- Jan 11, 2013
- 18,115
- 11,771
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A man who tied up a 14-year-old girl before sexually assaulting her will serve no jail time after defence lawyers told a US court the incident was consensual.
Logan Michael Osborn, 19, pleaded guilty and was originally sentenced to 10 years in prison with eight years suspended by a judge in Chesterfield County, Virginia.
But circuit judge Timothy J Hauler delayed the enforcement of the remaining two-year term in January, then stayed the prison sentence entirely this week.
During a hearing on Wednesday, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported that he told a defence lawyer: “I need to hear some positive things.”
A foreman at an electrical company where Osborn works was called to give evidence and described him as a “model employee”.
“The sky’s the limit,” he said of Osborn’s future with the firm.
Osborn will have to register as a sex offender and lost an academic scholarship to study chemistry at the University of Mary Washington because of the conviction.
Osborn pleaded guilty to having “carnal knowledge” of his victim in September, which is a crime in Virginia involving children between the ages of 13 and 15, in agreement that prosecutors would not pursue the more serious charge of “forcible sodomy”.
Prosecutors said he and the girl had attended a school play together in April 2017 before he let the victim to a dead end in the school grounds, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported.
Osborn is alleged to have forcibly pushed the girl to her knees and tied a belt around her neck and hands before forcing her to perform a sex act.
The victim was crying during the assault, and at one point Osborn picked her up and pushed her against the fence, and then back on her knees, the court was told.
She was untied before being picked up by her mother, who questioned her over what happened because of her distress and took her to hospital for forensic examination.
Defence lawyers claimed that the incident was consensual because the pair had discussed Fifty Shades of Grey beforehand planned to “have some fun” after the play, but prosecutors said the girl was taken advantage of, was too young to legally consent to sexual acts and that the suggestion was offensive.
A clinical psychologist classed Osborn as at “moderately high risk” for reoffending and the court heard that he had been accused of inappropriate sexual conduct with girls several times, being charged with grabbing a child’s genitals at the age of 12.
Judge Hauler has previously been criticised for several decisions relating to sex offenders. In 2016 he rejected Virginia state authorities’ request not to release a man jailed for raping his ex-girlfriend and suspected in many other sex attacks.
The man, Dana William, later murdered his ex-wife’s father and killed himself before police could catch him.
In 2009, a former Virginia senator warned Judge Hauler had a record of having decisions overturned.

Man Who Tied Up and Sexually Assaulted 14-Year-Old Girl Will Not Go To Jail After US Court Hears Incident was 'Consensual'![]()
Defence lawyer used fact girl had watched 'Fifty Shades of Grey' to argue sex was consensual: Getty
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/man-tied-sexually-assaulted-14-153206806.html
Jurors Give $289 Million to a Man They Say Got Cancer From Monsanto's Roundup Weedkiller
![]()
Judge reads final verdict in Monsanto case (CNN)
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/10/health/monsanto-johnson-trial-verdict/index.html
Australia’s National Farmers’ Federation has rejected the finding of a US court that the weedkiller Roundup causes cancer, saying it set a “reckless precedent” that could harm agriculture.
On Monday, Greenpeace urged the Australian government to start restricting the sale of Roundup – which is widely available in supermarkets and hardware stores – after a Californian court found it caused the cancer of a terminally ill man.
The jury ruled that Dewayne Johnson, a school groundskeeper, developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma due to regularly using Roundup. It also found that the manufacturer, Monsanto, knew of the product’s potential health risks, and acted “with malice or oppression” by failing to warn users.
The active chemical in Roundup – glyphosate – has been classified as “probably carcinogenic” by the World Health Organisation but is still approved for use in Australia and the US.
On Tuesday, the NFF said the US court decision was “in blatant ignorance” of science.
“No other herbicide has been tested to the lengths that glyphosate has,” the NFF president, Fiona Simson, said. “After four decades of evaluations, no regulatory agency in the world considers glyphosate to be carcinogenic.”
She said glyphosate – the world’s most common herbicide – had an environmental benefit.
“Through the use of glyphosate, farmers are able to practise minimum tillage – protecting soil structure and nutrients and ultimately increasing the storage of soil carbon,” she said.
![]()
© PR IMAGE The National Farmers’ Federation president, Fiona Simson, said of the Roundup ruling: ‘No other herbicide has been tested to the lengths that glyphosate has.’Australia’s chemical regulator, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, classifies Roundup as safe.
“The APVMA is aware of the decision in the Californian superior court,” a spokesman said on Monday. “APVMA approved products containing glyphosate can continue to be used safely according to label directions.”
Monsanto’s vice-president, Scott Partridge, has also insisted that Roundup is safe, and the company intends to appeal against the decision.
But Friday’s ruling in the US was scathing of Monsanto’s behaviour.
Johnson’s lawyers produced internal Monsanto emails that they said proved the corporation knew of the risks, ignored expert warnings, “ghostwrote” research that was favourable and targeted academics who spoke up against Roundup.
They alleged that Monsanto “fought science” for decades to have the product’s health risks downplayed.
Patridge said the internal emails had been taken out of context.
