Child sex slave in Nashville prison for killing man who used her

[Dill]

(11-21-2017, 09:42 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I guess it comes down to if the guy knew she was an unwilling participant. If he knew then he raped her.

Willing or unwilling, she was 16, so that was statutory rape, even if the girl "wanted it."

I think it very likely he knew she was under 18.  Even at 24 she has been assessed as someone with the developmental level of a 13-14 year old.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-22-2017, 06:06 PM)Dill Wrote: Willing or unwilling, she was 16, so that was statutory rape, even if the girl "wanted it."

I think it very likely he knew she was under 18.  Even at 24 she has been assessed as someone with the developmental level of a 13-14 year old.

It is statutory rape, but it's not the same as forcible rape as far as self-defense goes.  As i read more about it, it seems like just about everyone involved should be in jail including her, but I would at least consider her life situation when arriving at a sentence.  

[Dill]

(11-22-2017, 06:35 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It is statutory rape, but it's not the same as forcible rape as far as self-defense goes.  As i read more about it, it seems like just about everyone involved should be in jail including her, but I would at least consider her life situation when arriving at a sentence.  

Well I agree with you on all those points. Consensual statutory does not justify self defense/homicide. Forcible does. Brown's life situation should be taken into account during sentencing.

[*bfine32*]

(11-22-2017, 05:58 PM)Dill Wrote: I agree with you on much of this, Bfine. 

If this girl were brought at gunpoint to the "sharpshooter's" house and then he forced her at gunpoint to have sex, but she got the gun away and shot him, then she would be the total victim. Descriptions like Rihana's--"she was purchased by a child predator and brought to his house"--suggests something like that went down with no complicating factors.  Not at all like a kid robbing a store.

But if the description we and the court have is valid, a description in part based upon the girl's own testimony, then we have a lot of complicating factors. It looks like she was soliciting, and then killed the guy who took her home in order to rob him.

The fact the guy was a child predator is beside the point for Brown's trial, in part because he is dead and in part because it does not look like he kidnapped her and forced her to his home at gunpoint. From what I have read, I see no convincing argument for self defense. "Showing off guns" doesn't sound threatening, especially in Tennessee, and especially if a couple looked good enough to add to your own collection after you killed the owner. Rather, this looks like predatory behavior on the girl's part.  I am suspicious of her defense because she knew her only chance of beating a murder rap was to plead self defense. He had to be "going for a gun" when she shot him in the back of the head lying face down on the bed.  The jury did not buy it.

But I don't assume that she was "voluntarily" with a pimp in any meaningful sense.  First she was a minor and a runaway; second the only guidance she has had in her life appears to have been bad guidance from bad people. Third, she was suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome disorder and the jury was never made aware of this impairment. This background is one massive mitigating factor.

Given this, I don't think she should have been tried as an adult.  That decision on the part of the prosecution improperly framed the case, in my view, leading to the adult sentence with no concern for rehabilitation. Kudos to the film maker for working to change the law.

Well Rhiana was probably duped like a few in this thread while reading articles like linked in the OP.

She was found guilty of murder and it is most likely because she murdered someone. As I have said throughout, while suffering being accused of being "OK" with a child getting raped and the inability to "keep up"; the pimp should have been on trial right beside Ms Brown and it should not have taken long to convict him.

I further agree there should have been grounds of mitigation. I've actually said that is the gist of the OP. 

 

[GMDino]

Folks still want to stand up for the guy who picked up the 16 year old for sex and ignore the rest. Then say folks were "duped" into thinking the girl shouldn't have been sentenced to life in prison.

Cool.

[*bfine32*]

(11-22-2017, 09:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: Folks still want to stand up for the guy who picked up the 16 year old for sex and ignore the rest.  Then say folks were "duped" into thinking the girl shouldn't have been sentenced to life in prison.

Cool.

