Annonymous exposes Steubenville Rape Case (2 Viewers)

[Henry Ford]

Yea. Word. Girls/Women shouldn't drink alcohol or they are going to get things shoved up their butt holes while passed out or peed on. Obviously.

Word. Yo.

AND peed on.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Yes, I have been blotto but I learned from a very young age to put myself in an ideal situation before

I am ####faced.

How young?

Younger than she was.

Of course you were highly enlightened in the womb and all but do you consider that normal? Not should it be but is that normal in your opinion?

No Chaka, I would not say being overly cautious is normal but normal doesn't make you a responsible person either.

 

[Henry Ford]

Yes, I have been blotto but I learned from a very young age to put myself in an ideal situation before

I am ####faced.

How young?

Younger than she was.

Of course you were highly enlightened in the womb and all but do you consider that normal? Not should it be but is that normal in your opinion?

No Chaka, I would not say being overly cautious is normal but normal doesn't make you a responsible person either.

Nor does doing something irresponsible make you responsible for something else that's done to you.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Absolutely but they could also have been telling what they thought was the truth.

I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Also, they (especially Mays) knew much of what was recorded ... I'm certain he didn't get a consent on video. I simply don't believe they addressed the victim, in the immediate aftermath of the criminal acts, with regret in their heart and the intention to heartily apolgize for a misunderstanding. You are free to see whatever honest intentions there may be in the rapists day-after actions.Are you arguing for the sport of arguing, or do you really believe the Steubenville rapists got railroaded? Or something else if it's not one or the other? I don't understand your tack here. I mean, if you're playing devil's advocate because you see this as Duke Lacrosse Part II, by all means say so.

No. I certainly do not think they got railroaded, quite the opposite. I was making a point that the girl owed some responsibility to herself to not be in this situation; that statement has inflamed some to think that I am blaming the victim - I am not. She did not deserve (for lack of a better word) what happened to her but she made poor choices that led her to be in a bad situation; off of that point I've inquired, and have offered opinions, if those actions hurt the State's case. My conversation with Nikki was really an offhand remark that other victims get blamed too, not just rape victims.

Her being blind drunk helped, rather than hurt, the State's case.

Do you really believe that? If she was stone cold sober and said this stuff happened to her, don't you think that the DA would have had a stronger case? Then again if she was stone cold sober this probably doesn't happen; even though this sounds like I am blaming her for the rape.

No. The 16 year old girl was PASSED OUT UNCONSCIOUS DRUNK UNRESPONSIVE all documented in video evidence. What the flying fig do you think is questionable about this??????

Does the videotape evidence document the whole night in totality?

 

[Henry Ford]

Does the videotape evidence document the whole night in totality?

Why would that matter?

 

[Henry Ford]

Does the videotape evidence document the whole night in totality?

Why would that matter?

Perhaps she said "go ahead, rape me" before she passed out.Just tossing out the possibility here

Again, why would that matter?

 

[pittstownkiller]

The analysis that I watched had a viewpoint presented that suggested the DA had a weak case because of the victims inability to remember anything. The counterpoint was much along the views of IK where the girl not being able to testify spoke to her inability to consent. I found the arguments compelling which is where my questions stem from.

I'm skeptical that those considerations played into the decision to try them as juveniles. Delinquency isn't a charge. It's just a verdict. We don't judge juveniles "guilty" become presume that they don't (usually) bear full moral responsibility for their crimes. So we presume that the sole purpose of a sentence is rehabilitation. For adults, we might mean to reahbilitate an offender but there is also a punitive purpose. You or I might disagree with that philosphical premise, but that's how the laws are written to work.I don't think the strength of the case factored in because the State needed to prove the exact same elements in a juvenile proceeding as they would have in a regular trial. The burden of proof doesn't change. Is it possible they were afraid of a jury? Maybe. But just look at this board. I'm not sure they had much to worry about. The state didn't have a weak case in this case, but that's partly because the photos exist. In a more typical incpacity case, where there is no documentary evidence, you just have witnesses testimony. And some of those witnesses might be our defendant (let's call him "New Mexico Bill")'s friends, and some might be our victim (we'll call her Abigail)'s friends. Abigail's friends say she was falling down drunk. Bill's friends say she was buzzed by coherent. Abigail says she doesn't remember what happened (or that she blacked out and next think she knew Bill was having sex with her). Bill says Abigail threw herself at him when he drove her home. That's a tough case. It hinges on the credibility of Bill and Abigail and their respective friends.

Thanks Ramsay, for breaking some of this down. How does a DA explain to a family (a family that has publicly complained about the sentencing, mind you) that instead of pursuing the maximum punishment allowable - or even a reasonable version of it - that instead the office will pursue what is more or less equal to a slap on the wrist; is this really sold to the victim along the lines of these boys are good candidates for rehabilitation? I think I would be howling mad if a DA told me that they were going to pursue a more lenient path against my daughter's rapist, in the name of what benefits the rapist; I would also imagine that the DA should be hearing quite the criticism coming from his opponent in the next election. I must say that I find it almost unbelievable that anyone involved in this case would stick their neck out for these boys, if they had a slam dunk case as it is portrayed, but I will have to take your word for it since I do not know what is typical in these cases.

 

[Henry Ford]

Does the videotape evidence document the whole night in totality?

Why would that matter?

Perhaps she said "go ahead, rape me" before she passed out.Just tossing out the possibility here

Again, why would that matter?

it wouldn't

Precisely. So, again, why does it matter if the whole night is shown in totality?

 

[pittstownkiller]

Does the videotape evidence document the whole night in totality?

Why would that matter?

Perhaps she said "go ahead, rape me" before she passed out.Just tossing out the possibility here

Again, why would that matter?

Well I guess if you are going strictly by the judge's ruling but it isn't what I was going on when I was replying to Nikki. She said the videotape showed the girl was PASSED OUT DRUNK UNCONSCIOUS UNRESPONSIVE all documented by the videotape; if the videotape was not recording all of her actions (or inactions, as the case may be) then it can only reflect a portion of her demeanor that night. If you want to state that the judge made with his ruling a conclusion that the girl was incapacitated that she was incapable of making a decision regarding consent, I won't disagree with you; if you want to make a statement that the videotape undeniably demonstrates this, I will say that the tape shows exactly what can be garnered from it while the camera was on, anything else is supposition.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I don't what to speak for Pitt (mainly due to the fact that I'm not sure what point he's trying to make) but let's look at this hypothetical:

Let's say I decide to get rid of a bunch of my old financial documents. Instead of shredding or burning them, I just throw them in a recycling bin. Let's say someone finds these documents and uses them to commit identity theft against me.

Were my actions stupid and careless? Yes

Am I partially responsible for what happened? Yes

Should I accept some blame? Yes

Am I a good example for others on what not to do? Yes

Did my carelessness excuse the actions of the identity thief in any way? No

Should the identity thief be punished less because of my carelessness? No

Did I deserve what happened to me? No

I agree. Women shouldn't drink at all because it can impair their judgment and there is obviously a sexual predator waiting in the wings willing to have sex with her if she passes out from drinking. Same thing really

Odd that you would take it that far. There is a difference between a woman having a drink and getting ####faced around a bunch of immature drunk boys. It's a sad reflection on society and men in general, but, yes, women should be careful to not put themselves in situations where the risk of being raped is significant. (Of course, that doesn't reduce the responsibility of the rapists in any way.)

So you are saying that women don't have a right to drink as much as they would like to because the consequences of that will be that they get unwillingly violated by men who see them as a hole to stick things into? Do you also stipulate that men should not drink copious amounts of alcohol or is that restriction just on women?

The right? I guess one has the right to unless they are breaking some public intoxication law or something. It's a bad idea for anyone to drink excessive amounts of alcohol, particularly in an unsafe environment. The consequences for women can be worse as we've obviously seen here.

I once had a roommate who went into my room while I was at work and stole a whole bunch of cash out of my room.Should it have been in the bank? Probably. But I had cash in my room. And no one was ever in my house except me and a guy I'd known for years, my roommate.

Would I do things differently if I could go back in time? Sure. But not every time I left the house. Just that time. Because you can't live your entire life in fear. And that's what this anti-victim- responsibility discussion is about. You cannot live your life perfectly every minute. Everybody cuts loose, everybody forgets to lock a door, everybody leaves a window open on a hot night, something. And no, that person doesn't bear any responsibility when somebody commits a crime and steals his or her stuff, or kills him or her, or rapes him or her.

Even the law recognizes it. A criminal act like this is an intervening, superceding cause which cuts the chain of responsibility off at that moment. It is solely the responsibility of the criminal. No one else's.

I agree whole-heatedly with everything you typed here but I would add that when tragedy happens to people they start to look at their own actions and less about others actions, the things they could control to prevent it; when the results are cataclysmic that is magnified, sometimes to the absurd.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Yes, I have been blotto but I learned from a very young age to put myself in an ideal situation before

I am ####faced.

How young?

Younger than she was.

Of course you were highly enlightened in the womb and all but do you consider that normal? Not should it be but is that normal in your opinion?

No Chaka, I would not say being overly cautious is normal but normal doesn't make you a responsible person either.

Nor does doing something irresponsible make you responsible for something else that's done to you.

I agree, I have stated that repeatedly in my posts.

 

[Chaka]

Yes, I have been blotto but I learned from a very young age to put myself in an ideal situation before

I am ####faced.

How young?

Younger than she was.

Of course you were highly enlightened in the womb and all but do you consider that normal? Not should it be but is that normal in your opinion?

No Chaka, I would not say being overly cautious is normal but normal doesn't make you a responsible person either.

You are skating right back to "She is responsible for being raped" territory. Let me be perfectly blunt, while I agree that a 16 year old girl acted stupidly by becoming blackout drunk, in no way (NO WAY) is she responsible for being raped, sodomized, publicly debased and humiliated. Again, she bears no responsibility. Zero. None. Further I will say that being drunk in no way (NO WAY) absolves the rapists, or the enablers, for their actions.While I don't think you are blaming her you are making no logical, or defensible, argument as regards this particular case.

 

[Juxtatarot]

I don't what to speak for Pitt (mainly due to the fact that I'm not sure what point he's trying to make) but let's look at this hypothetical:

Let's say I decide to get rid of a bunch of my old financial documents. Instead of shredding or burning them, I just throw them in a recycling bin. Let's say someone finds these documents and uses them to commit identity theft against me.

Were my actions stupid and careless? Yes

Am I partially responsible for what happened? Yes

Should I accept some blame? Yes

Am I a good example for others on what not to do? Yes

Did my carelessness excuse the actions of the identity thief in any way? No

Should the identity thief be punished less because of my carelessness? No

Did I deserve what happened to me? No

I agree. Women shouldn't drink at all because it can impair their judgment and there is obviously a sexual predator waiting in the wings willing to have sex with her if she passes out from drinking. Same thing really

Odd that you would take it that far. There is a difference between a woman having a drink and getting ####faced around a bunch of immature drunk boys. It's a sad reflection on society and men in general, but, yes, women should be careful to not put themselves in situations where the risk of being raped is significant. (Of course, that doesn't reduce the responsibility of the rapists in any way.)

So you are saying that women don't have a right to drink as much as they would like to because the consequences of that will be that they get unwillingly violated by men who see them as a hole to stick things into? Do you also stipulate that men should not drink copious amounts of alcohol or is that restriction just on women?

The right? I guess one has the right to unless they are breaking some public intoxication law or something. It's a bad idea for anyone to drink excessive amounts of alcohol, particularly in an unsafe environment. The consequences for women can be worse as we've obviously seen here.

I once had a roommate who went into my room while I was at work and stole a whole bunch of cash out of my room.Should it have been in the bank? Probably. But I had cash in my room. And no one was ever in my house except me and a guy I'd known for years, my roommate.

Would I do things differently if I could go back in time? Sure. But not every time I left the house. Just that time. Because you can't live your entire life in fear. And that's what this anti-victim- responsibility discussion is about. You cannot live your life perfectly every minute. Everybody cuts loose, everybody forgets to lock a door, everybody leaves a window open on a hot night, something. And no, that person doesn't bear any responsibility when somebody commits a crime and steals his or her stuff, or kills him or her, or rapes him or her.

