Posted by pearl12 on July 14, 2007 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, he should be. And the mother should be sterilized because she obviously doesn't know how to parent and protect her own child. This wasn't a stranger on the street. This was a man she met at a bar and brought into her home - a home that should have been a safe haven for her child.

Posted by AnnaWhaat on July 15, 2007 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why is she a bad mom? Doe's anyone know how long she knew the man????????NO
Was she dating him?????????UNKNOWN
Did she just rent a room to him to cover rent? UNKNOWN .
Why jump to conclusions? Wait for all the facts.

Posted by yorkba on July 15, 2007 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As a matter of fact, all of that information is known. The mothers name is Terri, a local of the Borderline Bar and Grill. She and "the dirt bag" have known each other for almost two years. They have never dated. She was not renting a room to him. In fact, she lives off the state. Yes, another welfare case. Terri offered her home to Larry after picking him up in Sacramento because she wanted him back in the area. Larry was a regular at the Borderline also but he only worked there for a very short period of time while he was in the Navy and even that was only a "part time" position. Terri has brought her daughter to the Borderline on many occasions and has even pushed her daughter to approach men of all ages. The daughters actions are a direct result of Terri's influence and actions as a role model. While I do NOT agree with what the "dirt bag" has done I dont feel that its right for the press to print stories such as this based on the mothers statements alone, especially when the mother has a history of being an attention whore. This article is a farce and not accurate in any way, shape or form. Please get all the facts before you pass judgment on people you dont know. Larry has always been a very kind, warm and caring person. THIS ARTICLE IS AN OUTRAGE!!!

Posted by yorkba on July 16, 2007 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This isnt in defense of a 25 year old man having sex with a 13 year old. Its about the lies that were told by the press and by Terri. What he did was wrong, with or without parental consent and theres no denying that. You've heard the saying "you cant rape the willing" havent you? Well, this was more than just the "willing." Her mother told both of them to do it. The problem arose when he wasnt interested in Terri. The press made Larry out to be predator and thats not that case at all. Yes, he should have used his big brain instead of the little one or he wouldnt be where he is today but this was hardly rape. This was hardly the case of a man "befriending" a mother and daughter at a bar in order to "rape" a young girl. In fact, to look at her, you would never know she was only 13 which would discredit that theory. She gets mistaken for 18-22 on a regular basis. So, a prison sentence for knowing her real age? Sure. 13 years? No. He was not a predator. He didnt mislead or manipulate anyone. If anything, he took an offer to relocate and made a stupid decision. You people love to sit back and read the paper and pass judgement like you know the full story and the only Im trying to do is make everyone aware that the story that was printed is a lie. Its a story of a womans jealous revenge. Yes...I said revenge. Obtain the minutes from the hearing and you'll see what Im talking about.

Posted by yorkba on July 17, 2007 at 1:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey, Einstein...Just for you, Im going to copy and paste the beginning segment of my previous post. I'll even emphasize the real issue. Maybe this time you'll actually understand whats really going on here. Ready? "This isnt in defense of a 25 year old man having sex with a 13 year old. ITS ABOUT THE LIES THAT WERE TOLD BY THE PRESS AND BY TERRI. What he did was wrong, with or without parental consent and theres no denying that." Ok, can you follow that or do I need to break out the crayons? I mean, I know its far more cool to post some random sarcastic comment about people you dont know from the comfort of your own home but, you're really making yourself look like a moron here. Think about that the next time you decide to whip out your e-peen and try to show off over the internet, ok? Blaming the mom and daughter. lol. Its his own fault he ended up where he did. Im upset about the lies that were told, clearly. Lord have mercy...

Posted by jlipking on July 17, 2007 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

WOW!

Posted by AnnaWhaat on July 17, 2007 at 5:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yorkba, Thanks for the info. But you have got to be kidding me !!!!! right....... a child is innocent ,and it doesn't matter what the mother pushed her into doing. And if she was at the bar underage then the owners should be sued and thier liquor license taken away. DO NOT tell me that a 25 year old man doesn't know better then to mess with a 13 year old ! He is a PIG in my books. I hope they slap it to him !!!! You can't rape the willing? OMG she was 13? what part of that do you not get !Well it sure sounds like your defending this rapist to me ! This article makes me literally sick at my stomach ! I hope this pig rapist goes to prison for a long time. Then maybe he can tell the difference between a 13 year old and a 21 year old. Cause I sure can !!!!!
Vae4usc,I like your comment also ! Geez what part is wrong here.

Posted by MudBlood on July 18, 2007 at 12:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Alright, well it seems that everyone has a problem with this "pig" and wants to know what about the story is false. Well, to only start things out no he was not 25 nor is he serving 13 years.

Now lets all be rational adults here and really think about the statement "you cannot rape the willing." Thinking out side of this story.. that means to forget the ages (for the slow ones we have on here).. If you were to have a sexual relationship with some one that wanted that relationship just as badly as you.. and then that person went and cried rape does that make you a rapist a "sick pig" should you then in return spend several years in jail only due to the fact that the person you were with has decided to turn things around. I would think not.

Now going back to the given situation.. yes he was in the wrong and should have known better and as far as I can tell no one has denied that. SO GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS.. No one on here is saying that what he did was right. What people are defending is the fact that the 13yr old was by no means a virgin or anything that could somewhat resemble one. She was indeed not raped. Let me make this a little bit more clear for some people..

rape: –noun
1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.

I'm sorry to break it to you but there was no physical force in this situation. She is the one who approached him and he is the moron that fallowed through with it.

Posted by MudBlood on July 18, 2007 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Congratulations! Through your ignorance we have all finally agreed that this was a case of STATUTORY rape. Is he a child predator NO is he a child molester NO did he only associate with Terri to get to her daughter NO. I'm glad we can all are eye to eye for a change. And thank you ever so much on the break down of laws dealing with age. Now maybe some one should tell her mother that a 13yr old should not be the head of household. That a 13yr old should not be taking care of two younger kids and he own mother. Maybe someone should let her mother know that pumping out her 13yr old daughter is illegal. Why don't you write her mother a nice little letter about all she is doing.. Maybe she forgot some of the laws.

Posted by MudBlood on July 18, 2007 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Again you are throwing a fit over the word rape. Do I need to repost the definition of that word.. I would hope not. It would be considered statutory due to the fact of the age issue. Not due to the fact that he forced her into having sex with him.
Considering that you have no true knowlege about the case I can understand why you are so naïve and young minded. Let me guess.. Your the type of person that just sits back and let's the media feed you whatever it is they want you to believe.. You cannot think for yourself. Basically your telling me that if the media wrote all of this about the mom you would have no doubts and wouldn't even second guess to believe what was written. You are the type of person that cannot have their own opinion or make up their own mind.. unless that is if some one tells you what your opinion is. You can only see the black and white. To you there is no middle ground. Frankly I feel sorry for you. I pray to god that one days your eyes will open but and you will see that there is more to everything then just what is in front of you.
Either its obvious that you have a personal connection to the story or you just need to lay off of. This is a case that you know nothing about. And besides you would probably have more joy turning on CNN so that they can tell you what your next closed minded argument should be about.

Posted by MudBlood on July 19, 2007 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow. Well its nice to know that your confident enough to consider yourself a credible teacher. However, in order for you to have schooled me you would have needed to teach me something of value. And I'm sorry but teaching me just how ignorant people in this country can be isnt very valuable nor is it new information. But thank you ever so much for the lesson. I will make sure to send out my recomendations.

Oh and was I suppose to care if you don't read my post? I'm sorry I must have missed that part bc I was too busy leaping for joy! Good, go back to your corner where your own contradictory statements make sense.

Now getting back on topic since I seem to have a problem with that and all. NOT ONE person on here has ever denied the fact that he is in the wrong. NOT ONE person on here has ever said that he does not deserve to spend time for what he did. We all understand that what took place was a stupid choice on his behalf.. Yes he should of known better and we all understand that.

Yes, he plead guilty we also all know that. We know what he did. Was there ever a time that we said he was innocent? I didn't think so. But while your at it you might wanna look up how many times a person will only plead guilty due to the fact that they would get a less of a sentence then trying to fight the court. Yes, I hate to break it to you but in this perfect media driven world you live in we do have a very corrupt judicial system. But again just in case you I lost you again.. He IS guilty for what he did.

Now we get back to the rape part. She was NOT raped. Someone throwing them selves at a person does not make them a rape victim. She was more then willing to do everthing that she did. So why is it that you cannot get around the rape part of it? We all agree that he should not have fallowed through with it but she was NOT raped.

Oh and thank you for the well over used duck phrase. So by that are you tring to tell me that all people are classified by the way they look, talk, walk, and act? If that's true then I think we have just traveled back in the past. Not to mention then her mother should have known what was going to happen due to the fact of how he walks, talks, and acts. Oh but there I go again blaming the mother. How dare the mother have some kind of responcibility for her own daughter.

