Media Covers for #FreeKate While Her Supporters Attack the Victim’s Parents

Posted on Comments

Jailbait Kate: Her crazy supporters will do anything for her.

This CNN story about the Kaitlyn Hunt case doesn’t mention that the age of consent is 16 in Florida until the 13th paragraph:

Gay Florida teen Kaitlyn Hunt sent back
to jail over explicit texts, images

The headline conveys a misleading impression of the case, and although the article includes most of the relevant facts, it is clearly intended to generate sympathy for the criminal:

The court hearing Tuesday was graphic and, for Hunt, emotional. She held a tissue in her handcuffed hands that she repeatedly used to wipe tears from her eyes. The proceeding marked the latest turn in a story that first captured the nation’s attention months ago.
Hunt’s family says the relationship was consensual, with their lawyer claiming authorities wouldn’t have gone after her if it had involved a male and a female instead of two teenage girls.

Exactly why should we give a damn what this criminal pervert, her raunchy parents and their worthless lawyer say about the case?

Arguments made by the World’s Worst Lawyer™ Julia Graves in her statement today demonized the family of Kaitlyn Hunt’s victim:

“[The younger girl is] taken to a church that labels being gay a sin, has the Bible thrown at her, all of her thing in her room boxed up and taken from her, is apparently hit by her parents, and clearly yelled at for lying by her father in the presence of Detective Shepherd at the school in a subsequent interview.”

This has been the Hunt family’s strategy from Day One — blame the victim and her family. In her May 17 Facebook post, Kaitlyn’s mother Kelley Hunt Smith named the victim’s parents nine times and smeared them as being “full of hate and bigotry.” And the post by Kaitlyn’s lawyer, alleging abuse by the parents of the victim, seems to have been a signal for Kaitlyn’s supporters to attack:

Perhaps you thought it was rhetorical overkill when I called Kaitlyn’s supporters “amoral scum with no sense of shame,” but do you see the twisted worldview of these people? Do you see how they admire everything despicable and despise everything admirable?

The family that raises a tattoo-covered foul-mouthed hoodlum (“Beat her f–king ass, Emily! Beat her ass! Get that bitch!”) are a family that has love “in abundance.” No one can be judgmental toward the parents who let Kaitlyn bring a runaway 14-year-old to their house for a lesbian sex romp where they “put their fingers inside of each other’s vaginas, put their mouths on each other’s vaginas, and both of them used a vibrator on each other to insert it in each other’s vaginas.” That’s perfectly OK and it would be wrong to call such a family “creepy” or something.

No, there is nothing remotely suspicious about a father like Steven R. Hunt Jr. (Booking #2012-00001721) and everyone must praise a mother like Kelley Hunt Smith who sends text messages telling her daughter’s victim to “delete EVERYTHING.”

Instead, according to the “Free Kate” crowd, what needs to be investigated — the family that should be condemned for “abuse” and accused of having “zero good intentions” — are the parents who objected to their 14-year-old daughter getting dildoed by Steve and Kelley’s perverted criminal offspring. You know, the one who likes to send masturbation videos of herself to minors?

That’s the way people think, see, if they’re the kind of amoral scum with no sense of shame who support “Free Kate.”

Do I hate these scum too much? No.

It’s impossible to hate them as much as they deserve to be hated.

 

153 comments

  1. Nice to see right wingers keep apologizing for rapist priests because they’re Catholics. FUCK YOU!

    I rather think that you’re rather confused. Who here has supported any rapists, other than you and the FreeKaters?

    Chris is merely pointing out that your outrage is highly selective.

    Your same argument about “consensual” would also apply to the Catholic priests.

    I don’t think Chris is saying that’s a good thing.

    abusing his power

    What if it was “consensual?”

    Doesn’t matter if it was. It’s still wrong, immoral, and illegal.

  5. When the law is on your side, argue the law.
    When the facts are on your side, argue the facts.
    When neither the facts nor the law are on your side and you have a caught-red-handed-multiple-times client, beat up on the victim and the victim’s family for being so audacious to be victimized.

  6. You’re truly mindless. I know what the law says but regardless, and in reality, she’s no victim. The law is arbitrary and changes from state to state and country to country. It’s applicable when there is a discernible difference in age between say 30 and 15 but 19 and 15? Are you serious? Get off your moral high horse and come back to reality. This is no big deal.

