Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Three Stooges' Action Lands Boy in Court
Yahoo News & Mail Tribune ^ | August 8, 2005

Posted on 08/07/2005 9:58:33 PM PDT by lunarbicep

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-89 last
To: knuthom

David openly admitted that he did this. He never learned it at home. Also testifying was another boy Dalton Bradley who rides motocross and he testified that Matt Cox gave him titty twisters all the time. SO is it always harassment or is it sometimes funny? I think it is in bad taste, have never thougth of doing or seen anyone else do it. However I hve located three teachers, 2 in District 6 and one in Eagle Point School District that have been dong it to the kids, themselves. So if it is the new "pinch on the butt" that one day was so cute and the next day was costing people millions of dollars in lawsuits, everyone should be grateful that this went public. PS Does your kid kick your neighbors kids in the balls? This kid does, and does your kid give out titty twisters? This kid does.

81 posted on 08/11/2005 7:21:50 PM PDT by Christine Alford (Christine Alford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441
of course the devil is always in the details. When the Cox's went to the police they accused another boy, Jeff G of giving their son a titty twister. David's name never appeared in their record, even after David told the police that he did it, the COx family insisted that Jeff G did it. In fact they were filing a false report on a boy that they hated because he smokes dope with their daughter. It had absolutely nothing to do with David. He was just caught in the middle. What he saw was a kid that we knew, we sold him his first moto cross bike, David played ping pong with him at Youth Group and generally considered him an acquaintance that he was on a first name basis with; when the kid said "yo mama" David just saw a younger kid that was trying to in with the big guys and treated him the way they treat each other. Why the boy thought he could go to the police and tell them that an entirely different boy, Jeff G had done it, I can't imagine. But from that point on the family had to continue to claim injury or be shown as lying witnesses against this other boy, whom they have filed dozens of eventually unfounded complaints against. If you don't' understand that, I will be happy to send you the police report. The boy then lied and claimed that David was a complete stranger, and we just found the notes on the probation officers papers where Paul Cox told them that I was "stoned and always stick up for my son, they continue to threaten and harass". I haven't been stoned in 35 years and we have had zero contact with them since that incident. Have you ever read the dichotomy of the Salem Witch Trials? Have you ever seen a child lie? on a witness stand? without blinking an eye? it is a rather stunning performance.
82 posted on 08/11/2005 7:35:12 PM PDT by Christine Alford (Christine Alford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: ApplegateRanch

No, it is not right to admit that your intentions were malicious when they were not. It is not right to bear false witness against yourself in order to avoid consequences.
If you were laughing and some food flew out of your mouth and another person called the police and said you spit in their face maliciously, would you concede to that? The accusation that David MALICIOUSLY touched that boy, is an extrememly serious charge to us, and to him. That fact has been overshadowed by the sensational "titty twisting", aspect. That is why he was so adamant, that the intention was never malicious. And he apologized to the boy at the bike track months ago.

83 posted on 08/11/2005 7:42:07 PM PDT by Christine Alford (Christine Alford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: festus
If they arrested all of us and charged us with assault as kids who pulled three stoges moves on each other, well, we would have been an entire generation of crimminals.

LOL - You got that right ...nyuckk, nyuck, nyuck ...

84 posted on 08/11/2005 7:45:42 PM PDT by 11th_VA (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: texson66
I hate to tell you this but the Judge found him guilty because she thought she could read that David's INTENT was malicious because he told her that when the boy said "yo mama' he replied "hey Matt, and gave him the twist". The judge decided that David had taken the "yo mama" comment seriously and retaliated. David said it was closer to two black men greeting each other "Hey Nigger" and the other replies "Hey Nigger" and then the first one goes home and tell the police that someone called him a nigger. I know that touching and words and not the same, although offensive words and offensive touching are treated the same in the statute, but that is a close analogy. I think we have had ample testimony from the public that this phenomena called "titty twisting" goes on amongst friends as a sign of camaraderie. That appears to be the general understanding.
85 posted on 08/11/2005 7:50:11 PM PDT by Christine Alford (Christine Alford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Christine Alford

You have answered my post. Thanks!

86 posted on 08/11/2005 8:32:39 PM PDT by Treader (Hillary's dark smile is reminiscent of Stalin's inhuman grin...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: McBuff
Unlike the double-finger eye poke, which can be neutralized by the counter-move of placing the hand vertically flush with the nose and perpendicular with the face, the titty-twister has no known countermove...

That should be single hand double-finger eye poke.

As you are probably aware, the counter-counter move to the perpendicular hand defense counter-move, is of course, the two-handed single-fingered eye poke.

87 posted on 09/24/2005 7:08:07 AM PDT by Darth Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Experiment 6-2-6
You know, JOKINGLY is usually found at the start of MOST law school questions in TORT...

That is true.

It is followed closely by "we'd been drinking when..."

Coming in third is plain, basic stupidity.

88 posted on 09/24/2005 7:12:39 AM PDT by Darth Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Christine Alford
I was curious as to what the "intake" was going to be and how it was turned into an initial appearance in juvenile court.

I've never done much in juvenile law, but I'm amazed that it was escalated to this point..

89 posted on 09/24/2005 11:39:52 AM PDT by Experiment 6-2-6 (Looking out my window, I see the surf is up. Hmm. Free Republic vs. Tasty Surf.. Tough decision..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-89 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson