so far as to say that it was totally unreasonable to suggest that this was anything else than a man wanting to spend his new found free time on target practice.

Seriously, in the US it seems nothing is anyone's business unless something happens, in which case someone should have done something and ****ed up by not doing it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## MJS (Apr 16, 2010)

grydth said:


> Which is more disgusting: that a teen would sell her 7 year old sister to a crowd for sex... or that she had so many apparent takers?


 
IMO, they're both right up there, as equally disgusting.



> Already the stories are emphasizing that the accused's rights were supposedly violated by police... and one can be sure the juvenile system will vomit the 15 year old aspiring madam back on the street all too soon. Lord knows what _she'll_ do for an encore....
> 
> In Amerika, everyone's got rights. Except the 7 year old girl, that is.


 
Well, if these people find themselves in the prison system, chances are, alot more than their rights will be violated.


----------



## MJS (Apr 16, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> You are probably right, but keep in mind that if they had reacted proactively, the majority of the Americans here would be whining about it in the study and argue that child services had no right to interfere with the family and they should not tell you how to raise your kids etc etc...
> 
> I remember that people were arguing against interference in the case where a mother had her kid tattooed with racist slogans (or was it just written on them? can't remember). And remember when a man was fired and went out to buy a handgun and an assault rifle? He was a known hothead, made threats, and his coworkers went to sleep in motels. And some here were arguing that his 2nd amendment rights had been violated when the cops took his guns until they had a chance to evaluate the situation. Someone went so far as to say that it was totally unreasonable to suggest that this was anything else than a man wanting to spend his new found free time on target practice.
> 
> Seriously, in the US it seems nothing is anyone's business unless something happens, in which case someone should have done something and ****ed up by not doing it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.


 
I think alot of times, the common sense factor is seriously lacking.  I mean really, who in their right mind, would tat their child?  Why, because mom and dad are a walking, talking ink board, their child, the child who isn't old enough to make their own decisions, has to suffer the ill results of the parents?  Yet in their twisted mind, they think its ok.  

I think when it comes to child services, again, it comes down to the common sense factor.  Would any person, with a resonable amount of common sense, do something out of the norm like this?  So you could have one family who lets their 10yo have sex, but in the eyes of DCF, its wrong.  People dont get investigated for no apparent reason.  Something out of the norm caught their eye, but it seems the system failed, as we have a rape case.

Sadly, people will ***** no matter what.  I still feel that it comes down to what a resonable person would do.  Is it reasonable to let a 10yo get a tatoo?  Is it reasonable for them to stay out until 2am?  Have sex?  Drink? Smoke?  Then, when their kids grow up to be total **** ups, and get arrested or kill someone, the parents, clueless as they are, will say, "Oh no, not my child."  Go figure.

I remember a few times, when my wife and I had her side of the family over for a family function.  A few of the kids decided to go play on the stairs.  I told them to stop.  Interesting that all but 1, looked at me like I was talking another language.  A reasonable person would not let them play there, because we all know that should one fall and get hurt, its my *** that'd be on the line.  Another time a few were sitting on my couch, with their feet up and shoes on.  Perhaps in their parents eyes, they dont give a rats *** about their furniture, but when they're in my house, they go by my rules.  If they dont like it, they can leave, and I have no bones about making that very clear.  Again, where is the common sense?  

Then again, like my mom always says, "Kids learn what they live."  Apparently in many cases, they're learning some bad habits.  The system is damned if they do, damned if they dont.

Its interesting because we have, where I work, what we call "frequent flyers."  Those are the people that we deal with on a regular basis.  Interesting how the same kids will run away from home, almost on a weekly basis.  That isn't normal.  Something is broken somewhere.  Either the parents can't control their kids or the system isn't helping.


----------