  8. Oh no, she’s one year over the arbitrary legal limit! She’s an immoral monster! And if she went to some other state or country there would be no crime so the morality of the act and the law are meaningless. Amazing how the self righteous right wing waste their fucking time. Get a life, loser.

  9. The law is arbitrary and changes from state to state and country to country.

    And this has all been in 1 state and 1 country.

    when there is a discernible difference in age

    When I was 17, I opined that there was no real difference between 18 and 21, so the drinking age change was ridiculous. My teacher said there was a huge difference between 18 and 21.

    On my 21st birthday, I wrote her a letter of apology.

    You appear not to have learned from your mistakes.

    I know what the law says

    But you claim it says otherwise

    but regardless, and in reality, she’s no victim.

    She’s a 14 year old who was molested in a toilet stall.

    That you consider that “normal” is all I think we need know about you.

    It’s illegal. By definition. And I don’t know where any state legalizes 14 year old sexual contact.. I don’t know of any state that’s legal to carnally know a 15 year old if you’re over 17.

    She is a victim, and why you insist on blaming her is a reflection upon you, and only you.

  10. Oh no, she’s one year over the arbitrary legal limit! She’s an immoral monster.

    Not due to her age.

    Due to her psychological tormenting of the victim. That makes her a monster.

    For “slut-shaming” the victim – as you’re doing, she’s a immoral monster, in your parlance.

    For accusing the victim’s parents of wrongdoing, she’s a immoral monster.

    The “arbitrary age” isn’t the factor here.

  11. Does Graves have credible evidence of the victim’s parents being abusive? If not, I would be suing her for slander if I were the parents.

  12. It’s exactly this attitude that put Kate in jail. And if you don’t like something, just call it arbitrary. And about that reality thing, in reality socially well adjusted young people find dates without robbing the cradle.

    Reality is that the majority of our angst has been directed at the other adults in Kate’s life who, like you, said ‘screw the law. ‘ And Kate said, yeah screw those bastards I’m going to do what I want.

    If I had been her father and she violated the no contact order I would have had her committed. Because I would love my child enough to realize she has OCD and she needed help. It’s not something anyone would want to do. But it would be the best thing for Kate.

  14. There’s a consensus here that Ms Graves isn’t qualified to defend Kate. There’s no way this turns out well for Kate. This judge may be very liberal but you disrespect an order of his court and you’ve got a pissed off judge.

    And Graves’ statement was not smart. The judge isn’t happy.

  15. Marshall you sound like you might be a Brett Kimberlin fan. You like those young Russian women? Twelve old enough for you. I mean, those laws are just arbitrary and vary from state to state. In other countries it wouldn’t even be a crime. Brett would know all about that. You sick bitch.

  17. Isn’t it interesting that the unethical attorney, KHunt, her family, and her supporters all believe that having sex with an underage child is just hunky-dory (or no worse than “bad judgement” but the victim’s parents taking the victim to church and engaging in discipline that is both legal and reasonable constitutes “abuse”. What moral twilight zone do these idiots live in?

  18. I think it’s clear by the content of the texts that it is Kaitlyn Hunt, and not the Smiths, who is the abusive one. She is showing classic signs of abuse via the revealed texts.

  19. Let’s see:

    Crime victim taken to and questioned by the authorities=abuse.

    Crime victim being taken to a church with traditional theological views=abuse.

    Crime victim being taught traditional Christian values=abuse.

    Crime victim being punished for engaging iillegal/parentally disapproved conduct=abuse.

    Crime victim’s parents using legal, non-excessive corporal punishment=abuse.

    Parent raising voice at crime victim for lying to police=abuse.

    Parents calling the police to stop the victimization of their child by a sex predator=abuse.

    Sexual predator having sex with underage girl, helping her run away, violating a court order to have no conduct with the underage girl, and sending her a porn video= wholesome non-criminal activity between young lovers.

    What sort of moral twilight zone do these people live in?

  21. The liberal “Utopia” where immorality is the norm, dogs are married to their human “spouses” and “intergenerational intimacy” is not only accepted, it is a required subject in elementary school.
    I condemn the very idea.