Even the law recognizes it. A criminal act like this is an intervening, superceding cause which cuts the chain of responsibility off at that moment. It is solely the responsibility of the criminal. No one else's.

You are referring to responsibility in a legal sense. I am not. Responsibilities can be above and separate from the legal. This is an important point to understand my position. I believe members of a society have a responsibility to act in a safe manner that doesn't encourage degenerates to commit crimes that they are prone to do. And by reinforcing that responsibility, society will run smoother. It sometimes inconveniences those of us that are good, decent people, but it's for the best regardless. Obviously there are gray areas and there will always be debate on how much caution we should have to take. If you had no reason to believe your roommate would steal from you, not taking precautions seems reasonable. If, on the other hand, you knew he was broke and a drug addict, I would place some blame on you for not being careful. However, that's not legal blame and is irrelevant when assigning legal guilt and punishment for your roommate.

 

[pittstownkiller]

He's not blaming the victim, he's just saying that if she hadn't made all those mistakes she wouldn't have been raped.

Totally different.

Aye, and if my grandmother had wheels, she's be a wagon.

She could just be a lady with a car.

 

[Nikki2200]

Yes, I have been blotto but I learned from a very young age to put myself in an ideal situation before

I am ####faced.

How young?

Younger than she was.

Of course you were highly enlightened in the womb and all but do you consider that normal? Not should it be but is that normal in your opinion?

No Chaka, I would not say being overly cautious is normal but normal doesn't make you a responsible person either.

Nor does doing something irresponsible make you responsible for something else that's done to you.

I agree, I have stated that repeatedly in my posts.

You've repeatedly stated in your posts that she is somehow to blame because she got too drunk to be able to take care of herself.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Yes, I have been blotto but I learned from a very young age to put myself in an ideal situation before

I am ####faced.

How young?

Younger than she was.

Of course you were highly enlightened in the womb and all but do you consider that normal? Not should it be but is that normal in your opinion?

No Chaka, I would not say being overly cautious is normal but normal doesn't make you a responsible person either.

You are skating right back to "She is responsible for being raped" territory. Let me be perfectly blunt, while I agree that a 16 year old girl acted stupidly by becoming blackout drunk, in no way (NO WAY) is she responsible for being raped, sodomized, publicly debased and humiliated. Again, she bears no responsibility. Zero. None. Further I will say that being drunk in no way (NO WAY) absolves the rapists, or the enablers, for their actions.While I don't think you are blaming her you are making no logical, or defensible, argument as regards this particular case.

I believe we are saying exactly the same thing. One could easily take what you typed and give the "ah ha! You're blaming the victim" not matter how many qualifiers you add to the statement. The girl broke the law (by drinking underage), proceeded to get so drunk she was unable to control herself (no actual evidence of her being drugged or forced alcohol), and then she was a victim of a crime; that's it, she is just as raped as a girl sleeping in her room, when a rapist climbs in through her window. The girl owed it to herself to stay in control, she failed herself; it does not change the severity or the outrage of what happened to her.

 

[Henry Ford]

I don't what to speak for Pitt (mainly due to the fact that I'm not sure what point he's trying to make) but let's look at this hypothetical:

Let's say I decide to get rid of a bunch of my old financial documents. Instead of shredding or burning them, I just throw them in a recycling bin. Let's say someone finds these documents and uses them to commit identity theft against me.

Were my actions stupid and careless? Yes

Am I partially responsible for what happened? Yes

Should I accept some blame? Yes

Am I a good example for others on what not to do? Yes

Did my carelessness excuse the actions of the identity thief in any way? No

Should the identity thief be punished less because of my carelessness? No

Did I deserve what happened to me? No

I agree. Women shouldn't drink at all because it can impair their judgment and there is obviously a sexual predator waiting in the wings willing to have sex with her if she passes out from drinking. Same thing really

Odd that you would take it that far. There is a difference between a woman having a drink and getting ####faced around a bunch of immature drunk boys. It's a sad reflection on society and men in general, but, yes, women should be careful to not put themselves in situations where the risk of being raped is significant. (Of course, that doesn't reduce the responsibility of the rapists in any way.)

So you are saying that women don't have a right to drink as much as they would like to because the consequences of that will be that they get unwillingly violated by men who see them as a hole to stick things into? Do you also stipulate that men should not drink copious amounts of alcohol or is that restriction just on women?

The right? I guess one has the right to unless they are breaking some public intoxication law or something. It's a bad idea for anyone to drink excessive amounts of alcohol, particularly in an unsafe environment. The consequences for women can be worse as we've obviously seen here.

I once had a roommate who went into my room while I was at work and stole a whole bunch of cash out of my room.Should it have been in the bank? Probably. But I had cash in my room. And no one was ever in my house except me and a guy I'd known for years, my roommate.

Would I do things differently if I could go back in time? Sure. But not every time I left the house. Just that time. Because you can't live your entire life in fear. And that's what this anti-victim- responsibility discussion is about. You cannot live your life perfectly every minute. Everybody cuts loose, everybody forgets to lock a door, everybody leaves a window open on a hot night, something. And no, that person doesn't bear any responsibility when somebody commits a crime and steals his or her stuff, or kills him or her, or rapes him or her.

Even the law recognizes it. A criminal act like this is an intervening, superceding cause which cuts the chain of responsibility off at that moment. It is solely the responsibility of the criminal. No one else's.

You are referring to responsibility in a legal sense. I am not. Responsibilities can be above and separate from the legal. This is an important point to understand my position. I believe members of a society have a responsibility to act in a safe manner that doesn't encourage degenerates to commit crimes that they are prone to do. And by reinforcing that responsibility, society will run smoother. It sometimes inconveniences those of us that are good, decent people, but it's for the best regardless. Obviously there are gray areas and there will always be debate on how much caution we should have to take. If you had no reason to believe your roommate would steal from you, not taking precautions seems reasonable. If, on the other hand, you knew he was broke and a drug addict, I would place some blame on you for not being careful. However, that's not legal blame and is irrelevant when assigning legal guilt and punishment for your roommate.

No. I'm not. I'm using legal responsibility as an example of a type of responsibility. But it's not the general citizen's job to make the world an easier place for "crime addicts" to live without feeding their addictions, particularly if that addiction involves putting his penis inside another person.

 

[Henry Ford]

Yes, I have been blotto but I learned from a very young age to put myself in an ideal situation before

I am ####faced.

How young?

Younger than she was.

Of course you were highly enlightened in the womb and all but do you consider that normal? Not should it be but is that normal in your opinion?

No Chaka, I would not say being overly cautious is normal but normal doesn't make you a responsible person either.

Nor does doing something irresponsible make you responsible for something else that's done to you.

I agree, I have stated that repeatedly in my posts.

Followed by stating that she bears some responsibility for what was done to her.

 

[Henry Ford]

Does the videotape evidence document the whole night in totality?

Why would that matter?

Perhaps she said "go ahead, rape me" before she passed out.Just tossing out the possibility here

Again, why would that matter?

Well I guess if you are going strictly by the judge's ruling but it isn't what I was going on when I was replying to Nikki. She said the videotape showed the girl was PASSED OUT DRUNK UNCONSCIOUS UNRESPONSIVE all documented by the videotape; if the videotape was not recording all of her actions (or inactions, as the case may be) then it can only reflect a portion of her demeanor that night. If you want to state that the judge made with his ruling a conclusion that the girl was incapacitated that she was incapable of making a decision regarding consent, I won't disagree with you; if you want to make a statement that the videotape undeniably demonstrates this, I will say that the tape shows exactly what can be garnered from it while the camera was on, anything else is supposition.

If it shows someone having sexual contact with her while she's incapacitated, then it doesn't matter what else it shows. I don't care if she had the guy's junk in her hand thirty seconds before and was begging for sex. There's no 3 second rule. If she's incapacitated while you're performing sexual acts on her, whatever she did or said before, it's illegal.

 

[Juxtatarot]

But it's not the general citizen's job to make the world an easier place for "crime addicts" to live without feeding their addictions

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I think it sometimes can be the general citizen's non-legal responsibility.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Yes, I have been blotto but I learned from a very young age to put myself in an ideal situation before

I am ####faced.

How young?

Younger than she was.

Of course you were highly enlightened in the womb and all but do you consider that normal? Not should it be but is that normal in your opinion?

No Chaka, I would not say being overly cautious is normal but normal doesn't make you a responsible person either.

Nor does doing something irresponsible make you responsible for something else that's done to you.

I agree, I have stated that repeatedly in my posts.

You've repeatedly stated in your posts that she is somehow to blame because she got too drunk to be able to take care of herself.

No; I repeatedly stated in my posts that she failed herself by not being more careful, she is not to blame for a crime committed against her while he was passed out. I did read you post about Philly. I agree with you that rape victims almost always have to defend their actions in a rape case; one of the lawyers here explained it as to do with the nature of the charges bought against the defendant. Racial tension in NYC was not my point. I remember as a young man watching the residents of these communities defending the beating of these guys because their sons were provoked by kids who didn't belong in their neighborhood. I certainly didn't want to marginalize the plight of a rape victim and her journey down the path of public scrutiny. As a matter of fact it is this scrutiny that really makes me question the DA and his choice of the slap-on-the-wrist charges to bring against these boys.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Does the videotape evidence document the whole night in totality?

Why would that matter?

Perhaps she said "go ahead, rape me" before she passed out.Just tossing out the possibility here

Again, why would that matter?

Well I guess if you are going strictly by the judge's ruling but it isn't what I was going on when I was replying to Nikki. She said the videotape showed the girl was PASSED OUT DRUNK UNCONSCIOUS UNRESPONSIVE all documented by the videotape; if the videotape was not recording all of her actions (or inactions, as the case may be) then it can only reflect a portion of her demeanor that night. If you want to state that the judge made with his ruling a conclusion that the girl was incapacitated that she was incapable of making a decision regarding consent, I won't disagree with you; if you want to make a statement that the videotape undeniably demonstrates this, I will say that the tape shows exactly what can be garnered from it while the camera was on, anything else is supposition.

If it shows someone having sexual contact with her while she's incapacitated, then it doesn't matter what else it shows. I don't care if she had the guy's junk in her hand thirty seconds before and was begging for sex. There's no 3 second rule. If she's incapacitated while you're performing sexual acts on her, whatever she did or said before, it's illegal.

Is that a legal definition? Are you stating that if you're having consented upon intercourse with a person and they pass out during the act that you are guilty of rape? Does the legally required definition of consensual sex require a person to ask the other person if they would have sex and to keep constantly asking that same question throughout the entire act; that seems ridiculous. I would imagine if somewhere on that tape the girl said that she wanted to have sex, these boys would never of been charged with a crime.

 

[Nikki2200]

I don't what to speak for Pitt (mainly due to the fact that I'm not sure what point he's trying to make) but let's look at this hypothetical:

Let's say I decide to get rid of a bunch of my old financial documents. Instead of shredding or burning them, I just throw them in a recycling bin. Let's say someone finds these documents and uses them to commit identity theft against me.

Were my actions stupid and careless? Yes

Am I partially responsible for what happened? Yes

Should I accept some blame? Yes

Am I a good example for others on what not to do? Yes

Did my carelessness excuse the actions of the identity thief in any way? No

Should the identity thief be punished less because of my carelessness? No

Did I deserve what happened to me? No

I agree. Women shouldn't drink at all because it can impair their judgment and there is obviously a sexual predator waiting in the wings willing to have sex with her if she passes out from drinking. Same thing really

Odd that you would take it that far. There is a difference between a woman having a drink and getting ####faced around a bunch of immature drunk boys. It's a sad reflection on society and men in general, but, yes, women should be careful to not put themselves in situations where the risk of being raped is significant. (Of course, that doesn't reduce the responsibility of the rapists in any way.)

So you are saying that women don't have a right to drink as much as they would like to because the consequences of that will be that they get unwillingly violated by men who see them as a hole to stick things into? Do you also stipulate that men should not drink copious amounts of alcohol or is that restriction just on women?

The right? I guess one has the right to unless they are breaking some public intoxication law or something. It's a bad idea for anyone to drink excessive amounts of alcohol, particularly in an unsafe environment. The consequences for women can be worse as we've obviously seen here.

I once had a roommate who went into my room while I was at work and stole a whole bunch of cash out of my room.Should it have been in the bank? Probably. But I had cash in my room. And no one was ever in my house except me and a guy I'd known for years, my roommate.

Would I do things differently if I could go back in time? Sure. But not every time I left the house. Just that time. Because you can't live your entire life in fear. And that's what this anti-victim- responsibility discussion is about. You cannot live your life perfectly every minute. Everybody cuts loose, everybody forgets to lock a door, everybody leaves a window open on a hot night, something. And no, that person doesn't bear any responsibility when somebody commits a crime and steals his or her stuff, or kills him or her, or rapes him or her.

Even the law recognizes it. A criminal act like this is an intervening, superceding cause which cuts the chain of responsibility off at that moment. It is solely the responsibility of the criminal. No one else's.

I agree whole-heatedly with everything you typed here but I would add that when tragedy happens to people they start to look at their own actions and less about others actions, the things they could control to prevent it; when the results are cataclysmic that is magnified, sometimes to the absurd.

Are you mentally handicapped? Or do you literally have absolutely no idea how to deal with someone close to you who has suffered a tragedy?

 

[Rayderr]

She was stupid. Who cares? She's 16 and 16 year olds are idiots. But her being stupid does not shift one iota of responsibility for getting raped to her. The very notion is patently ridiculous. I still have no idea what point pitts is trying to make by connecting the two.

I'm guessing she does.

 

[Rayderr]

Yes, I have been blotto but I learned from a very young age to put myself in an ideal situation before

I am ####faced.

How young?

Younger than she was.

Of course you were highly enlightened in the womb and all but do you consider that normal? Not should it be but is that normal in your opinion?

No Chaka, I would not say being overly cautious is normal but normal doesn't make you a responsible person either.

Nor does doing something irresponsible make you responsible for something else that's done to you.

I agree, I have stated that repeatedly in my posts.

You've repeatedly stated in your posts that she is somehow to blame because she got too drunk to be able to take care of herself.

Saying people should be vigilant does not mean that their failure to do so makes them at least partially responsible for any crime they are the victim of.

 

[Otis]

I don't what to speak for Pitt (mainly due to the fact that I'm not sure what point he's trying to make) but let's look at this hypothetical:

Let's say I decide to get rid of a bunch of my old financial documents. Instead of shredding or burning them, I just throw them in a recycling bin. Let's say someone finds these documents and uses them to commit identity theft against me.

Were my actions stupid and careless? Yes

Am I partially responsible for what happened? Yes

Should I accept some blame? Yes

Am I a good example for others on what not to do? Yes

Did my carelessness excuse the actions of the identity thief in any way? No

Should the identity thief be punished less because of my carelessness? No

Did I deserve what happened to me? No

I agree. Women shouldn't drink at all because it can impair their judgment and there is obviously a sexual predator waiting in the wings willing to have sex with her if she passes out from drinking. Same thing really

Odd that you would take it that far. There is a difference between a woman having a drink and getting ####faced around a bunch of immature drunk boys. It's a sad reflection on society and men in general, but, yes, women should be careful to not put themselves in situations where the risk of being raped is significant. (Of course, that doesn't reduce the responsibility of the rapists in any way.)

So you are saying that women don't have a right to drink as much as they would like to because the consequences of that will be that they get unwillingly violated by men who see them as a hole to stick things into? Do you also stipulate that men should not drink copious amounts of alcohol or is that restriction just on women?

The right? I guess one has the right to unless they are breaking some public intoxication law or something. It's a bad idea for anyone to drink excessive amounts of alcohol, particularly in an unsafe environment. The consequences for women can be worse as we've obviously seen here.

I once had a roommate who went into my room while I was at work and stole a whole bunch of cash out of my room.Should it have been in the bank? Probably. But I had cash in my room. And no one was ever in my house except me and a guy I'd known for years, my roommate.

Would I do things differently if I could go back in time? Sure. But not every time I left the house. Just that time. Because you can't live your entire life in fear. And that's what this anti-victim- responsibility discussion is about. You cannot live your life perfectly every minute. Everybody cuts loose, everybody forgets to lock a door, everybody leaves a window open on a hot night, something. And no, that person doesn't bear any responsibility when somebody commits a crime and steals his or her stuff, or kills him or her, or rapes him or her.

Even the law recognizes it. A criminal act like this is an intervening, superceding cause which cuts the chain of responsibility off at that moment. It is solely the responsibility of the criminal. No one else's.

This.

 

[Otis]

This kind of thing can happen when you go to a party. Teenage girls should probably avoid parties, lest they expose themselves to an increased risk of rape. They should just study or go to the movies. She did, after all, make a choice to go to that party.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I don't what to speak for Pitt (mainly due to the fact that I'm not sure what point he's trying to make) but let's look at this hypothetical:

Let's say I decide to get rid of a bunch of my old financial documents. Instead of shredding or burning them, I just throw them in a recycling bin. Let's say someone finds these documents and uses them to commit identity theft against me.

Were my actions stupid and careless? Yes

Am I partially responsible for what happened? Yes

Should I accept some blame? Yes

Am I a good example for others on what not to do? Yes

Did my carelessness excuse the actions of the identity thief in any way? No

Should the identity thief be punished less because of my carelessness? No

Did I deserve what happened to me? No

I agree. Women shouldn't drink at all because it can impair their judgment and there is obviously a sexual predator waiting in the wings willing to have sex with her if she passes out from drinking. Same thing really

Odd that you would take it that far. There is a difference between a woman having a drink and getting ####faced around a bunch of immature drunk boys. It's a sad reflection on society and men in general, but, yes, women should be careful to not put themselves in situations where the risk of being raped is significant. (Of course, that doesn't reduce the responsibility of the rapists in any way.)

I liked it better when you were just saying stupid things by analogy.

What's stupid about this? He's right, and I thought we agreed earlier that we were all going to teach our daughters this.Edit: Here's what you had to say on this topic less than 24 hours ago:

You're a bad parent if you don't teach your CHILDREN to watch out for themselves. You can bet I'll teach my daughter to be careful, but I agree with the above that it's BS that daughters should even have to be given special teaching in the first place because "men" are stronger and could overpower them or take advantage of them. To suggest the daughter is in any way at fault here is outrageous. You can bet as a father of a daughter that I'll teach her carefully, and sadly because this is the world we live in. But that doesn't make it right.

This is the same thing that Jux is saying except you're being more of a drama queen about it.

 

[Otis]

I don't what to speak for Pitt (mainly due to the fact that I'm not sure what point he's trying to make) but let's look at this hypothetical:

Let's say I decide to get rid of a bunch of my old financial documents. Instead of shredding or burning them, I just throw them in a recycling bin. Let's say someone finds these documents and uses them to commit identity theft against me.

Were my actions stupid and careless? Yes

Am I partially responsible for what happened? Yes

Should I accept some blame? Yes

Am I a good example for others on what not to do? Yes

Did my carelessness excuse the actions of the identity thief in any way? No

Should the identity thief be punished less because of my carelessness? No

Did I deserve what happened to me? No

I agree. Women shouldn't drink at all because it can impair their judgment and there is obviously a sexual predator waiting in the wings willing to have sex with her if she passes out from drinking. Same thing really

Odd that you would take it that far. There is a difference between a woman having a drink and getting ####faced around a bunch of immature drunk boys. It's a sad reflection on society and men in general, but, yes, women should be careful to not put themselves in situations where the risk of being raped is significant. (Of course, that doesn't reduce the responsibility of the rapists in any way.)

I liked it better when you were just saying stupid things by analogy.

What's stupid about this? He's right, and I thought we agreed earlier that we were all going to teach our daughters this.Edit: Here's what you had to say on this topic less than 24 hours ago:

You're a bad parent if you don't teach your CHILDREN to watch out for themselves. You can bet I'll teach my daughter to be careful, but I agree with the above that it's BS that daughters should even have to be given special teaching in the first place because "men" are stronger and could overpower them or take advantage of them. To suggest the daughter is in any way at fault here is outrageous. You can bet as a father of a daughter that I'll teach her carefully, and sadly because this is the world we live in. But that doesn't make it right.

This is the same thing that Jux is saying except you're being more of a drama queen about it.

His analogy was awful. Your analysis nearly as bad. Sorry.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I don't what to speak for Pitt (mainly due to the fact that I'm not sure what point he's trying to make) but let's look at this hypothetical:

Let's say I decide to get rid of a bunch of my old financial documents. Instead of shredding or burning them, I just throw them in a recycling bin. Let's say someone finds these documents and uses them to commit identity theft against me.

Were my actions stupid and careless? Yes

Am I partially responsible for what happened? Yes

Should I accept some blame? Yes

Am I a good example for others on what not to do? Yes

Did my carelessness excuse the actions of the identity thief in any way? No

Should the identity thief be punished less because of my carelessness? No

Did I deserve what happened to me? No

I agree. Women shouldn't drink at all because it can impair their judgment and there is obviously a sexual predator waiting in the wings willing to have sex with her if she passes out from drinking. Same thing really

Odd that you would take it that far. There is a difference between a woman having a drink and getting ####faced around a bunch of immature drunk boys. It's a sad reflection on society and men in general, but, yes, women should be careful to not put themselves in situations where the risk of being raped is significant. (Of course, that doesn't reduce the responsibility of the rapists in any way.)

I liked it better when you were just saying stupid things by analogy.

What's stupid about this? He's right, and I thought we agreed earlier that we were all going to teach our daughters this.Edit: Here's what you had to say on this topic less than 24 hours ago:

You're a bad parent if you don't teach your CHILDREN to watch out for themselves. You can bet I'll teach my daughter to be careful, but I agree with the above that it's BS that daughters should even have to be given special teaching in the first place because "men" are stronger and could overpower them or take advantage of them. To suggest the daughter is in any way at fault here is outrageous. You can bet as a father of a daughter that I'll teach her carefully, and sadly because this is the world we live in. But that doesn't make it right.

This is the same thing that Jux is saying except you're being more of a drama queen about it.

His analogy was awful. Your analysis nearly as bad. Sorry.

What part of the analogy in particular do you object to? Rape and identity theft are both crimes. I think we all agree that there are steps a person can take that will reduce the likelihood of being a victim of identity theft or rape. And I think we further agree that taking those steps is prudent. So what's the problem?

 

[Otis]

I don't what to speak for Pitt (mainly due to the fact that I'm not sure what point he's trying to make) but let's look at this hypothetical:

Let's say I decide to get rid of a bunch of my old financial documents. Instead of shredding or burning them, I just throw them in a recycling bin. Let's say someone finds these documents and uses them to commit identity theft against me.

Were my actions stupid and careless? Yes

Am I partially responsible for what happened? Yes

Should I accept some blame? Yes

Am I a good example for others on what not to do? Yes

Did my carelessness excuse the actions of the identity thief in any way? No

Should the identity thief be punished less because of my carelessness? No

Did I deserve what happened to me? No

I agree. Women shouldn't drink at all because it can impair their judgment and there is obviously a sexual predator waiting in the wings willing to have sex with her if she passes out from drinking. Same thing really

Odd that you would take it that far. There is a difference between a woman having a drink and getting ####faced around a bunch of immature drunk boys. It's a sad reflection on society and men in general, but, yes, women should be careful to not put themselves in situations where the risk of being raped is significant. (Of course, that doesn't reduce the responsibility of the rapists in any way.)

I liked it better when you were just saying stupid things by analogy.

What's stupid about this? He's right, and I thought we agreed earlier that we were all going to teach our daughters this.Edit: Here's what you had to say on this topic less than 24 hours ago:

You're a bad parent if you don't teach your CHILDREN to watch out for themselves. You can bet I'll teach my daughter to be careful, but I agree with the above that it's BS that daughters should even have to be given special teaching in the first place because "men" are stronger and could overpower them or take advantage of them. To suggest the daughter is in any way at fault here is outrageous. You can bet as a father of a daughter that I'll teach her carefully, and sadly because this is the world we live in. But that doesn't make it right.

This is the same thing that Jux is saying except you're being more of a drama queen about it.

His analogy was awful. Your analysis nearly as bad. Sorry.

What part of the analogy in particular do you object to? Rape and identity theft are both crimes. I think we all agree that there are steps a person can take that will reduce the likelihood of being a victim of identity theft or rape. And I think we further agree that taking those steps is prudent. So what's the problem?

Good grief.

 

[Henry Ford]

Does the videotape evidence document the whole night in totality?

Why would that matter?

Perhaps she said "go ahead, rape me" before she passed out.Just tossing out the possibility here

Again, why would that matter?

Well I guess if you are going strictly by the judge's ruling but it isn't what I was going on when I was replying to Nikki. She said the videotape showed the girl was PASSED OUT DRUNK UNCONSCIOUS UNRESPONSIVE all documented by the videotape; if the videotape was not recording all of her actions (or inactions, as the case may be) then it can only reflect a portion of her demeanor that night. If you want to state that the judge made with his ruling a conclusion that the girl was incapacitated that she was incapable of making a decision regarding consent, I won't disagree with you; if you want to make a statement that the videotape undeniably demonstrates this, I will say that the tape shows exactly what can be garnered from it while the camera was on, anything else is supposition.

If it shows someone having sexual contact with her while she's incapacitated, then it doesn't matter what else it shows. I don't care if she had the guy's junk in her hand thirty seconds before and was begging for sex. There's no 3 second rule. If she's incapacitated while you're performing sexual acts on her, whatever she did or said before, it's illegal.

Is that a legal definition? Are you stating that if you're having consented upon intercourse with a person and they pass out during the act that you are guilty of rape? Does the legally required definition of consensual sex require a person to ask the other person if they would have sex and to keep constantly asking that same question throughout the entire act; that seems ridiculous. I would imagine if somewhere on that tape the girl said that she wanted to have sex, these boys would never of been charged with a crime.

Never count on your imagination when you're planning on having sex.No, you don't have to continually ask a person who's not incapacitated. And you're not guilty of rape if she passes out during sex if - and this is important - you stop when she passes out. If you keep having sex with someon who is passed out, you are legally comitting a rape. Because you're having sex with someone who is incapacitated. It also means you're a sick #### who needs help.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

No, you don't have to continually ask a person who's not incapacitated. And you're not guilty of rape if she passes out during sex if - and this is important - you stop when she passes out. If you keep having sex with someon who is passed out, you are legally comitting a rape. Because you're having sex with someone who is incapacitated. It also means you're a sick #### who needs help.

A friend of mine wanted me to ask what happens if the woman in question falls asleep from boredom during sex. Is that rape too? Also -- and my friend stresses that this is just hypothetical and would obviously never really happen -- what if she says something like "Would you just finish up already? I have a long day tomorrow." What's the proper protocol in a hypothetical case like that?

 

[pittstownkiller]

I don't what to speak for Pitt (mainly due to the fact that I'm not sure what point he's trying to make) but let's look at this hypothetical:

Let's say I decide to get rid of a bunch of my old financial documents. Instead of shredding or burning them, I just throw them in a recycling bin. Let's say someone finds these documents and uses them to commit identity theft against me.

Were my actions stupid and careless? Yes

Am I partially responsible for what happened? Yes

Should I accept some blame? Yes

Am I a good example for others on what not to do? Yes

Did my carelessness excuse the actions of the identity thief in any way? No

Should the identity thief be punished less because of my carelessness? No

Did I deserve what happened to me? No

I agree. Women shouldn't drink at all because it can impair their judgment and there is obviously a sexual predator waiting in the wings willing to have sex with her if she passes out from drinking. Same thing really

Odd that you would take it that far. There is a difference between a woman having a drink and getting ####faced around a bunch of immature drunk boys. It's a sad reflection on society and men in general, but, yes, women should be careful to not put themselves in situations where the risk of being raped is significant. (Of course, that doesn't reduce the responsibility of the rapists in any way.)

So you are saying that women don't have a right to drink as much as they would like to because the consequences of that will be that they get unwillingly violated by men who see them as a hole to stick things into? Do you also stipulate that men should not drink copious amounts of alcohol or is that restriction just on women?

The right? I guess one has the right to unless they are breaking some public intoxication law or something. It's a bad idea for anyone to drink excessive amounts of alcohol, particularly in an unsafe environment. The consequences for women can be worse as we've obviously seen here.

I once had a roommate who went into my room while I was at work and stole a whole bunch of cash out of my room.Should it have been in the bank? Probably. But I had cash in my room. And no one was ever in my house except me and a guy I'd known for years, my roommate.

Would I do things differently if I could go back in time? Sure. But not every time I left the house. Just that time. Because you can't live your entire life in fear. And that's what this anti-victim- responsibility discussion is about. You cannot live your life perfectly every minute. Everybody cuts loose, everybody forgets to lock a door, everybody leaves a window open on a hot night, something. And no, that person doesn't bear any responsibility when somebody commits a crime and steals his or her stuff, or kills him or her, or rapes him or her.

Even the law recognizes it. A criminal act like this is an intervening, superceding cause which cuts the chain of responsibility off at that moment. It is solely the responsibility of the criminal. No one else's.

I agree whole-heatedly with everything you typed here but I would add that when tragedy happens to people they start to look at their own actions and less about others actions, the things they could control to prevent it; when the results are cataclysmic that is magnified, sometimes to the absurd.

Are you mentally handicapped? Or do you literally have absolutely no idea how to deal with someone close to you who has suffered a tragedy?

Save the drama, Nikki.

 

[Henry Ford]

No, you don't have to continually ask a person who's not incapacitated. And you're not guilty of rape if she passes out during sex if - and this is important - you stop when she passes out. If you keep having sex with someon who is passed out, you are legally comitting a rape. Because you're having sex with someone who is incapacitated. It also means you're a sick #### who needs help.

