SC - Parents Of Convicted Sex Offender Behind Bars

[golfmom]

Blondie that's not made clear. It's his parents that let him stay alone with children when they know he's a pervert so who knows? Unfortunately and tragically I'm thinking there's more children besides this little girl he abused.

I'm still really puzzling over this case. At this point we're really not getting enough info to get a clear picture of what's occurred. He was just recently arrested on an allegation of sexual abuse that occurred 8-10 years ago. I think LE has really jumped the gun in charging his parents. If they knowingly left a child in his care that was abused ... fine, arrest them. But, this guy hasn't been found guilty of anything YET. The crime they are accused of committing can't be proven until AFTER their son is convicted of the crimes he's accused of committing.

 

[sherri79]

That r's comment got me so agaga I have to post seperately again.

"Just for everyone's information"? Like informing people that this creep has received the Lord makes a difference? Oh, well thanks so much for that r7884. I feel so much better ya informed everyone.

Come on that's gotta be somebody related to him. All informing the world. Mind ya not a mention of the victim in that comment. It's all about the freak. Hopefully, the Lord will tell him to stop sexually abusing little children in this lifetime.

somehow it makes it worse for me if it is true. if he truly found the lord then shouldn't he confess what he has done and spare the child more pain?

 

[noZme]

some clarification, emphasis my own

From South Carolina NBC affiliate, May 15, 2008

"WYFF4.com ANDERSON, S.C. -- The parents of a convicted sex offender are in jail, accused of child neglect.


Anderson County deputies said Debra and Charles Horne Sr. allowed two children to be alone with their son, Charles Randy Horne Jr. Deputies said that because of the parents' actions, the son victimized the children.

Charles Horne Jr. faces four counts of criminal sexual conduct.

He was re-arrested after being released from prison. He's been a registered sex offender for 10 years. In 1996 he was convicted of committing a lewd act on a minor. Because he was 17 years old at the time, he was released from prison after one year under the Youthful Offender Act. "


noZme says:
If he has been a registered sex offender for 10 years, the Home's argument that junior, known as "Cowboy", should not have been allowed alone with minors is no good. He has not been adjudicated for this case but I thought across the board, SO's are not to be left with children. Duh!

Did everyone see his picture at http://www.independentmail.com/news/...onduct-anders/ ? Me thinks mom & dad have indulged lil Cowboy in other ways than babysitting...... like extra helpings of biscuits & gravy! Does anyone oin the family have self control?

OK, that last comment was uncalled for, but it's so easy to detest people who hurt defenseless children.

 

[Salem]

I'm still really puzzling over this case. At this point we're really not getting enough info to get a clear picture of what's occurred. He was just recently arrested on an allegation of sexual abuse that occurred 8-10 years ago. I think LE has really jumped the gun in charging his parents. If they knowingly left a child in his care that was abused ... fine, arrest them. But, this guy hasn't been found guilty of anything YET. The crime they are accused of committing can't be proven until AFTER their son is convicted of the crimes he's accused of committing.

Golfmom - the guy was a registered sex offender at the time they left the children in his care. Regardless whether or not he is convicted for the assualt that happened when the parents left him alone with the children, the parents could be found guilty of child endangerment for leaving the children alone with a registered sex offender.... I think...... my understanding of the article is that he was already registered and then it happened again, because of the parents. So I think the parents have their own charges to answer for, independent of the son's charges.

Salem

Salem

 

[Salem]

Ugh, good point, Cynical Suz. I've seen this so much that I don't think it triggers that in me anymore! We could write the person or site that wrote the article. We did that with a headline about 2 weeks ago and they changed it because it was just wrong!!!

Now the sheriff... :doh: At least he arrested them! lol

Very good points Cynical Suz and Taxi! I took the "had sex" as the Sheriff's way of trying to politically correctly, under pressure, say the brute raped the little girl while also acknowledging there was "full" sexual conduct on the brute's part. But the part about "they may or may not know better" was over the top. Who the hell cares if they know better or not, doesn't do them any good does it. Look at this pig - he probably looked like a giant to those little girls - what were they going to do?

Maybe several of us could post a comment on that page where that "r" person says the brute got the lord. I love the Lord, don't get me wrong here, but I don't think getting the lord is going to be enough to make this pervert change his spots! He didn't just "molest" them, he full out raped them and apparently it was not his first time.

I hope his parents get stiff sentences and that it is well publicized. It will deter others from saying "not my kid" and "my kid has been rehabilitated" and hopefully other parents will think twice!

Salem

 

[Salem]

Ugh, good point, Cynical Suz. I've seen this so much that I don't think it triggers that in me anymore! We could write the person or site that wrote the article. We did that with a headline about 2 weeks ago and they changed it because it was just wrong!!!

Now the sheriff... :doh: At least he arrested them! lol

Okay - I sent an email to Liz Carey, the contact for the article. Here's what I said:

Liz - thanks for the articles about cowboy and his parents (Sex offender arrested for two sex acts with minors in Anderson, Monday, May 17th, 2008). We will be looking for updates as this story continues to unfold. However, in the meantime, I would like to bring to your attention some "unfortunate" wording in the article. The way I understand it, the wording is actually quotes from the sheriff, and I'm hoping you can share these concerns with him.
The article says "he had sex" with the children. Children, especially those under 10-12 years of age do not "have sex". This monster out and out raped the children. Children under the age of 15 (generally, jurisdictions can set their own age limits) can not legally consent to sex so no matter what, if these children were under that legal age, he raped/statutorially raped them.
Also, the wording about "they may or may not have known better". Not sure what the Sheriff was trying to say here, but it really doesn't matter. The article is clear that the children were under 10 years of age and it is pretty apparent they had no choice in the matter regardless of what they did or did not know.
Wording such as what is being pointed out here, tends to place blame on the victims or imply that there may have been some type of "consent." These children were about 6 years old - they do not deserve to be blamed or shamed. In addition, there is no way that a 6 year old can give "legal" consent to sex. Its against the law.
I appreciate your time and I hope you will give this matter some thought. Please feel free to share my email with the Sheriff or forward it to his email address.
Sincerely,


Salem

 

[Salem]

And this is the response I received:

"I'm having a hard time finding the article to which you are refering. I looked in the May 17 paper and the article you mention isn't in there. The closest one I can find is an article about his parents turning themselves in for child endangerment on May 15.

In that article, there are no quotes from the sheriff. However, in that particular piece it does say "According to a police report, he lived at 305 E. Orr St. in Anderson. Two of the charges against him stem from two incidents in 1998 and 1999, when a victim said Horne had intercourse with her. The victim was between the ages of 6 and 7 at the time, according to the report."

That would be the victims words according to the report, not the sheriff's. Additionally, there is nothing in the article that states anything about consent.

If this is not the article in question, could you forward the article you are referring to to me?

However, because your concerns do point to an issue of sensitivity toward victims, I have forwarded your message on to the sheriff. Anytime we can learn about how words impact perceptions, I think we all win.

Thank you,


Liz Carey
Reporter"

As you can see, I forgot to send her the original link. But the article has been updated (not because of my email) and she was very positive about the feedback. :clap:

Salem

 

[pixies]

:clap::clap::clap: Salem, you rock!

 

[justche]

:furious: Does anyone else find these two quotes from the story to be absolutely unacceptable?

"Deputies say he had sex with a six year old girl in his home."

Um, hello, this is a SIX-year-old! This guy did not "have sex" with her - he raped her.

"Deputies say the couple allowed their son to be home alone with the children when the incident occured. Sheriff David Crenshaw says that makes them just as guilty as their son. 'You're talking about children, who can't defend themselves, and may or may not know better," says Crenshaw. "They're not qualified to make that decision.'"

"...may or may not know better?!?" How many six-year-olds does this idiot sheriff know who "know better" but have sex anyway?

No wonder so many crimes against children are just shrugged off!!

I was just going to paste the first quote - I was so angry I didn't read the rest of the article.

 

[Filly]

Salem, nice, nice job. Thank you for taking action towards something we all found disturbing. Yes you do rock, Salem.

 

[MCDRAW]

:furious: Does anyone else find these two quotes from the story to be absolutely unacceptable?

"Deputies say he had sex with a six year old girl in his home."

Um, hello, this is a SIX-year-old! This guy did not "have sex" with her - he raped her.

"Deputies say the couple allowed their son to be home alone with the children when the incident occured. Sheriff David Crenshaw says that makes them just as guilty as their son. 'You're talking about children, who can't defend themselves, and may or may not know better," says Crenshaw. "They're not qualified to make that decision.'"

"...may or may not know better?!?" How many six-year-olds does this idiot sheriff know who "know better" but have sex anyway?

No wonder so many crimes against children are just shrugged off!!

Crenshaw appears to be stupid!

 

[MCDRAW]

Salem, I'm glad you sent the reporter an email.

 

[SewingDeb]

Good job Salem!

 

[golfmom]

Wow Salem, I am so impressed! Great Job!

 

[golfmom]

Golfmom - the guy was a registered sex offender at the time they left the children in his care. Regardless whether or not he is convicted for the assualt that happened when the parents left him alone with the children, the parents could be found guilty of child endangerment for leaving the children alone with a registered sex offender.... I think...... my understanding of the article is that he was already registered and then it happened again, because of the parents. So I think the parents have their own charges to answer for, independent of the son's charges.

Salem

Thanks Salem, for the info. there's just sooooo little on this case. I still think that the sheriff should have held off on arresting the parents until after the "cowboy's" conviction. But, based on the quotes from him ... I'm not too impressed ... although I'm not very impressed with the "cowboy's" parents or wife either.

 

[Salem]

Thanks everyone. I was happy with her reply and her willingness to acknowledge that words do have an impact on us all.

Golfmom - I hear what you are saying. In the original article I believe, this man was 17 when he was first convicted. Personally, I'm glad they arrested the parents and made it public. Even if they are not culpable, the publicity puts others on notice not to leave children alone with RSOs. Maybe a little unfair to the parents if they are not guilty of anything, but I think it goes to the greater good. I do have a hard time with the parents being innocent though, because if the guy was 17 at the time of the first conviction, he must have been living at home and his parents would have had full knowledge of what he did. If they thought he was innocent, I think (could be wrong) they would have paid more attention to putting him in a situation that could be misread.....

Salem

 

[BeavisMom62]

ICK ICK ICK

http://www.independentmail.com/news/2008/mar/17/sex-offender-busted-two-sex-acts-minors-anderson/

Oh Dear GOD!