Rape Caught On Tape - Perp Still Found "Not Guilty"

via Feministe



Sometimes I'm ashamed I have a dick.

Honestly, I had doubts about the case.

she was raped by one boy, at a party where she had passed out after drinking.

she came to with him on top of her.

Did she report it?

If not, just glance through the responses on the thread, and you'll understand why.

:cry:

There are far too many assholes in the world willing to jump to the defense of teenage rapists.

And far too few to jump to the defense of young women whose crime was underage drinking.

Women always deserve rape somehow, apparently.

Just look at the example of Abu Ghraib, there was a lot bigger outcry here when it was suggested that young boys were being raped than women.

Rape a man? That's an abomination. Rape a woman? Boys will be boys.

Not that night, anyway. The next day. I didn't report it....I didn't think it was rape, if you can believe that. I thought you had to be awake to be raped, and I had placed myself in that situation. I blamed myself.

I would think differently now...but it's a different time, and I'm more knowledgeable. I also wouldn't put myself in that situation now, either, though.

We are taught to think it's our fault when it's not. I wouldn't put myself in that situation anymore but I have done so many times in my past. I just got lucky or was fortunate enough to have friends who protected me more than once. I'm not sure it's a different time. I think we are having a backlash and women/girls are blamed. I think the messages to young women and men is that women like this. Of course, a young woman would consent to sex with 4 men. Unless they refuse to be alone with men, don't drink or party, don't flirt, then they want sex.

I'm so pissed, so just ignore me.

"It's okay to be a victim. But if you reach for something of your own volition, and/or deny what you don't want, you're The Whore."

if the girl was passed out--or even drunk enough to be unable to "give consent"--then it is still rape. She has to give consent for it to be consensual sex, and after a certain point of intoxication, she would be presumed to be unable to give consent in a legal sense--even if she actually said yes (which of course I doubt she did).

He consented to getting drunk, right?

Tucker

he wasn't acquitted because she was drunk. He was acquitted because the tape didn't show he raped her.

and not on tape."

I'm missing the point. The prosecution couldn't prove that his having sex with her in a bedroom was non-consensual.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

then why indeed?

If he was sly enough to rape her in another room off camera, then it means that he is guilty of being an accessory to a crime, and of obstruction of justice, and possibly even failure to render aid depending on what the state laws are there.

If I were this girl, I would save up some dough, invite these guys over, get them drunk and pay some biker dude to sodomize them with an inanimate object while they are unconsious. Film it so the rapist isn't shown on camera and then put it on the internet.

Turnabout is fair play.

Twelve people watched the tape in its entirety, and watched it again during deliberations, and rejected the conclusions that you, who have never seen the tape, assume they should have accepted.

In addition, the defense never put on a case, the jury heard the prosecutors best case, and just didn't see a crime on that tape.

Apparently, the clairvoyants here on DU know better whats on the tape than the 12 people who saw it.

couldn't define what he did to her as a SEX ACT. That was what he was charged with, two bad the prosecutor didn't have the foresight to charge him with aggravated assault and battery, aiding and abetting, obstruction of justice, false imprisonment, and any other damn think he could think of. The jury was obviously between a rock and a hard place on this one, given the narrowness of the crime.

His buddies won't be so lucky, I'm sure.

host of possible charges stemming from that case, many of which would have been FAR easier to proove than rape. What was the prosecutor thinking?

Yes, I'm sure the victim would feel better if they were convicted of rape, but I bet she'd be happy just to see them do some time.

she was too drunk to consent...

or she has an incredibly bad memory. I'm getting older and I've smoked pot a few times, but I can still remember everything I did last night.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

This is probably the most disgusting thing I have EVER heard of. So, if a guy gets drunk, I can take off all his clothes and do whatever I want to him, like paint his privates funny colors and take pictures? And that isn't even as intrusive as a rape is.

If you aren't conscious, you CANNOT give consent. I don't see why people find that so difficult to understand. Perhaps getting them drunk and then getting others to have sex with them when they're passed out may change their minds.

She apparently never claimed to be unconscious.

You do realize, don't you, that this defendant is not shown having sex with her in the video.

seconds after the sexual encounter. So if she was conscious during the sex, it was barely so.

The 20-minute videotape was the centerpiece of the prosecution's case against Robbins. The jury saw the whole tape at the two-day trial and saw portions of it in closing arguments Wednesday. Jurors asked to see parts of it a third time in their deliberations.

The tape never has been made public, and only the jury was able to view it at the trial. Prosecutors said it showed Bezeri and Missbrenner having sex with the girl and several of the young men writing derogatory terms for females on her and performing other degrading acts.

Robbins is seen on the tape appearing to do something that prosecutors said was a sexual act, but defense attorney Robert Kuzas said it was unclear what actually happened.

Robbins said he had sex with the girl, but in a locked bedroom and not on tape.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0503170237mar17,1,5066692.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

this guy got off because of the simple principle of "beyond a reasonable doubt", because they could not identify what he did ON TAPE as "criminal sexual assault".

Too bad they did not just charge him with assault. This is one of the reasons that Mark Twain said that a trial is where twelve people sit on a jury and decide who has the better lawyer. This kid is free to gang rape again. One of the kids had child porn, so his boat is sunk.

I don't know ANY women who would consent to having such terms written on their body by a gang of drunk young men. This punk you are defending was shown on tape doing that. Hurrah for him for getting off scot-free. Maybe he'll follow the peer pressure from these upstanding friends of his and get into kiddie porn, too. Then you can really celebrate!

I stated a simple fact from the news article.

We all read the same article. Some tended towards one conclusion, others to another.

There's another article posted below... much, MUCH more informative.

I'm really having a hard time understanding this subthread. I made a very simple factual assertion based on the article I read. Somehow, that disgusted someone. :shrug:

*sigh*

I stated a fact from the news story. He was acquitted NOT because she was drunk, but because the video did not show him raping her.

Any assumptions beyond that are being made by you and others, not me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3292262&mesg_id=3294082&page=

Sorry to have mislabeled your statement.

Sorry also if some of us are a wee bit defensive about this.

1 in 5, Dookus.

whatever.

The ONLY assertion I've made is that the jury acquitted him NOT because she was drunk, but because they didn't see evidence that he raped her.

I made NO assertions beyond that. Be as defensive as you want, but try to be rational while you're it.

Did you read the information at that link? If they saw the same tape described there, there's no way they could have inferred that somehow she regained consciousness, gave consent, and then passed out again for the rest of the tape.

Also, I apologized for mischaracterizing your comments, and you flame me.

Why?

I didn't insult you, Dookus. I didn't say I was disgusted by your comments. I merely tried to interpret why others may have been.

Jesus... how am I not being rational?

also ASSUMING that she is not lying and he is? And the burden of PROOF falls on her, not him.

The problem in cases of rape is the burden of proof... I guess women will just keep not reporting it, since they'll not be believed anyway.

just think. Please think that rape happens and how in the hell do you prove it? I give up.