No one has done either thing you suggest here, unless saying he didn't deserve to be murdered is "standing up" for him. These back and forths usually work better when folks are earnest in their comments.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I wasn't reading this board last week as I was spending time with my family.  When I got back and read this thread I almost didn't respond as the usual suspects will attempt to twist my response, as they already have with others.  However, the amateur hour opinions being bandied about by some compelled me to make a few points.

First, I have worked with CSEC youth and have had CSEC training.  Unless any of you can make a similar claim you'll have to, begrudgingly in some cases, accept that I know more about this than you do.  Second, the OP is misleading in several ways.  Lastly, before I really begin, I have to stress that I do not have access to all the information in this case and am making informed judgments with the information we have.

There is an implication in this article that the laws have been changed since this girl was charged with murder, implying that if the same event occurred today then she would not have faced the same charges or been given the same sentence.  This is demonstrably untrue.  The laws that were changed have to do with treating CSEC youth as victims of sex trafficking, not as illegal sex workers.  This is a good thing and a rare positive, left leaning, step forward for the criminal justice system. The murder she was charged with would be a murder charge today for a few reasons.  The single biggest reason is the robbery of the victim's possessions after his murder.  In criminal law there is a very important component to determining guilt.  It is known as "mens rea", (guilty mind) or evil intent.  Essentially, you have to intend to commit a crime to actually commit it.  Not being able to read the minds of accused criminals law enforcement and the prosecution use the actions of the accused to help determine this.

In this scenario the suspect states she shot the victim as she believed he was reaching for a gun and she was in fear that he would murder her.  This fear is predicated solely, in her own words, by the victim stating he was in the Army and had shown her his gun collection.   This would be a difficult defense in ideal circumstances, given that the perceived fear was not matched by actions a "reasonable person" would deem a threat to their lives.  Given that the suspect was a teenager and a victim of sex trafficking she would certainly be given more leeway in determining her state of mind and perceived fear.  However, what she did next sealed her fate.  Stealing the man's money and firearms demonstrates adequately two separate things, that the suspect was not in fear for her life when she killed the victim and that stealing the victim's possessions was her motivation in the murder.  How can we infer this you ask?  Quite simply, in this instance her stated defense works directly against her actions.  If a frightened teenager kills an older man in self defense what would their first response after the killing be?  If not a victim of sex trafficking then calling 911.  A very credible argument could be made that for this teenager such a course of action would not be considered an option.  The second response would be to immediately flee the area in terror.  She did neither.

To kill the victim and then methodically collect his money and firearms, a task that, while not arduously time consuming, would certainly not be quick, demonstrates a criminal intent to deprive the victim of their property.  Would not a frightened teenage flee the site of a justifiable murder in terror at both the need to act in such a manner but the visuals such an action would produce?  This argument was almost certainly hammered into the ground by the prosecution, obviously successfully.

A lot has been made about the intent of the victim in this case, e.g. he was a scum bag who hired a child prostitute, threatened a teenager or, at "best", hired what he believed to be an adult prostitute.  A defense of the victim's morality and/or character is not necessary to demonstrate that his murder was wrong.  Quite simply whether he was a sleeze who wanted an underage prostitute or he was a guy who thought he as paying an adult woman for sex doesn't matter.  All that matters in this case is did he threaten the suspect in such a way as to make her reasonably fear for her life.  Even the suspect's own account, which would certainly be presented by her in a way to cast her actions in as favorable a light as possible, don't come very close to establishing a credible fear of imminent harm.


You can, and should, feel pity for this girl, now woman, and the life she led up to the victim's murder.  What you shouldn't do is let this pity exculpate the suspect's actions.  As demonstrated above, there is compelling evidence that this was far more likely a cold blooded murder for gain than a terrified defense of life and limb.  I have worked with CSEC youth and many other youth in the criminal justice system.  Most of them come from situations that we would all lament and not even wish upon or worst enemies.  Some of them are good people who were never properly taught, who can, and often are, saved and become productive members of society.  Some of them are, quite honestly, evil people who commit horrible crimes.  While we can lament the life that created the criminal they have become we cannot allow ourselves to mitigate their behavior because of it.  I tell people in the juvenile justice system all the time, I am pro-kid right up to the point that I become pro-victim.

