Montana Judge Suspended Over Rape Comments

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 3:05 pm

Judge Todd Baugh is suspended for 31 days for comments he made about a female rape victim who took her own life in 2010.

A Montana judge has been suspended by the state's Supreme Court for controversial comments he made about a 14-year-old rape victim.

District Judge Todd Baugh sparked outrage last year when he ordered a former high school teacher to serve just 30 days of a 15-year sentence for raping a teenager in 2007.

At sentencing, Baugh also appeared to pin blame on the victim, who he said was "probably as much in control of the situation as the defendant" and "appeared older than her chronological age".

http://news.sky.com/story/1305829/montana-judge-suspended-over-rape-comments

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 3:52 pm

Didge wrote:Judge Todd Baugh is suspended for 31 days for comments he made about a female rape victim who took her own life in 2010.

A Montana judge has been suspended by the state's Supreme Court for controversial comments he made about a 14-year-old rape victim.

District Judge Todd Baugh sparked outrage last year when he ordered a former high school teacher to serve just 30 days of a 15-year sentence for raping a teenager in 2007.

At sentencing, Baugh also appeared to pin blame on the victim, who he said was "probably as much in control of the situation as the defendant" and "appeared older than her chronological age".

http://news.sky.com/story/1305829/montana-judge-suspended-over-rape-comments

Unfortunatly this kind of thing is common in the American legal system if there is one thing i give fox news credit for is "jessicas law " and Bill O'reilly who goes after these judges and shines a very uncomfortable spot light on them

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 4:03 pm

Korben_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:Judge Todd Baugh is suspended for 31 days for comments he made about a female rape victim who took her own life in 2010.

A Montana judge has been suspended by the state's Supreme Court for controversial comments he made about a 14-year-old rape victim.

District Judge Todd Baugh sparked outrage last year when he ordered a former high school teacher to serve just 30 days of a 15-year sentence for raping a teenager in 2007.

At sentencing, Baugh also appeared to pin blame on the victim, who he said was "probably as much in control of the situation as the defendant" and "appeared older than her chronological age".

http://news.sky.com/story/1305829/montana-judge-suspended-over-rape-comments
Unfortunatly this kind of thing is common in the American legal system if there is one thing i give fox news credit for is "jessicas law " and Bill O'reilly who goes after these judges and shines a very uncomfortable spot light on them

Agreed its unbelievable to be honest.

by Original Quill Wed Jul 23, 2014 5:12 pm

Didge wrote:Judge Todd Baugh is suspended for 31 days for comments he made about a female rape victim who took her own life in 2010.

A Montana judge has been suspended by the state's Supreme Court for controversial comments he made about a 14-year-old rape victim.

District Judge Todd Baugh sparked outrage last year when he ordered a former high school teacher to serve just 30 days of a 15-year sentence for raping a teenager in 2007.

At sentencing, Baugh also appeared to pin blame on the victim, who he said was "probably as much in control of the situation as the defendant" and "appeared older than her chronological age".

http://news.sky.com/story/1305829/montana-judge-suspended-over-rape-comments

Republican conservatives! Not a legitimate rape, I suppose.

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:01 pm

Well, american 'justice' never is up to much.

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:10 pm

he clearly felt it had importance to the case, the very light sentence and his comments made it quite clear, I think it is refreshing to see a judge use common sense when considering a case.

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:22 pm

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:he clearly felt it had importance to the case, the very light sentence and his comments made it quite clear, I think it is refreshing to see a judge use common sense when considering a case.

Have you read the case?

If not you are talking out of your arse

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:24 pm

Didge wrote:
heavenlyfatheragain wrote:he clearly felt it had importance to the case, the very light sentence and his comments made it quite clear, I think it is refreshing to see a judge use common sense when considering a case.

Have you read the case?

If not you are talking out of your arse

he clearly felt he was right and made a judgement..isn't that hat judges do..?

by Ben Reilly Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:25 pm

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:he clearly felt it had importance to the case, the very light sentence and his comments made it quite clear, I think it is refreshing to see a judge use common sense when considering a case.

So you support lenient sentences for pedophiles who rape children, huh?

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:27 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
heavenlyfatheragain wrote:he clearly felt it had importance to the case, the very light sentence and his comments made it quite clear, I think it is refreshing to see a judge use common sense when considering a case.