Posted by brian_williams on July 20, 2007 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You folks are only one step above the scum in this story.

And you better look down, your foot is on a banana peel!

Posted by SueSue on July 21, 2007 at 5:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, you two, get a grip. The facts are the facts. This male over the age of 18 had sex with a female under the "Statutory Age",which is 18 yrs. of age. DEFINITION, (as somewhat quoted by vae4usc) also found at www.criminalattorney.com or any law web site.
DEFINITION:
Statutory rape laws define the age below which an individual is legally incapable of consenting to sexual activity; statutory rape laws assume that all activities with individuals below this age are coercive, even if both parties believe their participation is voluntary or consensual. The penal code or criminal code of each state dictates the specific sexual acts that constitute a felony or misdemeanor offense of statutory rape. A "common misconception" is that the age of consent is the single factor that determines the legality of sexual activity. However, there are only 12 states that have a single age of consent. For instance, in California, statutory rape is defined as: “An act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of the perpetrator, if the person is a minor, a person under the age of 18" (Penal Code § 261.5(a)).
Any questions?
Let's move on shall we.

Posted by MudBlood on July 22, 2007 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All we are trying to say is that we wish the entire story and the true facts could have been printed. First of all the article as short as it may be does not present the entire case and second of all the facts that it does state are not all correct.

Posted by deadeye on July 23, 2007 at 10:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Statutory rape laws vary from state to state, as do marriage laws, a person's ability to marry with consent of one parent, or a judge, or a justice of the peace, etc. In NC the age of consent is 14, most other places 18. So if one is willing to marry and it is made legal, it is no longer stautory rape? I'd like to make a few points to make 1) the age of consent, in any state, should be commensurate with the age at which a minor can be tried as an adult in a court of law. 2) If marriage can be legal at a given age with permission, then so should sex. 3) If the Virgin Mary became pregnant between the age of 13-14, as scholars contend, by her own consent, then does that make God a statutory rapist? I think not! To solve the problem today, we could just make sex crimes a federal offense and the age of majority 18 for all.
And, then, maybe we should do away with all laws that allow minors to be tried as adults. After all, if a kid is old enough to choose a crime that deserves adult punishment, he or she should be old enough to choose who to have sex with........ right?

Posted by 1meaniequeenie on September 28, 2007 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

(1) Borderline can NOT be sued because they have FAMILY NIGHT, where persons under the age of 18 are allowed to be there.
(2)Teri did NOT put her daughter up to it.
(3)Her daughter did NOT have sex with him and then claim rape, she told a friend of hers who told Teri and Teri did what she had to do to protect her daughter.
(4) Yes, what he did was wrong, but like other people have said HE had a choice and picked the wrong one, he is serving his time for his mistake.
(5) How many of you people ACTUALLY KNOW Teri/Larry and the whole situation? I know both and have been around through the whole thing. (6)Teri is NOT a bad mother, things happen, you can't put a child in a bubble to protect them, you can only try your hardest and hope things happen for the best.
I don't want to start a huge arguement, I just think people can have their opinion, but look at the facts, I've read the police repost, and court documents. I was asked to go to court for morral support, but due to wrok and school was unable to go. Seeing how people talk about it, I kind of wish I would have went.

Posted by MotherInQuestion on September 30, 2007 at 7:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am the mother involved in this story, and until recently I felt people could say what they wanted and have there own opinions, but a few of you who claim to know the WHOLE story, clearly do NOT!

I am not on here to start a debate with anyone. I just thought I would clear up some slander and defermation of character that has been going on.

1: My 13 year old daughter WAS in fact a virgin.

2: She did NOT persue Larry

3: I DID NOT GIVE MY PERMISSION FOR EITHER OF THEM TO DO ANYTHING ~ IN FACT WHEN I FOUND OUT I WENT STRAIGHT TO THE POLICE!

4: I did NOT EVER want a relationship with Larry, and I was never jealous.

5: I have NEVER spoken to anyone from the press regarding this case. In fact only a couple close friends know all the facts.

6: Yes I have brought my daughter to the bar in the past, i believe it was a total of 3 times, and I had permission to do so for special events that were going on.

7: I told my daughter to only dance with MY friends, and now I use that term loosely, since they truely were never really friends to begin with. I HAVE NEVER PUSHED HER INTO APPROACHING MEN OF ANY AGE!

8: I HAVE NOT EVER PIMPED OUT MY DAUGHTER AND NEVER WOULD!

Now as far as the particular events concerning the case I am not going to get into detail, but what I will say is that the story was not represented in an accurate light for either party.