No, I don't. I think you have engaged in sex where you didn't get consent. Prove that you didn't. Better yet, prove to me that you have never gone to a party and gotten drunk. Why should the young woman, underage, intoxicated, not be given the same standards of proof the adult men do?

fair is fair. Anyone who consents to get drunk is apparently voluteering for any kind of abuse anyone wants to dish out, soon they'll be robbing drunks of body parts, selling kidneys on the black market, and saying, "well, he consented to get drunk, didn't he"?

What they are saying is, if you get drunk, and do something you wouldn't normallly do when sober, then you are responsible for it.

If I get drunk and then kill someone in a bar fight, I can't say "oh I was drunk so I'm not responsible".

Here, if a woman knowingly gets drunk and then, while drunk, voluntarily has sex with somebody, it is not rape.

The issue in this case was, did she consent while drunk, or did she really NOT consent.

If you are drunk, your decision making skills are impaired, if not fully knocked out. You CANNOT consent to sex while unconscious.

I know this because my husband was the head of a women's shelter helping women who had been raped and abused: he knows the law. There are very strict parameters to rape, and this case falls smack dab in the middle of them.

And the other poster was right - if this is true, then I can do whatever the hell I want to to any person I get drunk. Steal their wallet, tie them up and leave them outside naked, etc. etc.

And how the hell do you know she 'knowingly got drunk'? What the hell is that? How do you know those male children, no, male brats, didn't slip her GHB?

Knowingly gets drunk and voluntarily has sex - that is one of the least-educated lines I have EVER read on this forum.

This is the first time I've heard of this particular case, but I see similar patterns all over America.

If you're in a dentist's chair, half-conscious because you're under the influence of atropine and NOX and sedatives during a root canal, you cannot give reliable consent for the dentist to feel you up, dry-hump you, or worse.

If you're under the influence of a date-rape drug, there's no way in Hell you can give consent, even if you were flat-out burning-bush horny just before the chemicals took over your brain.

But remember - if William Kennedy Smith could get away with rape, so can these guys. What a country.

to a certain extent with implied consent.

You'd end up in the same boat as this trial, trying to prove that the contact from the dentist or dr. was a sexual contact, and not part of their duty.

Recently a female cop went undercover with a dentist that was sexually assaulting women in one of those offices where they knock you out. They filmed him reaching up her skirt, fondling her breasts, picking her up and holding her too him, fondling her buttocks, etc, etc.

Talk about the line of duty, but this is what it took, to get this guy.

im sure the article would have mentioned it... since it would be crucial evidence of rape. But then again, you are correct, I cannot say for sure. However, the lack of mention of GHB does lead one to conclude she probably got drunk of her own free will.

People get drunk and have sex all the time, and sometimes they regret doing so later. But that hardly makes it rape. It would be different if she were unconscious and obviously could not consent. Then it would be rape.

i don't even know why I post here anyway, no one wants to have a dialog, they just want to insult me and call me "un-educated."

and do less time if you are drunk and kill someone in a bar fight than if you were sober and it was premeditated. Don't be daft.

I think not! If these men truly DID rape the girl, it won't get them ANYWHERE to claim they were drunk and therefore not responsible.


Drunkenness is not a defense.

maybe we should get these guys drunk, and hang them.

advocating murder like that. Disgusting.

I guess things like "innocent until proven guilty"


And other thing: do you consider any sex where alcohol is involved a rape? And in that case, if the boys drank too, weren't they "raped" as well?

If she consented in the drunken state and regretted it afterwards she cannot rescind her consent retroactively.

just because you do not want to see it, do not get disgusted by my idea of justice. Maybe death is a little harsh, but they at least deserve some serious jail time.

Even if they did, he had to be acquitted if the guilt could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is not uncommon for the innocent to be convicted. It is not uncommon for the guilty to be acquitted.

What is equally outrageous is the fact that only in sexual abuse cases do they call the crime "alleged". If you are robbed while on vacation, does the police call the robbery alleged? NO. If you are mugged on the street, do the police say that you were allegedly mugged? No. Why is it that when a child is molested or a women raped that we allow the word "alleged" to be attached to the crime???

:nuke:

And other thing: do you consider any sex where alcohol is involved a rape?

If it's non consentual, it's rape. Is "having sex" with somoene in a coma, sex or rape? Get real.

it's known as not wanting to "take advantage" of someone while they are drunk.

Looks to me like you're advocating rape. Where in the world did you get the idea that she 'consented in the drunken state'????????? There is no such thing. You CANNOT consent when your judgment is impaired. Those 'boys', and I use the word loosely, 'animals is more appropriate, were NOT as impaired as she was.

are out to make you fuck them only to regret it later and try to claim you raped them.

IT DOESN'T HAPPEN LIKE THAT except in such rare cases that it's not even worth talking about and CERTAINLY not worth worrying your pretty little head about. No woman is going to come snare you with her feminine charms into making love to her only to turn around and nab you with spurious charges of rape.

DON'T YOU GUYS GET IT? Society has made it SO difficult, SO humiliating, SO tough and degrading and emotionally wrenching that even ACTUAL rape victims don't bother to come forward in the first place in most cases.

The statistics are absolutely horrendous: very few rapes are ever even reported; of those, very few men are caught and arrested; and of those, very few are actually convincted and serve time. So those who get away with rape are free to rape again, and ALL rapists are serial rapists.

So you can take your woman-hating fears and anxieties and chuck them where the sun don't shine. Despite what misogynist Hollywood movies would have you believe, women aren't coming after you to prey on you and involve you in their evil plots. And if they have any sense, they're not coming after you for any other reason either.

*applause*

:yourock:

"IT DOESN'T HAPPEN LIKE THAT except in such rare cases that it's not even worth talking about..."

How do YOU know how often it happens? How about some links?

More important, even if false accusations are rare, even ONE, is a horrible, gross injustice, EVEN IF THE ACCUSED IS NOT CRIMINALLY CONVICTED. If the accused is criminally convicted, based on false accusations, then the injustice is beyond gross and becomes shattering and vicious.

We KNOW some people, men and women, are liars. Therefore we KNOW that some false accusations do happen. Whether they are many, or only a few, the presumption of innocence must be maintained. And the 'proof' required for conviction of rape must reach the same standards (beyond a reasonable doubt) of any other criminal accusation.

(As for being a woman hater because one may have the temerity not to agree with every scrap of YOUR opinion, ad-hominen attacks really do not advance your position. Remember, 'ad-hominem' always intellectual panic and inadequacy. I would recommend you do not reply with another ad-hominem attack, but instead focus on the substance of my arguments.)

as a veteran of arguments with these people, I can tell you that they will not take your advice in the last paragraph. It's a shame.

we must remember that women are PEOPLE, not DEITIES. As people, they are subject to the same human flaws, emotions and desires as male people are.

You act as if it's only women who would like to see people take all the facts into account before kneejerking to support the assumed innocence of the accused.

Is that a fact, do you think? That it's only female DUers who are insisting that people take all the facts into account?

If you care, you can look it up.

You're right of course that innocent people should not be accused, that's true of any crime, not just rape.

However, if you'd read the entire thread, and the articles mentioned below, I strongly believe you'd find that more likely than not, this 18 year old boy did indeed have some kind of non-consensual relations with this 16 year old girl. Not to mention the fact that she did not know any of her attackers. Do you really believe that someone who comes in after a tape has been started, then stops the tape and sends everyone out, then the tape resumes with the gang rape continuing... that somehow he was able to get consent?

but that's not the point.

The point is that there are so FEW of them that that is NOT what should spring immediately to anyone's mind about any rape charge. Period. They are very few and far between -- as already posted, less than 2% of all rape charges are false (and if you remember that a very large percentage of all rapes don't even get REPORTED, the real percentage is even less).

That means there's NO REASON for anyone to automatically assume that any given rape allegation is possibly a lie, or a falsity. There's at least a 98+% chance it's not.

And yet, men LEAP to the conclusion that any controversial rape allegation is false, a lie, automatically and in knee-jerk fashion. It's part of the cultural sexism they insist on hanging onto for personal reasons.

I'll say it again, in slightly differnt way: Women aren't going to make your life miserable by falsely accusing you of rape just because they later decide they don't like you after all.

(Sheesh, I begin to think all this anxiety about being falsely accused of rape is really just another type of performance anxiety, ya know what I mean? Sad.)

Fantastic post.

DTH

The Professor

that means he's ok with you taking his wallet.

of the judicial systems of our times.
Even insanity - temporary / fleeting is a valid defence in america.

those defenses do not always work...

You can try almost any defense you want, that is a fundamental right. That doesn't mean the jury will buy it.

was he not?

Thats disgusting, horray for the justice system

?

was to give an example of a valid type of defense. Incompetence is a valid defense. For Ebbers, that was a more than valid defense. He was a gym teacher not a business person.

are rarely used (not even allowed in most places) and almost never succeed.

I wasn't on the jury and didn't see and hear the evidence; had I been, I might or might not have voted the same way.

OJ is innocent?

> OJ is innocent?

It seems like two or three times a day here now I read a message that blasts one.

Don't EVEN get me started on jury "purity" issues. And as a former LEO, you should know better.

I am stunned at what I'm reading on this thread. Somebody who is unconscious (and that fact wasn't even in dispute, from what the story says) cannot consent.

or semi conscious.

I once fell into a creek out in the woods while drunk and lay there for god knows how long fuming that one of my roommates left the water in the bathroom running.

I couldn't see, couldn't feel the ice cold water(it was november in the appalachian mntns) on my body or in my hair at all, I had absolutely no body sensation whatsoever. When I fell my head had ended up on a rock which is why I didn't drown. I eventually came to and climbed back up the hill to the campsite, but I never felt any sensation or chill from being soaking wet.

The fact is they knew she was drunk, incapable of consent and took advantage of that. Why anyone would defend people who do something like this is beyond me, is it an assertion somehow that gang-rape and body graffiti on drunk teenage girls is every man's fantasy?

It boggles the mind.

the attorney couldn't prove it was a sex act, and he was charged with two counts of criminal sexual assault.

It's sparkling clear that this was an assault.

wtf is going on! Yes, no wonder. I think women prolly got more justice when their brothers used to bash any abusers' faces in.

....the crime, the accused is home free. No matter who or what witnessed the crime. That seems to be the pattern.

I speak from personal experience unfortunately. October 9th 1993.

by a biker gang in S. IL back in the 70s didn't get justice, either-the jury decided since they agreed to go to a party with the gang, they 'deserved' what they got.

My question about all this is-are the parents of the person holding the party being charged with anything? I thought it was illegal to provide alcohol to underage teens. What if someone had died from drinking too much? Would they have been prosecuted then?

....

I don't remember mention of any adult(s) being held responsible for the alcohol.

She's probably too traumatized to do so, but the "hosts" of the party and the parents of the rapists who fled the country should be cleaned out.

is that he is a total scumbag. Having sex with a drunken 16 year old girl in no shape to give real consent, passing her among your friends, and then writing obnoxious things on her passed out body with magic markers?

Even if he's not guilty of rape, he's a scumbag. Should we be comforted by his plans to go into the Ill. national guard and serve his country? :puke: Guess she wishes he hadn't waited so long to sign up, huh?

Sorry about your experience eternalburn - last estimates I saw were that it happens to around 1 out of every 5 of us. Maybe that makes us a tad pissy about these kinds of things? (sarcasm).

Should we be comforted by his plans to go into the Ill. national guard and serve his country?

He might be seeing his own Eternal Justice just a little bit earlier than most.

On the downside, he'll probably be adding to the rapes already happening to our female troops in the military. :-(

Culver's down the block from the courthouse.

...I know.

Have the means to flee the country?

When you teach your kids it's ok to run away from their problems.

There is simply no way anyone could read this selective and agenda-laden description of the facts and make any kind of valid judgment of what went on here and whether the verdict is just or not. Sorry, but thats just the truth.

She says she passed out and doesn't remember. Fine. You don't even have to consider the possibility that the inherent shame and regret at having consented to a gang bang might be sufficient motivation for someone in her situation to lie. It is possible that her perception is truthful, from her recollection, and still there was in fact no rape. Does the memory loss coincide with the "blackout?" it doesn't have to.

At any rate, is there any first person information here from someone who actually saw the tape? The jury saw the tape, and concluded it did not show a rape. But this writer, who did not see the tape says it did show a rape, so everyone here concludes that the twelve people on the jury are all corrupt or idiots?

Read further, you will see that the tape did not show the individual who was charged having sex with the girl, although it did show two of the other boys apparently doing so. The jury watched the entire video and had it replayed during deliberations. Oh, but this blogger, he or she knows better, and of course people here who now read a distorted third hand account are just so justified in attacking the jury, the justice system, and everything else. Talk about knee-jerk idiotic reactions.

The girl never said that she was passed out, only that she could not remember. Its pretty plain that the video must show someone who is awake, because it is plain under the law that if she were unconscious, it would have been rape.

Its significant that no defense was even offered, the defense rested after the prosecutions case. There was no "smearing of the victim" here, the jury got the prosecutors side of the story un-rebutted and still aquitted.

I am not saying what happened that night, I have no idea, but what all the "jump to conclusions, all rich white boys are evil rapists" crowd can't see is that they have no clue what happened either, just a bunch of preconceptions and prejudices that lead them to an unsupported opinion.

Period.

She was 16. Somebody owned the house and allowed a SIXTEEN YEAR OLD GIRL to be given alcohol. Period.

She was 16, and ADULTS were doing sexual things to her on that tape, and whether she consented or not, that is molestation of a child.

All of the above things seem to be fact in this case, and all of the above are crimes. SOMEBODY should have done time, other than the guy holding the video camera.

It should not be a crime to have consensual sex with a 16 year old. How "liberals" or "progressives" can advocate treating consensual sex likle rape is beyond me.

It is ironic how a conservatiove state like Georgia can have more progressive statutory rape laws than supposedly progressive states of Illinois and California.