So, hopefully this sheds a little light on what happened and why.  Rhianna and Kim Kardashian are typical wanna be do gooders.  They think this kind of cause allows them to put head to pillow at night thinking they made a positive difference.  Try actually working with the 6-10 year old kids in these neighborhoods and prevent more of them from falling into the trap that created the girl that murdered this victim.  That would truly be making a difference.  It would also be much more difficult and time consuming than tweeting and calling your legal team.

[GMDino]

Who in this thread said she shouldn't have been charged with killing him?

As opposed to those who have said if he didn't know she was a minor he had done nothing wrong as she was "willing"?

The entire point was that the legal system seems to be pretty tough sometimes when the circumstances should allow for a bit of leniency...to the point that the law was changed to better describe the accused situation.  Not to say it's okay for her to kill someone.

[GMDino]

Just to clarify:

A post showing how one girl's life was ruined from childhood and led to her doing something awful that the legal system said she will pay for until she is of retirement age, and how the legal system has adapted to take these kind of minors lives into account, is a back and forth over whether she should have been charged with killing the guy?

Defending him picking up a 16 year old for sex and defending the pimp because she must have been "willing"?

We can't even agree that she should have received some leniency? Or if she did it's still about the poor guy cruising for young prostitutes.

We can't just have a discussion about the horrors out there these young women are put through?  And how the system was stacked against them to begin with?

Damn shame. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-28-2017, 01:31 PM)GMDino Wrote: We can't just have a discussion about the horrors out there these young women are put through?  And how the system was stacked against them to begin with?

Damn shame. 

Well I do not know who you are referring to as "we", but some of us were attempting an earnest discussion in the very thread before some troll chimed in with the following very early in an attempt to derail rational discussion:

GMDINO Wrote:Always restores my faith to see people trying to find an excuse that makes someone raping and torturing a child at least a little bit okay.

Really warms my heart.

I said at the time the post was created that it would serve to do nothing but derail the thread, but the establishment saw in your way instead of mine. Maybe your decry for earnest discussion will have more pull.


The rest has just been a couple guys trying to flip the subject matter and twist words in efforts to make themselves look less clueless. 

[GMDino]

(11-28-2017, 01:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well I do not know who you are referring to as "we", but some of us were attempting an earnest discussion in the very thread before some troll chimed in with the following very early in an attempt to derail rational discussion:


I said at the time the post was created that it would serve to do nothing but derail the thread, but the establishment saw in your way instead of mine. Maybe your decry for earnest discussion will have more pull.


The rest has just been a couple guys trying to flip the subject matter and twist words in efforts to make themselves look less clueless. 

Well, again, when the discussion moves from the girl's story to "what ifs" about the John it seems to be moving in the wrong direction, to me at least.

I'd rather we talk about the girl and the legal system that didn't do her any favors.  She killed a guy.  That's clear.  But her life and her story is still worth more than how it was treated by the courts.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-28-2017, 01:56 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well, again, when the discussion moves from the girl's story to "what ifs" about the John it seems to be moving in the wrong direction, to me at least.

It appears to me that people having an earnest discussion on this subject weren't caught up in "what ifs" about the victim (not "the John" btw).

Quote:I'd rather we talk about the girl and the legal system that didn't do her any favors.  She killed a guy.  That's clear.  But her life and her story is still worth more than how it was treated by the courts.

A rather large assumption on your part, to assume that her past and circumstances weren't considered during sentencing.  What exactly are you advocating for that you're not actually saying?  A more lenient sentence, if so how lenient?  Dill seems to think that matter should have stayed in juvenile court, which in CA would mean she would be released at 25 when juvenile jurisdiction expired. Is under nine years an adequate sentence for first degree murder?

