Sick: 13-Year-Old CT Girl Taunted on Twitter After Sexual Assault Allegations Against Football Players

Posted by on Mar 20, 2013 at 9:36 am

That recent episode in Ohio doesn’t appear to be an isolated incident. How sick are these people to taunt a 13-year-old after she was allegedly raped?

Two members of the Torrington High School football team have been charged with sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl who has been taunted on social media sites in recent weeks by dozens of classmates upset at the allegations.

The Register Citizen reports ( ) the two 18-year-old football players, Edgar Gonzalez and Joan Toribio have been charged with felony second-degree sexual assault and other crimes in a police investigation that began last month. Both have pleaded not guilty.

Details of the allegations have been sealed from public view.

Gonzalez also has a pending robbery case from last year, but was allowed to play in past football season.

And colleges are accused of being lax by allowing players facing criminal charges to suit up.

The athletic director, who should be seeking new employment, shrugged it off.

Athletic Director Mike McKenna said, “If you think there’s some wild band of athletes that are wandering around then I think you’re mistaken.”

“If you look at crime statistics these things happen everywhere and we’re not any different than any other community,” said McKenna. But on social media in recent weeks, dozens of athletes and Torrington High School students, male and female, have taunted the 13-year-old victim, calling her a “whore,” criticizing her for “snitching” and “ruining the lives” of the 18-year-old football players, and bullying students who defend her.

This is sickening:

Yup, it’s all her fault:

What’s the punishment for young hoes? Being raped again?

12 Responses to “Sick: 13-Year-Old CT Girl Taunted on Twitter After Sexual Assault Allegations Against Football Players”

  1. Blue Hen on 20/20/13 at 10:49 am

    Here’s a fun question for the athletic director. If one of the people in his “community” had made a racial remark (against certain minorities), would he be so sanguine? Or any comment that a gay activist thought useful for outrage? Or about the mighty Mo? I kinda doubt it.

    The war on women is fought on many fronts. And the magic mormon mitt romney is the least of women’s worries.

  2. MT Geoff on 20/20/13 at 12:33 pm

    Sometimes allegations about sexual contact turn out to be false. Sometimes people allege force or coercion when the incident was mutual.
    In any event, when people go through the proper channels to allege a crime and have a plausible case, they should be left alone to work through the legal system. The accuser should be heard and the allegation evaluated; the accused should be heard and have the benefit of the doubt as the investigation and proceedings go on.
    Certainly men of 18 should be dating girls or young women closer to their own age. Any gap between adult and teen is going to have an arbitrary character. Many states have a three-year “Romeo and Juliet” provision related to age gaps.
    Of course none of that applies if the incident was by force or coercion.
    We need to consider some new terminology for incidents involving mutual irresponsibility and mutual bad decision making. The Steubenville case helps to illustrate the problem: the teens who were found delinquent clearly acted wrongfully but the teen they mistreated had done a lot to contribute to the situation. This is probably more common in colleges and in some military “assault” cases.

  3. Blue Hen on 20/20/13 at 12:40 pm

    the teen they mistreated had done a lot to contribute to the situation.

    Who fucking cares. If I steal money lying in the street after it fell out of an armored car, there is no percentage of guilt. I stole money. The armored car company has problems, but it is not Jiminy cricket. It is NOT my guadian angel.

    And the point of the post was that someone had made an accusation, and supposedly a crapload of teens is reenacting a Lifetime channel movie by intimidating a witness.

  4. MT Geoff on 20/20/13 at 2:00 pm

    Howdy Blue Hen
    The youths are responsible for their mistreatment of the girl in Steubenville but she did help to create the situation. By all accounts, including her own, she went to the party and drank liquor of her own free will. It does not excuse those who mistreated her, it doesn’t even mitigate what they did, but it helps to identify ways to reduce the risk of such incidents.
    We don’t know the facts in the case in Connecticutt, which is why I said the accuser and the accused should have the chance to go through the legal system without being judged before the facts are clear. I think most JWF friends would agree that Trayvon Martin’s family went way too public with too flimsy a case against George Zimmerman; now Zimmerman has been harassed and threatened as the accused. It is wrong either way.

  5. Blue Hen on 20/20/13 at 4:13 pm

    She also “created the situation” by breathing. So fucking what. You think that you’re providing context. Instead, you’re prattling on about tangents. The accused helped “create the situation” by being anywhere near a combination of 13 year olds and alcohol. Being near either is dumb. Near both is the eqivilant of not wearing sensible shoes. Lack of an effective curfew, reform schools, five hours of homework each night all “contributed to the situation”.
    We could stage a contest. What tangents can you whomp up in 25 dirty words or less?

  6. MT Geoff on 20/20/13 at 4:40 pm

    Howdy Blue Hen
    We don’t have the information (at least I don’t) on the CT case to say the 13-year-old was at a party or used alcohol. For all I know, she has surprised in a locker room or a classroom and attacked by violence, the most vile form of rape. Or she may have gotten drunk at a party. That’s the reason to withhold judgment (and harassment) in the case.
    In the Steubenville case, we know that a group of teens made a lot of bad decisions. Some of those bad decisions were vile to the point of being criminal. Had the teen girl in the case gone to a party without liquor, she might still have wound up in a bad situation but it would be far less likely. Had she gone to the party but not used liquor, again it could have gone badly but was much less likely. If the young men involved had stayed sober, they would be less likely to have done such a reprehensible thing.
    So the use of liquor and the unsupervised party were not tangential to the Steubenville case. They won’t be tangential to the party that goes badly somewhere tonight. Teens can and do make decisions that put them at greater or lesser risks.

  7. Blue Hen on 21/21/13 at 8:50 am

    First, I don’t know who this “we” is.

    Second, is there any point to all of this? “Bad decisions”? Is this your thing? To try and split hairs and derail the post? Thwe blogger was noting people in the community possibly intimidating an accuser/witness.

    You were doing better saying that Harry Reid had the best interests of the dead Marines in mind. And that was stupid.

  8. MT Geoff on 21/21/13 at 11:03 am

    Howdy Blue Hen
    I never said Harry Reid had the best interests of the dead Marines at heart, I said he made a valid point about budget cuts reducing training and so reducing readiness. What part of that is false or stupid, please?
    Bad decisions my thing? Why yes, yes they are. When teens conduct themselves with a little responsibility, we get fewer headlines about drunken parties ending in crimes or deaths. When teens conduct themselves with compassion, we get fewer headlines about sex crimes at schools. What part of that are you arguing with?

  9. lyle on 21/21/13 at 4:42 pm

    Reposted my comment from another thread. Seems apropos:

    Oh, and MT Geoff? Your above-it-all schtick is getting annoying. Reid has more than proven himself to be a loathesome party hack. Your feeble attempts to parse this asshole’s words into something resembling a reasonable point is pathetic.

  10. Blue Hen on 22/22/13 at 9:20 am

    I said he made a valid point about budget cuts reducing training and so reducing readiness. What part of that is false or stupid, please?

    1. he made it in the same speech about dead Marines. Marines who died in a training accident. And he made references to the sequester, which he helped bring about. he didn’t make any valid point. He used the deaths of Marines to vilify people who dared oppose him.
    2.And there is no proof at the moment that the deaths had any connection to any cuts.
    3. There wasn’t any ‘budget cut’ you jerk. There is no budget. There hasn’t been one in four years.
    4. And the sequester reduced the sought after increase between the two fiscal years. NOTHING was cut. We’re still spending more than we did last year.

    If someone talked about the importance of water for people’s health, that would be logical and nice. If someone did that in the same speech as talking about drowning victims, that would be stupid. You are stupid.