How far are you willing to take this?

Age of consent 16, but below is ok if the age difference is not too great. So 16 year old having sex with a 15 year old is not a crime.

Having sex with 16 or 17 year old being a crime is insane imho. That "liberals" are defending it doubly so.

Just about every state uses the "it's ok if age difference is not too great" standard. And age of consent in Illinois is 17. Or it was not too long ago. I'm not talkiong about this case. I'm extending it to the general case you made above.

But you are arguing that the age should be permanantly lowered to 16, this case aside. If it were, people would argue that it should be lowered to 15, then 14...there has to be a cut off point somewhere. Why? There's a reason the age of consent laws are in place. That is because adults (those that can vote, smoke, die for their country and SHOULD be able to drink) should know better than to try and sleep with kids.

Statutory rape is one MINOR and one adult. NO ONE has said that it should be illegal for a 16 and 17 year old to have sex. There has to be some cut off though to PROTECT CHILDREN from PREDATOR adults.

hving sex with a "child" 17 year old should still be a crime?

Can you imagine a situation where, naked, you would let anybody WRITE OFFENSIVE WORDS ON YOUR NAKED BODY?? Huh?

I'll bet you a million bucks you can't.

THAT proves she was so drunk that she didn't know what was going on. And she couldn't, COULD NOT give consent.

If I were her parents I'd be going on a rampage right about now.

year old girl?

To me the whole rationale of "statutory rape" is that there is an age prior to which an individual is considered too immature to consent to sex (i.e. unaware of the consequences etc.). I'd say that an incapacitated 16 year old (who shouldn't have been drinking in the first place) is not capable of consent. And I'd call that statutory rape.

Now, if both parties were sober and she consented, I would not call it statutory rape. He took advantage of the situation, and at 18 is considered an adult and should have known better, IMO.

How many drinks? What if both parties have been drinking?

A lot of sex, especially one night stands occur under the influence of alcohol. Just the facts of life.
As far I heard about the case, she was not passed out on the tape but was responsive.

The news reported that the tape showed very little movement on the girl's part. Little to none.

on the tape.

With and ADULT I draw the line when one party is sober enough to be aware of what is going on and the other party is not. If someone is so drunk that they can't remember it happening, and wasn't aware that there was a video camera in the room, then I'd say she was too drunk to consent.

How anyone could think that an adult, say a 35 year old, has the right to have sex with a 14 year old, is beyond me. Children and adults have a very assymetrical relationship.

Furthermore, considering the widespread violence against women and children in this society, it would be foolish to open the door for more of that by eliminating statutory rape laws. Men commit 86% of violent crimes in this society.

Please review some facts on this issue including statistics from the US Justice Dept on how many women and girls are raped DAILY. It is a serious problem that is not being addressed adequately.

Progressives, such as myself, do not condone raping children and women. That would be a Biblical fundie freak value.

But an 18 year old with a 16 year old. Only 2 years difference.

I do not condone rape either, of course, but I also do not condone calling all sex where alcohol is involbved "rape" either. I also do not condone convicting someone without the guilt being proven beyond reasonable doubt.

been tried by.

It states that in SOME states, it can be considered that someone who is drunk, lacks the judgment to consent. That is NOT the same as saying that anytime some is drinking and has sex, it's rape. You are overgeneralizing there.

They have not proven anything yet, because two of the PERPETRATORS HAVE FLED THE COUNTRY. They did however prove child porn was ILLEGALLY produced. Child porn is illegal.

We have LAWS TO PROTECT CHILDREN for a good reason. Children are victimized by our society and it IS a horrible social ill. Do you have any clue as to how many children are raped and beaten DAILY? Look it up.

It is the fundies and conservative Bible freaks are opposed to CHILDREN'S RIGHTS and WELFARE laws.

he assaulted her and it couldn't be proved that the assault was sexual. The blame here lies with the attorney for not charging him more broadly.

How sad.

No fighting it doesn't mean she consented to it.

They should not have touched her. That's just absolutely disgraceful behavior.

I'm not at all surprised that this was in the south, or the 'bigot belt', as I like to call it.

And that is NOT a 'more progressive statutory rape law'. ANY law which puts women in a more vulnerable state is NOT progressive.

If you are drunk YOU CANNOT GIVE CONSENT!!!!!!!!!!! WHY is that so hard to understand??

older men, and these assholes know this.

The law is there for a reason and that is to give these pathetic predators fair warning that they need to play ball on an older field, so to speak.

A young girl who is the object of attention from an older man doesn't know how to process this information at all. She doesn't understand that he is a pathetic immature loser who can't make it with women his own age, she thinks that somehow SHE is a mature for her age sophisticated young woman who is too old for the boys in her age group. The predator knows this is how young women want to feel and plays into this. The law knows this is how predators operate and threatens this with jail time if the carry it out.

I just witnessed at situation like this where I work, where my boss's twelve year old daugther (she looks just like the singer Jo-Jo) was being pursued by an 18 year old loser. It was horrible, because the young girl took this the way all young girls would, not being able to see how skeevy and sickening it is from the vantage point of an adult. She was starting to lie to her mom, and go spend time with relatives to sneak off with him, and her mom had to threaten this guy with arrest. That took care of it. Sometimes the law DOES work for the common good.

-

If one is under 18, its legal as long as the other is over 16. The defendant aquitted here was not 18 at the time. This is getting silly, everyone assuming facts that just aren't so.

incident occurred, but they do say it happend Dec. 7, 2002, and he is 20 now. So unless his birthday is between Dec. 8 and today, he was 18 when this occured.

And that's old enough to hold him accountable for 1)giving her alcohol, 2)participating in making child pornography. (At least its my understanding that it is always illegal to make sexual photos/videos of anyone under 18)

Really, that seems plausible to you? At sixteen this girl was so hungry for approval or sexual gratification that she consents to a gang bang? WTF?

That seems more logical to you than she was drunk and unconscious these boys saw an opportunity and took it?

being gang-banged? I really want to know. What a pathetic and misogynist thing to imagine, let alone actually SAY about the female half of the human race:

You don't even have to consider the possibility that the inherent shame and regret at having consented to a gang bang might be sufficient motivation for someone in her situation to lie.

Unbelievable. You HAVE no credibility on the subject after a comment like that, revealing unbelievably negative, degrading and stereotypical attitudes about women.

Further, how ironic. No, make that how FUCKING ironic. You are bashing people on this thread for voicing their opinions because YOU think those opinions aren't based on the FACTS of the case. And yet you say this:

Its pretty plain that the video must show someone who is awake, because it is plain under the law that if she were unconscious, it would have been rape.

As described elsewhere, there was no conviction because they couldn't figure out what kind of sex act was involved from the tape. You're guilty of precisely what you're accusing others of: running off your mouth when YOU don't know what the hell you're talking about.

And this: I am not saying what happened that night, I have no idea,

That's right, you have no idea -- but it doesn't stop you from taking up for the perps by smearing this young woman in one of the most degrading ways I can imagine, and clearly assuming THEIR innocence and that she is lying, does it?

give consent to sex? Let alone, sex with 4 different boys on the same night?

