Bruce Murphy disagrees
Conservative blogger James Wigderson takes issue with the complaint of child enticement, saying it “appears that Pierick had no way of knowing the boy was 17, not 18 or 19 as the boy claimed.” I read it differently, as the boy’s text messages make it clear he was worried about his mother and had to sneak out of his house, among other clues. It’s clear, by the way, that Pierick shared all the details of the back and forth texts with Russell.
It’s also clear that Pierick discovered that the boy did live with his parents and was still in high school. However, Pierick did ask the boy repeatedly if he was over 18, making it clear to the boy that they were not interested in someone younger than 18. The district attorney’s office practically conceded that point when the complaint stated that ignorance of the boy’s actual age was not an excuse.
And while the complaint strongly implies that Russell was aware of Pierick’s activity, if it was clear that it was Russell, wouldn’t he have been charged, too? Or is the charge weak enough that they felt they could barely get one of the partners?
I’m certainly not condoning the behavior but I still find it hard to believe that the district attorney is prosecuting this case. As I said before, I would be curious how similar cases were handled. Absent the politics and the other alleged crimes, I would suspect that we would be hearing complaints about the district attorney harassing a homosexual without good cause.