I addressed this very point at length in the post above.  You claim to desire a discussion on this girl and her treatment by the criminal justice system.  If so then actually offer up an opinion, what would have been just?  What should have been done that wasn't?  A little substance would help a bit here.

[GMDino]

(11-28-2017, 02:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It appears to me that people having an earnest discussion on this subject weren't caught up in "what ifs" about the victim (not "the John" btw).


A rather large assumption on your part, to assume that her past and circumstances weren't considered during sentencing.  What exactly are you advocating for that you're not actually saying?  A more lenient sentence, if so how lenient?  Dill seems to think that matter should have stayed in juvenile court, which in CA would mean she would be released at 25 when juvenile jurisdiction expired. Is under nine years an adequate sentence for first degree murder?

I addressed this very point at length in the post above.  You claim to desire a discussion on this girl and her treatment by the criminal justice system.  If so then actually offer up an opinion, what would have been just?  What should have been done that wasn't?  A little substance would help a bit here.

I think Dill had the right idea.  I think that under the current system she would have had a better chance.  It's to see her turning her life around and given the opportunity to be released at 25 with that turn might be better for her than when she is in her 60's.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-28-2017, 02:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: I think Dill had the right idea.  I think that under the current system she would have had a better chance.  It's to see her turning her life around and given the opportunity to be released at 25 with that turn might be better for her than when she is in her 60's.

Having seen numerous cases of first degree murder committed by juveniles I am opposed to anyone staying in the juvenile system for such a crime.  We're talking first degree murder, not manslaughter, arson or even rape.  A person is dead by the deliberate and callous actions of another.  Nine years is not a sufficient punishment for such a crime.  The dead person isn't coming back to life anytime soon.  Sorry, I just don't think a person's life is that cheap.

[GMDino]

(11-28-2017, 02:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Having seen numerous cases of first degree murder committed by juveniles I am opposed to anyone staying in the juvenile system for such a crime.  We're talking first degree murder, not manslaughter, arson or even rape.  A person is dead by the deliberate and callous actions of another.  Nine years is not a sufficient punishment for such a crime.  The dead person isn't coming back to life anytime soon.  Sorry, I just don't think a person's life is that cheap.

Agree to disagree then.

I think a girl raised as she was and being pimped out is worth more than the john picking up 16 year old girls to pay for sex.  Maybe he had a rough life too though?

Add to that that once in her structured life she seemingly has turned her life for the better.  Better to be out and helping others than sitting in a cell.  Maybe if we worked more on rehabilitation and less on punishment we'd see fewer repeat visitors?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-28-2017, 02:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: Agree to disagree then.

I think a girl raised as she was and being pimped out is worth more than the john picking up 16 year old girls to pay for sex.  Maybe he had a rough life too though?

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here.  It appears that you're saying that the victim's life wasn't worth much as he hired a prostitute.  Would you care to clarify?

Quote:Add to that that once in her structured life she seemingly has turned her life for the better.  Better to be out and helping others than sitting in a cell.  Maybe if we worked more on rehabilitation and less on punishment we'd see fewer repeat visitors?

Turning your life around in prison is a good thing and will absolutely benefit her when she comes up for parole.  She's sitting in a cell as punishment for taking the life of another human.  Doing good deeds from prison doesn't mitigate that.  If you ground your child for a month for an egregious violation of your rules do you let them off in two weeks because they were really good during those two weeks?  If you do all you are teaching them is that they can buy their way out of consequences.  Actions have consequences, first degree murder should have a very significant one.

[Benton]

(11-28-2017, 02:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Having seen numerous cases of first degree murder committed by juveniles I am opposed to anyone staying in the juvenile system for such a crime.  We're talking first degree murder, not manslaughter, arson or even rape.  A person is dead by the deliberate and callous actions of another.  Nine years is not a sufficient punishment for such a crime.  The dead person isn't coming back to life anytime soon.  Sorry, I just don't think a person's life is that cheap.

Agreed. 