The implication is that if a girl drinks and goes to a party then she consents to any sex act.

The article, which is hardly objective, repeatedly describes the males as "boys". This was a bunch of kids binge drinking who fell into destructive behavior. All of them, the girl included. The author states that the girl's responses were "not a good way to tell if a woman is consenting to sex" but at no time states that she didn't consent to sex. The article is slanted and inflammatory. ("I assume <vile names>" was the description of the marks found later.) The real story is that these children had access to large quantities of alcohol and were unsupervised for long enough to be completely impaired and thus make serious mistakes.

This group, all of them made a series of poor judgments and ended up involved in unacceptable behavior. As a result, the female is a victim because she exhibited poor judgment under the effects of prodigious amounts of alcohol. In the same circumstances, the males are criminals. That is a double standard.

By the way, I don't buy the "don't remember" line for a minute. She was "groaning or moaning", had sex at least four times, but doesn't have a single memory? I lost my virginity to my stepmother after she got me passing-out drunk. Trust me, you remember.

Obviously "having a dick" doesn't insure having a brain. This isn't a simple case of a bunch of high-school jocks raping an innocent dear who made the mistake of taking a few drinks. This is a case of children without supervision and control who made serious mistakes. If you want to get righteous, nail the parents who let teens attend a party the started at two am.

An individual in an alcoholic black-out can be fully functional and coherent, yet remember absolutely nothing that occurred.

As someone who has been on klonopin (legally for depression related problems) you don't remember anything when you first are getting used to the drug (and I was only on .5 mg). One minute you're awake and the next you wake up and hours and hours have passed. My husband tells me he would try and wake me up to get me to move but I would just growl and stay right there. I don't remember that. So it is possible to be so out of it you don't remember anything.

First off, this article wasn't written by a newsgroup, check the link. Secondly the word they DID write on her was "slut". That is a fact admitted by the guy that wrote it on her.

Rape isn't a mistake. And there is no way in hell you can put "she passed out" on the same level as "he raped her". NOt the same type of "oopsie". It doesn't matter how innocent she is or isn't. She could be the most sexually active girl IN THE WORLD and it doesn't matter. No consent= RAPE.

I didn't get that from the article. Besides, I never said the posted article was a newsgroup post. I said is is inflammatory and I stand by that. (It is a blog entry.)

I also questioned whether she gave what could be considered consent by a judgmentally impaired minor. The actual news article (linked to the quoted blog entry), and the juror's reactions imply that possibly she did.

Having been the victim of rape under similar circumstances, I'm not trivializing this girls experience. I'm questioning what appears to be a double standard. Everybody got stupid drunk and had sex. One is a victim, the others criminals. I am also pointing out that the parents should be held equally responsible. Note that if you take the ages listed in the actual news article, subtract the two years since the incident, at the time of the party, one male was 18, the rest were minors.

I read the actual news article twice, and still missed the listing of "derogatory" words written on the girl. I'm guilty of writing much worse than "slut" on a (male) member of my Army squad who passed out at a party. Am I a criminal?

Further, I am saying it is possible to be so incapacitated you don't remember anything, not that SHE was on klonopin. She was on alcohol.

One was passed out the others were gang banging her and TAPING it!! You don't see a difference?? The guy that admitted writing slut on her didn't have sex with her, he came in to write the word and I guess...cheer them on in their gang bang.

perhaps you have information I don't have.

Still, your klonopin argument is meaningless. If she was in a trauma induced coma, she might not remember anything either. That something is possible in one circumstance has no bearing on what occurs in another circumstance.

The news article I do have access to implies the jury believed the sex was consensual (no arguments from the defense after the tape was shown supports this idea). A taped consensual gang-bang may not be morally acceptable to either of us, but that doesn't make it criminal.

My point, however, is this whole thing was abhorrent behavior by a group of minors who were illegally impaired by alcohol. No one is troubled about the access they had to alcohol, the lack of parental concern or guidance, or even the fact that the participants were all minors, with one exception (who was barely over the legal line). The rage is about what these awful males did to this poor female, when the girl's story isn't entirely believable in the first place, and the jury (who are the only ones to see the unreleased tape) seems to consider the incident consensual sex (however abhorrent the behavior might be).

Under the circumstances, declaring the males criminals, and the female a victim, smacks of a double standard.

Your dramatic expression of outrage does not change that.

and I think its kind of odd that only the guy holding the camera was charged with child pornography.

The 18 year old having sex with her was helping to MAKE child pornography.

Why? Why do you say that? What isn't believable about it? If she wanted to lie, why didn't she say "I remember, I told them no."

I don't care what consenting adults do. But she wasn't an adult, and there is very little evidence she was consenting.

Double standard? If the guy had been passed out and a bunch of girls had taped themselves having sex with him, you bet your ass I'd be calling for them to be named guilty as well.

If she were inclined to lie, "I told them no" would have to be supported by videotape evidence. It obviously was not.

The only evidence that she did not consent (the burden of proof is on the prosecution, after all), based upon what I read here, is the claim that she had been drinking and doesn't remember.

I don't know of any other types of crimes where the plaintiff's memory is the sole arbiter of guilt or innocence for the defendant. "I don't remember giving him permission to borrow my car, therefore he's guilty", would be a tough case to make, particularly not when there's videotape that apparently implies (or says) that I did.

More broadly, I find the concurrent "law 'n order" and presumption of female victimhood viewpoints among people who claim to hold the values of empowerment, equality, due process and equal protection somewhat vexing.

As far as the double standard goes, this would not be a topic of outraged discussion were the shoe on the other foot.

Juries can be wrong, but people who haven't seen the evidence are more likely to be.

body? That was on the video. Does that shout the actions of a consensual act?

I wasn't there and didn't see the videotape.

Just like you.

An intoxicated 16 year old gives consent to sex with 4 adults, agrees to taping it, and agrees to having slut written on her body. How did she consent to that?! Not likely. The males were adults and she was underage. She was intoxicated and they were not. Consent??

Only one of the people was an adult, and they'd all been drinking. Besides - the burden of proof is not on the defense to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she consented, it's on the prosecution to prove that she did not (or was too impaired).

It is apparent that (at least with respect to the defendant in *this* case, as opposed to the ones that fled the country) the videotape did not provide that proof.

Do I think that a crime was committed? Maybe. Maybe even "probably". Do I think there's any doubt about it? Yes.

I'm most concerned at the "string 'em up and let God sort 'em out" attitude among people who usually have a little more respect for our system of law.

There's an article posted below. Link below to a telling excerpt.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3292262&mesg_id=3293918&page=

based on my personal experience, as I stated in my first post. Both my ex-wife and I lost our virginity to adults while passed-out drunk. Both of us remember the experience. My suspicion is tweaked because she responded to the video tape, not the words written all over her, and, let's be honest here, after a gang bang, she had to have some inkling based on physical evidence.

Whether she was an adult is my point. They were minors. The distinction here seems to hinge on gender, not age, and by the response of the jury, not on consent.

If a guy passed out and you rushed to call "rape" on the minor girls who had sex with him, you would still be taking a short-sighted position that ignores the greater problem. My personal experience, and the experience of those close to me, makes me believe that this sort of thing happens a lot. From that assumption I have built the belief that our culture handles underage drinking and underage sex very poorly. Tossing a few kids behind bars for being callous and stupid while drunk does not solve or even address the problem. Where were her parents?!? Where where the boys' parents'?!?

As a parent, I've busted a kegger organized and supervised by parents after my 14-year-old daughter called, terrified by what she thought was a party for teens (it was, but certainly not in the sense she expected). On discussing this with my 18-year-old son, I found that these parties are common. Locking kids up for going too far doesn't make any difference if the underlying behavior is otherwise condoned.

We do a really lousy job of teaching sex to children.

We do a worse job, (if that's possible) teaching them about alcohol.

Yet most of the posters on this thread want to bang a few of these kids behind bars, so far as I can tell, because they have dicks. The evidence from the trial doesn't support any other reason.

The assumed rapists were kids. That is a major part of my point. All the kids at this party displayed horrible judgement. IF, and I must emphasize the IF, this girl didn't consent, whether she remembers consent or not, that is a different story. But one real issue here is whether a drunk minor was able to determine a lack of consent. If I use the techniques of the blogger quoted in the original post, I can assume that this drunken girl was suggestive and inviting right up until she passed out, at which time a drunken boy misinterpreted a moan as consent, based on the girl's earlier statements.

These were kids. They were judgementally impaired. You want to hang someone, hang the parents that enabled this situation.

"I can assume that this drunken girl was suggestive and inviting right up until she passed out, at which time a drunken boy misinterpreted a moan as consent, based on the girl's earlier statements."


Rape is still rape. And those whose home was used are facing charges. They wrote and spit on her. That is on tape.

They SPIT ON HER and she DID NOT RESPOND. She was UNCONSCIOUS!

:crazy:

they damn well know this was statutory.

The girl "responded" the next morning when she woke up to graffiti scribbled all over her body.

What part of rape don't you understand?

Please God, I hope you never have any daughters.

The article, which is hardly objective, repeatedly describes the males as "boys".

So?

as in male children. That is a major point here that no one wants to address. This incident involved a bunch of kids. The outrage should surround the parents who enabled this situation, not the kids.

Young, drunk, and stupid is regretable, but not criminal. Allowing children to behave in this manner is criminal.

Are you serious?

that's the age of consent, they know they can vote, they know they have to register for the draft, and they know that gang-raping a drunk sixteen year old is wrong.

why didn't you have the balls to put "boys will be boys" at the top of your post.

you know, these are the same ages as the some of the soldiers in the My Lai massacre, in the Abu Ghrabi torture photos too. They are only kids. They didn't know right from wrong. Boys will be boys, bless their hearts.

Fine, I didn't see the tape. Seems like a crime even without tape actually showing rape since she was underage, given alcohol and had sex with someone who was 18 at the time.

But the thing that really, really, really disgusts me about this, is that his parents (and the other kids parents) are PROUD of their children. Proud that they had sex with a 16 year old girl who was so drunk she passed out.

I always thought that a GENTLEMAN didn't have sex with a girl who was to incapacitated to know what was going on? A GENTLEMAN would have seen that she got home safely, even if she said she WANTED to do these things. He would have recognized that she was in no position to be making such a decision and he would have kept his dick in his pants. I don't know how these boys parents could be so f**king proud of their pathetic, low-life sons. Even if they aren't rapists, their still dirt.

boys from a young age, well before they were old enough to do something like this. Decent parents wouldn't have whisked the perps out of the country. I shudder to think what all I would come up with as an intervention for one of my male offspring. Counseling through the sheriff's dept. relating to abusing alcohol because it would be very clear to me that what I'd already done didn't sink in. About a year of sitting in on sessions with women who have been sexually assaulted, all of this to commence after managing to remove my foot after a well-placed kick in the ass.

Tickets out of the country...no way.

Fine, I didn't see the tape. Seems like a crime even without tape actually showing rape since she was underage, given alcohol and had sex with someone who was 18 at the time.

So she had sex with a person 2 years older than her. Seems pretty normal to me.
And teenagers often drink alcohol. It is just in this country with fucked up alcohol laws that it is verboten until you are 21. Take a look at Europe. Much saner attitude towards alcohol and sex and less problems because of it.

I was saying that I was disgusted with the parents, but prefacing it by saying that I see it as statutory rape, and yes, I think it is disgusting that ANY GUY OF ANY AGE would take advantage of a drunk girl.

(I think The Illinois Attorney General would be happy to have the entire list published anywhere anyone wants to publish it. I am not saying this necessarily applies to the person who was found not-guilty - but it sounds to me like there are people around who need to know that a woman/girl consenting to drink,etc. does NOT equal consenting to sex/rape)


http://www.ag.state.il.us/communities/somb/myths.html

Sex Offender Management Board:

Sex Assault: Myths and Facts


Myth #1: Victims provoke sexual assaults when they dress provocatively or act in a promiscuous manner.
Fact: Rape and sexual assault are crimes of violence and control that stem from a person’s determination to exercise power over another. Neither provocative dress nor promiscuous behavior are invitations for unwanted sexual activity.
Forcing someone to engage in non-consensual sexual activity is sexual assault, regardless of the way that person dresses or acts.


Myth #2: If a person goes to someone’s room or house or goes to a bar, she assumes the risk of sexual assault. If something happens later, she can’t claim that she was raped or sexually assaulted because she should have known not to go to those places.
Fact: This “assumption of risk” wrongfully places the responsibility of the offender’s actions with the victim. Even if a person went voluntarily to someone’s residence or room and consented to engage in some sexual activity, it does not serve as a blanket consent for all sexual activity. If a person is unsure about whether the other person is comfortable with an elevated level of sexual activity, the person should stop and ask. When someone says “No” or “Stop,” that means STOP. Sexual activity forced upon another without consent is sexual assault.


Myth #3: It’s not sexual assault if it happens after drinking or taking drugs.
Fact: Being under the influence of alcohol or drugs is not an invitation for non-consensual sexual activity. A person under the influence of drugs or alcohol does not cause others to assault her; others choose to take advantage of the situation and sexually assault her because she is in a vulnerable position. Many state laws hold that a person who is cognitively impaired due to the influence of drugs or alcohol is not able to consent to sexual activity. The act of an offender who deliberately uses alcohol as a means to subdue someone in order to engage in non-consensual sexual activity is also criminal.


Myth #4: Most sexual assaults are committed by strangers. It’s not rape if the people involved knew each other.
Fact: Most sexual assaults and rapes are committed by someone the victim knows. Among victims aged 18 to 29, two-thirds had a prior relationship with the offender.1 During 2000, about six in ten rape or sexual assault victims stated the offender was an intimate, other relative, a friend or an acquaintance.2 A study of sexual victimization of college women showed that most victims knew the person who sexually victimized them. For both completed and attempted rapes, about 9 in 10 offenders were known to the victim.3 Most often, a boyfriend, ex-boyfriend, classmate, friend, acquaintance or co-worker sexually victimized the women.4
Sexual assault can be committed within any type of relationship, including in marriage, in dating relationships, and by friends, acquaintances or co-workers.
Sexual assault can occur in heterosexual or same-gender relationships. It does not matter whether there is a current or past relationship between the victim and offender; unwanted sexual activity is still sexual assault and is a serious crime.


Myth #5: Rape can be avoided if women avoid dark alleys or other “dangerous” places where strangers might be hiding or lurking.
Fact: Rape and sexual assault can occur at any time, in many places, to anyone.
According to a report based on FBI data, almost 70% of sexual assault reported to law enforcement occurred in the residence of the victim, the offender, or another individual.5 As pointed out above in Fact #4, many rapes are committed by people known to the victim. While prudent, avoiding dark alleys or “dangerous” places will not necessarily protect someone from being sexually assaulted.


Myth #6: A person who has really been sexually assaulted will be hysterical.
Fact: Victims of sexual violence exhibit a spectrum of responses to the assault, which can include: calm, hysteria, withdrawal, anger, apathy, denial and shock.
Being sexually assaulted is a very traumatic experience. Reactions to the assault and the length of time needed to process through the experience vary with each person. There is no “right way” to react to being sexually assaulted.
Assumptions about a way a victim “should act” may be detrimental to the victim because each victim copes with the trauma of the assault in different ways, which can also vary over time.


Myth #7: All sexual assault victims will report the crime immediately to the police. If they do not report it or delay in reporting it, then they must have changed their minds after it happened, wanted revenge or didn’t want to look like they were sexually active.
Fact: There are many reasons why a sexual assault victim may not report the assault to the police. It is not easy to talk about being sexually assaulted. The experience of re-telling what happened may cause the person to relive the trauma. Other reasons for not immediately reporting the assault or not reporting it at all include fear of retaliation by the offender, fear of not being believed, fear of being blamed for the assault, fear of being “revictimized” if the case goes through the criminal justice system, belief that the offender will not be held accountable, wanting to forget the assault ever happened, not recognizing that what happened was sexual assault, shame, and/or shock. In fact, reporting a sexual assault incident to the police is the exception and not the norm. From 1993 to 1999, about 70% of rape and sexual assault crimes were not reported to the police.6 Because a person did not immediately report an assault or chooses not to report it at all does not mean that the assault did not happen.
Victims can report a sexual assault to criminal justice authorities at any time, whether it be immediately after the assault or within weeks, months or even years after the assault. Criminal justice authorities can move forward with a criminal case, so long as the incident is reported within the jurisdiction’s statute of limitations. Each state has different statutes of limitations that apply to the crimes of rape and sexual assault. Statutes of limitations provide for the time period in which criminal justice authorities can charge an individual with a crime for a particular incident. If you have any questions about your state’s statute of limitations, you can call your local police department, prosecutor’s office, local sexual assault victim services program or state sexual assault coalition.


Myth #8: Only young, pretty women are assaulted.
Fact: The belief that only young, pretty women are sexually assaulted stems from the myth that sexual assault is based on sex and physical attraction. Sexual assault is a crime of power and control and offenders often choose people whom they perceive as most vulnerable to attack or over whom they believe they can assert power. Sexual assault victims come from all walks of life. They can range in age from the very old to the very young. Many victims of sexual violence are under 12. Sixty-seven percent of all victims of sexual assault reported to law enforcement agencies were juveniles (under the age of 18); 34% of all victims were under age 12. One of every seven victims of sexual assault reported to law enforcement agencies were under age 6.7 Men and boys are sexually assaulted. Persons with disabilities are also sexually assaulted. Assumptions about the “typical” sexual assault victim may further isolate those victimized because they may feel they will not be believed if they do not share the characteristics of the stereotypical sexual assault victim.


Myth #9: It’s only rape if the victim puts up a fight and resists.
Fact: Many states do not require a victim to resist in order to charge the offender with rape or sexual assault. In addition, there are many reasons why a victim of sexual assault would not fight or resist her attacker. She may feel that fighting or resisting will make her attacker angry, resulting in more severe injury. She may not fight or resist as a coping mechanism for dealing with the trauma of being sexually assaulted. Many law enforcement experts say that victims should trust their instincts and intuition and do what they think is most likely to keep them alive. Not fighting or resisting an attack does not equal consent. It may mean it was the best way she knew how to protect herself from further injury.


Myth #10: Someone can only be sexually assaulted if a weapon was involved.
Fact: In many cases of sexual assault, a weapon is not involved. The offender often uses physical strength, physical violence, intimidation, threats or a combination of these tactics to overpower the victim. As pointed out in Fact #4, most sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone known to the victim. An offender often uses the victim’s trust developed through their relationship to create an opportunity to commit the sexual assault. In addition, the offender may have intimate knowledge about the victim’s life, such as where she lives, where she works, where she goes to school, or information about her family and friends. This enhances the credibility of any threats made by the offender since he has the knowledge about her life to carry them out. Although the presence of a weapon while committing the assault may result in a higher penalty or criminal charge, the absence of a weapon does not mean that the offender cannot be held criminally responsible for a sexual assault.


Myth #11: Rape is mostly an inter-racial crime.
Fact: The vast majority of violent crimes, which include sexual assaults and rapes, are intra-racial, meaning the victim and the offender are of the same race.8 This is not true, however, for rapes and sexual assaults committed against Native women. American Indian victims reported that approximately 8 in 10 rapes or sexual assaults were perpetrated by whites.9 Native women also experience a higher rate of sexual assault victimization than any other race.10


If you or someone you know is a victim of sexual assault and would like information about help in your area, please call your state sexual assault coalitionor local sexual assault victim services program for referrals and information on available services.

I can't believe the "she drank so she gave up her rights" line of thinking is being spread here of all places.

I hope they get educated.

What the hell's happening to this party?!

:cry:

It's almost like the Bushies have taken over this board, as well as our "Dem" politicians. Every day I read threads defending pedophiles and a guy who beat his pregnant wife to death and threw her in a bay and then went home to call the woman he'd been banging...now it's men who raped an unconscious woman and wrote cunt and bitch on her nude body and filmed it.

We should just focus on the few who aren't like that, I guess. You know you are....we love you! :loveya:

DU is a VERY misogynist place for a so-called progressive discussion forum -- and it allows a lot of sexism and downright misogyny to go on right here.

I'm going to bookmark this thread because some of the remarks made by some of the men here are disgusting in the extreme and I definitely WANT to remember who and exactly what some of them said. (Actually, I've finally figured out one or two of them are really only boys themselves but my, oh my, they can talk big, can't they?)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Not a valid comparison.

Further, I believe the guys weren't arguing that they were so drunk they didn't remember what happened. They were aware enough to set up a camera.