So you support lenient sentences for pedophiles who rape children, huh?

It seems clear he does.

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:27 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
heavenlyfatheragain wrote:he clearly felt it had importance to the case, the very light sentence and his comments made it quite clear, I think it is refreshing to see a judge use common sense when considering a case.

So you support lenient sentences for pedophiles who rape children, huh?

I don't recall saying that, neither do i condone a religious book that says thighing children is ok...

I said the judge made a decision, that's why he was there...

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:29 pm

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

So you support lenient sentences for pedophiles who rape children, huh?

I don't recall saying that, neither do i condone a religious book that says thighing children is ok...

I said the judge made a decision, that's why he was there...

No you agreed with the judge, that means you clearly are okay with lenient sentences for rapists when they are peado's

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:33 pm

Didge wrote:
heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

I don't recall saying that, neither do i condone a religious book that says thighing children is ok...

I said the judge made a decision, that's why he was there...

No you agreed with the judge, that means you clearly are okay with lenient sentences for rapists when they are peado's

divv, I just said i do not agree with lenient sentences or religious books that tell believers it is ok to thigh babies...

what i did say it was great to see a judge use common sense... Smile

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:35 pm

Exactly, you think it's common sense to give a light sentence when a child is raped. You support child rapists.

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:36 pm

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
Didge wrote:

No you agreed with the judge, that means you clearly are okay with lenient sentences for rapists when they are peado's

divv, I just said i do not agree with lenient sentences or religious books that tell believers it is ok to thigh babies...

what i did say it was great to see a judge use common sense...

You did agree though thus clearly have sympathy for paedophile's to have lenient sentences to , you have back tracked, which does not escape the fact you backed the judge.

Well you learn something new everyday, so no need to say anymore and you exposed yourself

by Ben Reilly Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:37 pm

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
Didge wrote:
heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

I don't recall saying that, neither do i condone a religious book that says thighing children is ok...

I said the judge made a decision, that's why he was there...

No you agreed with the judge, that means you clearly are okay with lenient sentences for rapists when they are peado's

divv, I just said i do not agree with lenient sentences or religious books that tell believers it is ok to thigh babies...

what i did say it was great to see a judge use common sense...

The "common sense," in your view, being that this rapist of a 14-year-old who went on to kill herself over it deserved an obscenely light sentence. You call that "common sense."

by Original Quill Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:38 pm

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
Didge wrote:

No you agreed with the judge, that means you clearly are okay with lenient sentences for rapists when they are peado's

divv, I just said i do not agree with lenient sentences or religious books that tell believers it is ok to thigh babies...

what i did say it was great to see a judge use common sense...

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:40 pm

Didge wrote:
heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

divv, I just said i do not agree with lenient sentences or religious books that tell believers it is ok to thigh babies...

what i did say it was great to see a judge use common sense...

You did agree though thus clearly have sympathy for paedophile's to have lenient sentences to , you have back tracked, which does not escape the fact you backed the judge.

Well you learn something new everyday, so no need to say anymore and you exposed yourself

here we go round and around...

I have already said twice, I do not condone lenient sentences for peado's in the same way i do not condone a religious book that tells its believers it is ok to get your rocks off on babies and God doesn't mind...

what i have clearly said is it is good to see a judge using common sense, there have been many cases where that clearly has not been the case.. Smile

by Ben Reilly Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:41 pm

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
Didge wrote:
heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

divv, I just said i do not agree with lenient sentences or religious books that tell believers it is ok to thigh babies...

what i did say it was great to see a judge use common sense...

You did agree though thus clearly have sympathy for paedophile's to have lenient sentences to , you have back tracked, which does not escape the fact you backed the judge.

Well you learn something new everyday, so no need to say anymore and you exposed yourself

here we go round and around...

I have already said twice, I do not condone lenient sentences for peado's in the same way i do not condone a religious book that tells its believers it is ok to get your rocks off on babies and God doesn't mind...

what i have clearly said is it is good to see a judge using common sense, there have been many cases where that clearly has not been the case..

Which clearly means that you thought the judge showed good common sense in this case! Good lord, you can't wriggle your way out of this one ... ::D::

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:41 pm

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
Didge wrote:

You did agree though thus clearly have sympathy for paedophile's to have lenient sentences to , you have back tracked, which does not escape the fact you backed the judge.