In Kentucky, we have had a little news lately, following a SCOTUS decision, on cases where juveniles convicted of murder have directly or indirectly been sentenced to life without parole. 


https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/kentucky/articles/2017-07-31/4-in-kentucky-seek-new-sentences-for-juvenile-murder-cases

Personally, I don't have a huge problem with functional life without parole in some cases. Like the Phon case above and the Buchanan, the murders they committed showed very little regard for human life at a young age. It would be difficult for them to return and contribute to society. It goes back to the idea of prison serving in place of banishment. But that's getting a little OT from the Brown case, which, hopefully, makes it easier for kids to get out of the lifestyle which precipitated her crime.

[GMDino]

(11-28-2017, 03:05 PM)Benton Wrote: Agreed. 

In Kentucky, we have had a little news lately, following a SCOTUS decision, on cases where juveniles convicted of murder have directly or indirectly been sentenced to life without parole. 


https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/kentucky/articles/2017-07-31/4-in-kentucky-seek-new-sentences-for-juvenile-murder-cases

Personally, I don't have a huge problem with functional life without parole in some cases. Like the Phon case above and the Buchanan, the murders they committed showed very little regard for human life at a young age. It would be difficult for them to return and contribute to society. It goes back to the idea of prison serving in place of banishment. But that's getting a little OT from the Brown case, which, hopefully, makes it easier for kids to get out of the lifestyle which precipitated her crime.

That's the point.  She wasn't on a murder spree or part of a gang.  Maybe nine years is enough...for her.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

I think I have a bit of a problem with her being charged with murder (only going off of what I read in the OP, and none of the additional information that may be out there).

Even if he was unaware of her circumstance of being a forced sex worker, I think that her past would almost give justification to her actions. I can't imagine being forced into violence, sex, and slavery for long before I would snap and murder someone.

Whoever was selling her for sex might be more fitting for the murder charge here.

Now, if there is anything off about the OP....disregard my statement. Very small changes in the circumstance would change my opinion here.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-28-2017, 03:05 PM)Benton Wrote: Agreed. 

In Kentucky, we have had a little news lately, following a SCOTUS decision, on cases where juveniles convicted of murder have directly or indirectly been sentenced to life without parole. 


https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/kentucky/articles/2017-07-31/4-in-kentucky-seek-new-sentences-for-juvenile-murder-cases

Personally, I don't have a huge problem with functional life without parole in some cases. Like the Phon case above and the Buchanan, the murders they committed showed very little regard for human life at a young age. It would be difficult for them to return and contribute to society. It goes back to the idea of prison serving in place of banishment. But that's getting a little OT from the Brown case, which, hopefully, makes it easier for kids to get out of the lifestyle which precipitated her crime.

California is getting very bad in this regard.  Although, thankfully, murder will still likely get you transferred to adult court the process is much less certain now.  I have, recently, seen murder cases stay in the juvenile system for minors over the age of 14.  What we are starting to see is what prompted the certification to adult court process in the first place; that juveniles are being used to commit serious crimes because the amount of time they face is significantly shorter.  At the same time, the more lenient punishments are emboldening the criminal population and you won't find a single LEO, parole or probation officer in this state who won't privately admit to noticing it.

(11-28-2017, 03:11 PM)GMDino Wrote: That's the point.  She wasn't on a murder spree or part of a gang.  Maybe nine years is enough...for her.

Maybe it is.  Right now there's a guy in prison serving life without parole who, if you let him out today, would never commit another crime.  Two things; one, there is no way of actually knowing that and two, the sentence was handed down as punishment.  You didn't address my analogy above about mitigating punishment and what that teaches people about consequences.  A human being, no matter what you thought of him as a person, is dead because of this woman's actions.  There has to be a punishment for such an action and nine years is not worth a human being's life.

I'll add this, the law doesn't exist to prevent crime, although for those who fear consequences it has that effect.  The law exists to provide a framework to punish those who violate it.