  23. Strawman. Not the same situation. The priests (note the lower case p, indicating that they are not worthy of respect) who have engaged in such behavior have been/are being prosecuted for their crimes. The dioceses and Churchmen involved in cover-ups and payoffs are being removed (several bishops have been sent to remote monasteries as punishment for their sinful and criminal behavior). The Church is cleaning house. The current Pope and his predecessor have made great strides in correcting this situation.
    Just as the day of reckoning has come for abusive priests (who not only broke their vows to sexually abuse young people but used their authority to do so and to silence their victims) it is also time to stop giving a pass to abusers of all walks of life. No minor child can consent to a relationship because they are not mature enough to do so. Here in Florida, teens can become emancipated after age 16 (also the age of consent) under a courts supervision. That last part is important because even though the court may rule that a teen is emancipated they recognize that some control and supervision is needed.
    That is not the case here. If Kate had been a male, there would still be a prosecution but zero publicity. The false narrative of homophobia pumped out by the Hunt family is why.
    To review:
    There cannot be a consensual relationship between a legal adult and a legal minor.
    The Hunt family are all assclowns.

  24. I wish this site had a pedophile and pedophile supporter/enabler filter. Assclowns like you would be tracked and reported for your own good.
    Go away you nattering nabob of negativism (as Spiro would say).

  27. Sorry, I don’t live in a right wing internet bubble so I have no idea who Brett Kimberlin is nor do I care. And again, for slow people like yourself, we’re talking about two teenagers 4 years in age difference so please save the moral outrage. Regardless of what you think it really doesn’t make you a better person.

  29. Really? She’s a “monster”? LOL! You must truly live a sheltered existence. And i don’t see anyone “tormenting” the victim. It sounds like they’re in a war of words with the younger girls family who started this whole fiasco.

  30. Has anyone else noticed that 90% of this blog is dedicated to what the bloggers perceive as sexual dysfunction? Weird.

  33. So you support sex between a 13 year old male and a 9 year old female? They are “only 4 years apart” after all!
    What part of Legal Minor/Legal Adult do you fail to understand?
    Legally (and that is what matters, not your emotions) there is no ability to consent on the part of the min or, even if they do perform willingly the acts, they are not legally able to consent, thus the legal adult in the situation commits a crime by engaging in said activity.
    Did no one teach you “15 will get you 20”?
    Poor, poor mistreated assclown, never was taught self control or discipline.

  35. Heh. Such a typical response when challenged by truth and morality. I’ll pray for you. Perhaps God has plans for your immortal soul that doesn’t include Hell as a final destination.

  36. Must be all those 7-11 microwave burritos the #FreeKaters consume …
    Perhaps not, that may be the faint whiff of brimstone from following the Deceiver too closely …(AKA Satan farts).

  38. And i don’t see anyone “tormenting” the victim.

    That’s pretty obvious. Despite it being very clear, in the open, and obvious to anyone with any sort of thought process .

    . It sounds like they’re in a war of words with the younger girls family

    Thus, torment. Thought you didn’t see that?

    who started this whole fiasco.

    No, they didn’t “start this whole fiasco”. They reported a crime. The State offered a sweetheart plea deal to the criminal – but she refused, and started this “fiasco” to avoid any and all consequences of her repeated and deliberate criminal behavior.

    And you admit that there’s a “war of words” with the victim and her family.

    That’s torment, you jackanape.

    You must truly live a sheltered existence.

    No, the opposite. Which is why I’m aware of what the Hunts are doing are textbook torments, textbook aggravations of their crimes, and thankfully, as stupid as they are criminal, which might mean justice will be served to all of them for their transgressions.

  40. It’s just arbitrary.

    Like the rules against me taking your stuff. Totally arbitrary. Your stuff. My stuff. ARBITRARY.

    Where I can put my stuff, hell, the laws that say I can’t JUST DO WHATEVER I WANT!

    ARRRRRRRBIIIITRRRARRRRY!!!!!

    (Just ask Kate! She’s got regular visiting hours now, she can tell you all about the arbitrary rules/daily schedule!)

  42. You can imagine the jolt when this morning the news was that Bradley Manning wanted to be called “Chelsea” from this point forward. I was hoping there wouldn’t be a high-profile example so soon.

Comments are closed.