WH's OutdoorsChick
New member
I am thinking lately WH is out of his Daym Mind… He seems to think that molesters and rapist should not be convicted unless there is physical proof. I think it should depend on the circumstance. As I was approached when I was a child by a sexual predator, I was only 10 years old and I turned around and told my parents. They did not accuse me of lying and claimed that the incident never happened because there was no physical proof or the incident was not video taped as WH would need to believe the incident ever happened. I think he is out of his Flippen mind!!!!!
What do you guys think… Would you accuse someone of sexually molesting or raping a child (maybe your child) or adult with out physical proof and only taking their word for it. Sometimes it would depend on the circumstance but for the most part I would believe a women’s or child’s word for it!
What do you guys think… Would you accuse someone of sexually molesting or raping a child (maybe your child) or adult with out physical proof and only taking their word for it. Sometimes it would depend on the circumstance but for the most part I would believe a women’s or child’s word for it!