Johnson, a 46-year-old father of three, was awarded US$289m in damages and compensation. He worked for a school district near San Francisco, spraying herbicides on weeds for several hours a day. Doctors say he has months left to live.
Another trial against Monsanto is scheduled to begin in Missouri in the coming months.
A young American couple was killed by ISIS last month while on a cycling trip around the world to prove ‘humans are kind.’
Jay Austin and Lauren Geoghegan, who were both in their late 20s, last year quit their office jobs in Washington, DC, to embark on the journey.
Austin, a vegan who worked for the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Geoghegan, a vegetarian who worked in the Georgetown University admissions office, decided that they’re were wasting their lives working.
The couple documented their year-long journey on Instagram and on a joint blog. They shared “the openheartedness they wanted to embody and the acts of kindness reciprocated by strangers.”
Austin wrote in one post;
“You read the papers and you’re led to believe that the world is a big, scary place,”
“People, the narrative goes, are not to be trusted. People are bad. People are evil.”
“I don’t buy it, evil is a make-believe concept we’ve invented to deal with the complexities of fellow humans holding values and beliefs and perspectives different than our own… By and large, humans are kind. Self-interested sometimes, myopic sometimes, but kind. Generous and wonderful and kind.”
However, Austin and Geoghegan’s trip came to a tragic and gruesome end when they got to Tajikistan, a country with a known terrorist presence. They were riding their bikes through the country on July 29 when a car rammed them, according to CBS News.
Five men got out of the car and stabbed the couple to death along with two other cyclists, one from Switzerland and the other from the Netherlands.
Two days later, ISIS released a video showing the same men sitting in front of the black ISIS flag. They looked at the camera and vowed to kill “disbelievers,” according to The New York Times.

If you have the “I’m white so they’ll just ignore me and let me pass on through untouched” attitude
why would you ride thru a war zone thinking **** sweet
If you have the “I’m white so they’ll just ignore me and let me pass on through untouched” attitude
Members of the Satanic Temple held a "Rally for the First Amendment” yesterday at the Arkansas State Capitol, where they unveiled an 8.5-foot bronze statue of Baphomet with two adoring children at his side to the Arkansas State Capitol. The Satanic Temple is suing the Federal Government for the right to permanently install the statue on the Capitol grounds, arguing that since the Capitol has a Ten Commandments monument, other religions must be allowed to display their symbols there, too.
A group of Christians also attended the rally, and those interviewed by KATV were articulate and respectful of the Satanists and their statue. "God loves them, and we love them," said one. "These people are here in support of their beliefs, and I'm here in support of mine," said another. "Fortunately we live in a country that allows freedom of speech, freedom of religion. I may not necessarily agree with their faith, but I respect it."
The only person who came off as a nutcase was Senator Jason Rapert (R), the lawmaker who successfully led the unconstitutional campaign to erect a Ten Commandments monument on the Arkansas State Capitol grounds. He said in a Facebook statement, "No matter what these extremists may claim, it will be a very cold day in hell before an offensive statue will be forced upon us to be permanently erected on the grounds of the Arkansas State Capitol."
![]()
I know little about the teenager, except that he stood in Washington, D.C., several days ago, spoke to a reporter about ethnic cleansing and, in that moment, ensured that long after the white-nationalist rally ended, he would remain at the center of the tensions it had stirred.
“This is Dan from Long Island,” was how Vox reporter Zack Beauchamp described him in a tweet that included a photo. “Dan believes in ‘peaceful cleansing’ of Latinos and blacks from the United States. He turned 19 today.”
That was all it took.
Twitter did what it does, and soon Dan’s full name was out there, as well as his social media pages and details of his life. Strangers suddenly knew that he liked puns, played the keyboard and was studying mortuary science.
If his intent in coming to the District was to spread hate, the trip instead ended with him as the recipient of it. People wrote:
“Dan is a monster.”
“Dan just turned 19 and is about to find out what happens when angry people that hate racists catch ‘peaceful cleansers’ unaware. Run Dan, run.”
“I believe in peaceful cleansing of Dan.”
And those were just the comments on Beauchamp’s post. On another, in which Dan’s Facebook page and Instagram account were made public, people described calling his college and sending him personal messages that addressed him as “Nazi scum.” One commenter listed the venues where his band performs and encouraged people to call and “let them know that they’re allowing a Nazi to play.”
One person wrote, “just memorized his face so that i can spit in it if i ever get the chance!!”
Elsewhere, people called for violence beyond spitting and used unprintable language.
If we accept that Dan believes what he said at the rally, he is hateful and ignorant. He wants the country purged of blacks and Latinos, which would include me and many of my family members. I fully recognize the danger in his words and the arrogance it takes to believe he is more worthy to live in this country than others.
But, he is also 19, and just barely. His birthday was on the same day as the rally. When he was interviewed, according to a Vox article, he stood alone, having missed the group led by rally organizer Jason Kessler that marched ahead of schedule after they found their numbers dwarfed by counterprotesters.