It sasy nothing about remembering. So that is irrelevant,

It is very possible that the girl consented at the time and regretted it afterwards. Whether she lied about not remembering or genuinely does not remember is irrelevant to the question of consent at the time. In any case I think the possibility is enough to produce reasonable doubt.

Is a valid defense for rape now??

The guys don't even say they are drunk if I remember correctly. I'll pull out the paper and see.

The boys do not have to prove that she consented as the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The DA has to prove that she did not consent. If she could have consented and the DA can't prove she didn't there is no case.

And if she does not remember than she, logically, does not remember that she did not consent either.

Your gut feeling is irrelevant, if you can prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, you must aquit.

That doesn't include making excuses for the guys accused.

If your prime witness does not remember not consenting to sex and the video does not show her saying "no" you have no proof, and certainly not beyond reasonable doubt.

Oh whatever!

Any decent human being would see she was unconcscious and not continue to have sex with her.

The theory the defense puts forth is that she consented and then what...laid completely still for sex with four guys while they videotaped her to...set them up?

I haven't. The "feministe" author hasn't.

And that was that the video apparently showed her lying almost completely motionless. Where they got that, I would assume would be from the guy that admitted posessing it, but I don't know.

The jurors saw the video first hand. And they concluded "not guilty."

Oh wait...

:eyes:

LMAO! But, yes, you're right, there is no such thing as discrimination against women in our society. Those stats on the US Dept of Justice site that show men commit nearly 90% of violent crimes and the outrageously high numbers of crimes committed against women must be fake.

The fundies are right, why look to the facts when we have the Bible?

Little details matter, don't they?

Yes, they certainly do.

Males forcing sex on women who are unable to consent or wouldn't know what they were consenting to if they did?

I am also saying that merely because sex occurs under influence of alcohol it does not make it a rape, necessarily.

-----------------------------------------------------
Myth #3: It’s not sexual assault if it happens after drinking or taking drugs.

Fact: Being under the influence of alcohol or drugs is not an invitation for non-consensual sexual activity. A person under the influence of drugs or alcohol does not cause others to assault her; others choose to take advantage of the situation and sexually assault her because she is in a vulnerable position.Many state laws hold that a person who is cognitively impaired due to the influence of drugs or alcohol is not able to consent to sexual activity. The act of an offender who deliberately uses alcohol as a means to subdue someone in order to engage in non-consensual sexual activity is also criminal.

---------------------------------------------------

It doesn't sound to me like the men have a very good case.

But the fact is, they do not have to prove their innosence. A criminal case is not a symetric affair like a civil case.

was verified in the video - that she was passed out and 4 men are raping her - I would have NO doubt.

But apperantly the video does not show it.

if the girl/woman is just lying there - she is not raping anyone.

A drunk male "could" be raped by a female - drunk or not.

Like I said - I don't know enough about this case to judge.

I DO know that MANY women/girls are raped in this way. (And I think it's VERY rare for the woman to be the one doing the overpowering - through drinks, drugs or otherwise).

charged for raping the guys.

If a person is under the influence of alcohol, this law states they are unable to consent to sex. Ergo he or she got raped. If both participants are under the influence of alcohol they bioth got raped. It just goes to show that this law is stupid.

As far as bottle up teh bum, this is not the only way. Since errections can be involuntary, a woman can have sex with a drunk man with or without his consent. But if you treat all sex under influence of alcohol as rape then if he drank he got raped. Regardless of if he did it willingly or not.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

She was PASSED OUT. He wasn't. He raped HER. The law doesn't say you can't be a rapist while being drunk.

What proof do you have that he raped her? What proof do you have that she was passed out? Did you or the "feministe" writer see the video?


By your logic, had he been passed out and she sodomized him, she could have called 9-1-1 and charged him with rape.

No, that bears no resemblance to what I wrote.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Your guess is as good as mine! LMAO!!!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

just look at the OP.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

refering to the blog teh OP was qoting from. Because that was the name of the blog. What word should I have used?

I think abortion should be legal in most cases.
I voted for Kerry as a lesser of two evils.

So there.

did she deserve it?

Why do you think it is ok to convict someone of rape without proof beyond reasonable doubt?

Remember most rapes aren't taped.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that OP was quoting from. Jesus Christ on a pogo stick!

The 20-minute videotape was the centerpiece of the prosecution's case against Robbins. The jury saw the whole tape at the two-day trial and saw portions of it in closing arguments Wednesday. Jurors asked to see parts of it a third time in their deliberations.

The tape never has been made public, and only the jury was able to view it at the trial. Prosecutors said it showed Bezeri and Missbrenner having sex with the girl and several of the young men writing derogatory terms for females on her and performing other degrading acts.

Robbins is seen on the tape appearing to do something that prosecutors said was a sexual act, but defense attorney Robert Kuzas said it was unclear what actually happened.

Robbins said he had sex with the girl, but in a locked bedroom and not on tape.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0503170237mar17,1,5066692.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

So he is admitting to (although he doesn't have to, it's on video) to being in the room next to the other men while they were raping herm, and to writing on her body along with the other young men when they all got done raping her. He has a damn good lawyer, I have to give him credit for this.

One thing I can't understand about this culture is here is this drunk girl, and here are all these young men doing these sorry things to her while she's unable to consent, and yet they feel the need to write SLURS on HER when they get done. She is the sex, the guilt, the ugliness somehow???? Why do men hate sex, and themselves, so damn much?

Especially the part about jurors deciding that sexual activity in the video was consensual.

Why do men hate sex, and themselves, so damn much?

We don't.

'The jury of eight women and four men quickly left the courthouse and declined to comment, although one answered, "yes" when asked whether the tape was the key difference for the defense.'

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0503170237mar17,1,5066692.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

no where does it say they found the act consensual, it seems to me the article is saying that they couldn't not find him guilty of SEXUAL ASSAULT beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT because it wasn't clear from the video that what he did was a SEXUAL ACT. The jury doesn't have the authority to apply a charge other than the one he is charged with.

Leila posted it too. I assumed it was the same one.

I just don't understand your 'logic', or actually, lack of it.

The boy who juist got acquitted? The guilt of each of them has to be proven individually. Even if she got raped does not mean that all four raped her.

apparently the only part he was smart enough to avoid doing is penetrating her vagina with his penis while on video.

This guy will make a great Republican lawyer someday.

This is worth emphasizing again - the law says this:

Many state laws hold that a person who is cognitively impaired due to the influence of drugs or alcohol is not able to consent to sexual activity. The act of an offender who deliberately uses alcohol as a means to subdue someone in order to engage in non-consensual sexual activity is also criminal.

So bringing a bottle of wine to a date could be considered prelude to rape?

and being stinking drunk?

Do you think you'd have trouble discerning whether your date's judgment was impaired due to overconsumption of alcohol?

But law, as stated there, apperantly does not. That's why I said rubber paragraoph. And having impaired judgement does not necessarily mean she got raped either.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I will not even honor it with a response.

like you are defending rape.

What can be gotten away with and all that.

so you can learn the terminology?

is an ad hominem. Maybe you need that handbook.

don't get your panties in a twist, sweetie.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.