Well you learn something new everyday, so no need to say anymore and you exposed yourself

here we go round and around...

I have already said twice, I do not condone lenient sentences for peado's in the same way i do not condone a religious book that tells its believers it is ok to get your rocks off on babies and God doesn't mind...

what i have clearly said is it is good to see a judge using common sense, there have been many cases where that clearly has not been the case..

Yes we know now by stating common sense you back lenient sentences for pedophiles, no matter how desperately you try to get out of.

You are busted, end of story

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:44 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

here we go round and around...

I have already said twice, I do not condone lenient sentences for peado's in the same way i do not condone a religious book that tells its believers it is ok to get your rocks off on babies and God doesn't mind...

what i have clearly said is it is good to see a judge using common sense, there have been many cases where that clearly has not been the case..

Which clearly means that you thought the judge showed good common sense in this case! Good lord, you can't wriggle your way out of this one ... ::D::

It will be fun watching though, but sadly have things to do, so will be fun to catch it up later.
Enjoy Ben

::D::

by Original Quill Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:44 pm

The problem with common sense is that it is usually common prejudice.

This story is over a year old. The old cracker has already been censored. It's old news.

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:47 pm

Original Quill wrote:The problem with common sense is that it is usually common prejudice.

This story is over a year old. The old cracker has already been censored. It's old news.

The case is old news, his suspension was only reported on Skynews today Quill, as not sure why they would post something a year old

Right have fun, have to go

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:49 pm

Didge wrote:
heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

here we go round and around...

I have already said twice, I do not condone lenient sentences for peado's in the same way i do not condone a religious book that tells its believers it is ok to get your rocks off on babies and God doesn't mind...

what i have clearly said is it is good to see a judge using common sense, there have been many cases where that clearly has not been the case..

Yes we know now by stating common sense you back lenient sentences for pedophiles, no matter how desperately you try to get out of.

You are busted, end of story

oh that's it i'm busted..lol haven't heard those words for a while...

i do not condone lenient sentences for peado's in the same way i do not condone a religious book that would allow men to assault babies and claim it's ok with God..

I applaud a judge who uses common sense before passing a sentence, what is the point of having a judge, we could just type all the relevant information in to a diagnostic program and let it print out a sentence...

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:50 pm

FAIL, flat on your face.

by Ben Reilly Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:51 pm

Yes, HF, and, you think the judge used common sense in giving a pedo rapist a month in jail. Sorry, you're on the hook and you just haven't come to grips with reality! ::D::

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:58 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Yes, HF, and, you think the judge used common sense in giving a pedo rapist a month in jail. Sorry, you're on the hook and you just haven't come to grips with reality! ::D::

i said he used common sense in sentencing, it is his job and he did it as he saw fit...

I repeat though I do not condone either lenient sentences for peado's or religious books that would condone assaulting babies as being ok with God....

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:59 pm

Try, fail, pick yourself up, you seem to be facing the floor a lot tonight.

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:03 pm

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:Yes, HF, and, you think the judge used common sense in giving a pedo rapist a month in jail. Sorry, you're on the hook and you just haven't come to grips with reality! ::D::

i said he used common sense in sentencing, it is his job and he did it as he saw fit...

I repeat though do not condone either lenient sentences for peado's or religious books that would condone assaulting babies as being ok with God....

bump...

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:04 pm

Your face must be a bit bruised by now.

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:07 pm

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:he clearly felt it had importance to the case, the very light sentence and his comments made it quite clear, I think it is refreshing to see a judge use common sense when considering a case.

In what way, exactly, does a month's imprisonment for a rapist of children constitute "common sense"?

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:12 pm

Before I go, I imagine HF is like this at the moment lol

Montana Judge Suspended Over Rape Comments 9k=

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:14 pm

Didge wrote:Before I go, I imagine HF is like this at the moment lol

that's really odd, that's how I imagine you all the time, blind, deaf and in your own little world..lol

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:17 pm

No, that's you covering up the bruises.

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:30 pm

just want to say one more time for the record, i do not condone, lenient sentences for peado's nor do i condone a religious book that would allow its followers to claim they can assault babies and god is ok with that...

I do condone judges using common sense..

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:34 pm

Judge Baugh's remarks were disgraceful; implying the kid (who killed herself while the case was pending) brought rape on herself. Hfa, how you can defend such bat-shit crazy bigotry as "common sense" is a mystery.

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:36 pm

We know HF, that why we know you think it's common sense to give a lenient sentence to a child rapist.

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:37 pm

lovedust wrote:Judge Baugh's remarks were disgraceful; implying the kid (who killed herself while the case was pending) brought rape on herself. Hfa, how you can defend such bat-shit crazy bigotry as "common sense" is a mystery.

It has to be that he agrees with the Judge, there is no other explanation, and we draw our conclusions from it.

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:45 pm

What I want to know is which book it is that heavenly twat keeps waffling on about??
and why is it relevant to this idiot judge (who should actually have been removed from his post permanently)

I suspect heavenly pillock is trying to divert because he's dug a hole and got nowhere to go....

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:46 pm

Oh he can go deeper Victor, and with a bit of luck it will cave in.

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:02 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:What I want to know is which book it is that heavenly twat keeps waffling on about??
and why is it relevant to this idiot judge (who should actually have been removed from his post permanently)

I suspect heavenly pillock is trying to divert because he's dug a hole and got nowhere to go....

the relevance you thick shit is while you would all question a judge and his decision, it seems most of you would have no problem with a religious book that condones actual child abuse for its followers...

i guess you are too dumb to see that..

fortunately for you they allow shite to be posted here otherwise your name would be permanently blank...

by Ben Reilly Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:09 pm

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:What I want to know is which book it is that heavenly twat keeps waffling on about??
and why is it relevant to this idiot judge (who should actually have been removed from his post permanently)

I suspect heavenly pillock is trying to divert because he's dug a hole and got nowhere to go....

the relevance you thick shit is while you would all question a judge and his decision, it seems most of you would have no problem with a religious book that condones actual child abuse for its followers...

i guess you are too dumb to see that..

fortunately for you they allow shite to be posted here otherwise your name would be permanently blank...

It seems to me that the only person here advocating leniency for child rapists is you, HF. You called the lenient sentence an exercise of common sense, it doesn't get more cut and dried than that.

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:11 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

the relevance you thick shit is while you would all question a judge and his decision, it seems most of you would have no problem with a religious book that condones actual child abuse for its followers...

i guess you are too dumb to see that..

fortunately for you they allow shite to be posted here otherwise your name would be permanently blank...

It seems to me that the only person here advocating leniency for child rapists is you, HF. You called the lenient sentence an exercise of common sense, it doesn't get more cut and dried than that.

lol in the way the followers of that relgious book condone the assault of babies, is that what you are implying...

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:13 pm

Your floor must have a dent in it by now, suggest you go to the hospital for the mess your face is in.

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:22 pm

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:What I want to know is which book it is that heavenly twat keeps waffling on about??
and why is it relevant to this idiot judge (who should actually have been removed from his post permanently)

I suspect heavenly pillock is trying to divert because he's dug a hole and got nowhere to go....

the relevance you thick shit is while you would all question a judge and his decision, it seems most of you would have no problem with a religious book that condones actual child abuse for its followers...

which book would that be then ?? references to chapter/verse (or its equivalent) just so as I can see for myself .....

i guess you are too dumb to see that..

fortunately for you they allow shite to be posted here otherwise your name would be permanently blank...

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:26 pm

i cannot educate a dumb shit like you vic, go find out yourself, as the famous saying says you can take a thick shit to water but you cannot make a wanker like vic understand anything....lol

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:27 pm

Keep digging HF, with a bit of luck you'll have a cave in.

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:28 pm

what like your chest..lol...

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:38 pm

Oh what a wonderful day, HF gone too, must have been ashamed of excusing child rapists.

by Guest Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:43 pm

Guest wrote:i cannot educate a dumb shit like you vic, go find out yourself, as the famous saying says you can take a thick shit to water but you cannot make a wanker like vic understand anything....lol

So in other words you have no reference...cowarding out like you "pseudo christians" always do

you have made a statement

with no evidence to back it up

no nothing...

you have no proof of anything, just "your idiocy"

which book ...eh HF?

and where in said book???

either put up or shut up talking non sense.......

by Sponsored content