The pathetic turnout for the “Unite the Right 2” rally speaks to the strength of doxing, or publishing people’s personal information online. After the group’s gathering in Charlottesville turned deadly last year, many of the white supremacists were identified by social-media-savvy strangers through their photos and, as a result, some lost their jobs. Each firing sent the message that racism would not be tolerated in this country.
Police were also able to arrest several white supremacists in the brutal beating of a black man because online sleuths, led by activist and writer Shaun King, pieced together the assailants’ identities from a video of the assault.
But if Charlottesville proved how powerful a weapon doxing can be in the often-obscured face of hate, the D.C. event and what has happened to Dan in the days since, should force us to pause and consider how and when that weapon should be used.
Dan’s age and his lonely position at the rally stopped me and made me question why he was even in Washington on a day when he should have been blowing out candles in front of friends and family. Was he raised to hate? Was he looking to feel bigger than his circumstances had so far allowed him?
Was he dangerous or dumb?
In hopes of finding some answers, I called someone who knew him well — his father.
He was aware his son had attended the rally, but he said he had heard nothing about him speaking to a reporter there or the online fallout it had caused. His voice immediately filled with concern. He described the thought of ethnic cleansing as “repugnant” and said his son was not raised to have those beliefs: “Absolutely not, 1,000 percent no.”
“He’s a stupid 19-year-old who doesn’t understand the ramifications of what he’s saying,” he said.
I am not identifying the father by name to avoid further identifying his son beyond how he was described by Vox. The father said he understands the desire to identify sources of hate speech — “You can’t just have people spouting that stuff” — but he hopes people will also consider that his son is “a stupid 19-year-old.”
Age alone, of course, does not excuse anyone. People younger than 19 have committed horrific acts. And calling for ethnic cleansing is high on the list of awful actions. Dan’s beliefs should concern his parents and authorities at any college he might attend because they are in a position to make sure his words don’t turn into harmful behaviors.
But the reality is we don’t know anything more about Dan than those few sentences he uttered to a reporter at the D.C. event and the sparse details people have dug up about him online. We don’t know if he is going to be the next Jason Kessler, organizing a future hate rally, or if this was a fleeting, albeit idiotic, rebellion.
Make no mistake: I am not defending him or what he said. His belief is indefensible, and it is a direct assault on who I am and many of the people I care about most in this world. But I covered crime in New York and the Washington area long enough to know with certainty that the most dangerous state for a person to reach is a hopeless one. That is when thoughts turn to action and people get hurt.
Go ahead and tweet about “Dan from Long Island.” But in those tweets, criticize his words and counter his message. Show him the strength that blacks and Latinos bring to this country.
Don’t make fun of his appearance or call for bodily harm. Because even if that feels good and feels justifiable, all that does is push him further into a corner, and the only thing we know for certain about him is that he wants entire groups of people eliminated from this country.
So maybe for now — not for him, but for us — we should lower our weapon.
Maybe instead of threatening to spit on him and “cleanse” him, we should try to remember how many potential paths we all faced at 19. What is publicly viewable on his Facebook page does not tell of a person lost so deep in a well of darkness and destruction that he can’t be reached. A recent post shows a dog hugging a stuffed animal and reads, “Find someone who loves you like this dog loves his puppy.”
Maybe instead of willing him to have a future filled with failure, we can try to use him to understand what is currently happening. How is it that a teenager who lives so close to New York City, one of the most diverse places in the world, was so easily pulled into such a detestable, narrow-minded group?
Maybe instead of pushing him further away from the general public, we need to pull him in and show him what he won’t want to see but is so obvious: He is not so different from other misguided young people who belong to the races and ethnicities he wants to see gone.
Many black and Latino teenagers have also found themselves desperately wanting to belong to a group, even when it’s to their own detriment.
Too many of them don’t get the support or the chance to turn their lives around. But imagine how much stronger our society would be if they did.
right smh. White foreigner in the middle east you are just asking for it.
Bruh my old spanish/french tutor went to Islamabad and Karachi, dude said there were bus bombings daily. Like stuff that doesn't even make the news cuz only 2-5 people died, every single day. Dude was laughing when he said it but in a curiously nervous way.
He works for the ministry of foreign affairs so he went for his job but sheeiit, couldnt be me.
He had a good time tho, nice cities.
Oh but he is black tho.
A white professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey violated the school's policy when he complained about other white people in a post on Facebook, according to reports.
The university says it prohibits discrimination and harassment, and judged that history professor James Livingston, who is white, crossed a line with his comments.
In the post, Livingston slammed other white people, describing them as entitled and saying they impeded "access to my dinner."
"... this place (burger restaurant) is overrun with little Caucasian a--holes who know their parents will approve of anything they do," Livingston wrote.
"... this place (burger restaurant) is overrun with little Caucasian a--holes who know their parents will approve of anything they do."
- Rutgers professor James Livingston, in since-deleted Facebook post
"I hereby resign from my race. F--- these people," the professor added.
Facebook removed his post, he said in a subsequent post, according to NJ.com.
Livingston argues that his remarks were "satirical," and he was commenting on the gentrification of the Harlem neighborhood of New York City, where he lives, NorthJersey.com reported