A friend of mine wanted me to ask what happens if the woman in question falls asleep from boredom during sex. Is that rape too? Also -- and my friend stresses that this is just hypothetical and would obviously never really happen -- what if she says something like "Would you just finish up already? I have a long day tomorrow." What's the proper protocol in a hypothetical case like that?

Oh, sure, first if she falls asleep during sex, I'd recommend that you stop having sex with her. At that moment, sure, but also for all time, because it sounds like you're terrible at it and she's not willing to help make it better.And if she says hurry up - good news! She's talking, and not passed out!

 

[pittstownkiller]

No, you don't have to continually ask a person who's not incapacitated. And you're not guilty of rape if she passes out during sex if - and this is important - you stop when she passes out. If you keep having sex with someon who is passed out, you are legally comitting a rape. Because you're having sex with someone who is incapacitated. It also means you're a sick #### who needs help.

A friend of mine wanted me to ask what happens if the woman in question falls asleep from boredom during sex. Is that rape too? Also -- and my friend stresses that this is just hypothetical and would obviously never really happen -- what if she says something like "Would you just finish up already? I have a long day tomorrow." What's the proper protocol in a hypothetical case like that?

I am curious too about breath play and choking; if the purpose of you sexual encounter is the mutually consented act of making someone unconscious and having sex with them, are you in fact committing rape? How about if a person liked to be immobilized and gagged, how would you ever know if you accidentally slipped into rape? I can think of a few other fetishes/perversions that put a barrier between you and another person that would prevent you from ascertaining their ability to give a lucid consent.

 

[simey]

No, you don't have to continually ask a person who's not incapacitated. And you're not guilty of rape if she passes out during sex if - and this is important - you stop when she passes out. If you keep having sex with someon who is passed out, you are legally comitting a rape. Because you're having sex with someone who is incapacitated. It also means you're a sick #### who needs help.

A friend of mine wanted me to ask what happens if the woman in question falls asleep from boredom during sex. Is that rape too? Also -- and my friend stresses that this is just hypothetical and would obviously never really happen -- what if she says something like "Would you just finish up already? I have a long day tomorrow." What's the proper protocol in a hypothetical case like that?

They both need to find a new lover.

 

[Henry Ford]

No, you don't have to continually ask a person who's not incapacitated. And you're not guilty of rape if she passes out during sex if - and this is important - you stop when she passes out. If you keep having sex with someon who is passed out, you are legally comitting a rape. Because you're having sex with someone who is incapacitated. It also means you're a sick #### who needs help.

A friend of mine wanted me to ask what happens if the woman in question falls asleep from boredom during sex. Is that rape too? Also -- and my friend stresses that this is just hypothetical and would obviously never really happen -- what if she says something like "Would you just finish up already? I have a long day tomorrow." What's the proper protocol in a hypothetical case like that?

I am curious too about breath play and choking; if the purpose of you sexual encounter is the mutually consented act of making someone unconscious and having sex with them, are you in fact committing rape? How about if a person liked to be immobilized and gagged, how would you ever know if you accidentally slipped into rape? I can think of a few other fetishes/perversions that put a barrier between you and another person that would prevent you from ascertaining their ability to give a lucid consent.

First, if breath play for you means choking someone unconscious and then having sex with her, you're doing it wrong.Second, yes there are a lot of fetishes which would fit the legal definition of rape. Better trust the person you're doing it with.

 

[Koya]

No, you don't have to continually ask a person who's not incapacitated. And you're not guilty of rape if she passes out during sex if - and this is important - you stop when she passes out. If you keep having sex with someon who is passed out, you are legally comitting a rape. Because you're having sex with someone who is incapacitated. It also means you're a sick #### who needs help.

A friend of mine wanted me to ask what happens if the woman in question falls asleep from boredom during sex. Is that rape too? Also -- and my friend stresses that this is just hypothetical and would obviously never really happen -- what if she says something like "Would you just finish up already? I have a long day tomorrow." What's the proper protocol in a hypothetical case like that?

I am curious too about breath play and choking; if the purpose of you sexual encounter is the mutually consented act of making someone unconscious and having sex with them, are you in fact committing rape? How about if a person liked to be immobilized and gagged, how would you ever know if you accidentally slipped into rape? I can think of a few other fetishes/perversions that put a barrier between you and another person that would prevent you from ascertaining their ability to give a lucid consent.

First, if breath play for you means choking someone unconscious and then having sex with her, you're doing it wrong.Second, yes there are a lot of fetishes which would fit the legal definition of rape. Better trust the person you're doing it with.

There are also various ways to show consent for acts that may otherwise be construed as abuse / rape etc. There are "contracts" that, while I don't know what standing they have in a court of law, would certainly demonstrated that a couple had consented to a Dom/sub or S&M type of relationship. It's not illegal to get whipped if you consent to being whipped, basically (no pun intended )

 

[Henry Ford]

No, you don't have to continually ask a person who's not incapacitated. And you're not guilty of rape if she passes out during sex if - and this is important - you stop when she passes out. If you keep having sex with someon who is passed out, you are legally comitting a rape. Because you're having sex with someone who is incapacitated. It also means you're a sick #### who needs help.

A friend of mine wanted me to ask what happens if the woman in question falls asleep from boredom during sex. Is that rape too? Also -- and my friend stresses that this is just hypothetical and would obviously never really happen -- what if she says something like "Would you just finish up already? I have a long day tomorrow." What's the proper protocol in a hypothetical case like that?

I am curious too about breath play and choking; if the purpose of you sexual encounter is the mutually consented act of making someone unconscious and having sex with them, are you in fact committing rape? How about if a person liked to be immobilized and gagged, how would you ever know if you accidentally slipped into rape? I can think of a few other fetishes/perversions that put a barrier between you and another person that would prevent you from ascertaining their ability to give a lucid consent.

First, if breath play for you means choking someone unconscious and then having sex with her, you're doing it wrong.Second, yes there are a lot of fetishes which would fit the legal definition of rape. Better trust the person you're doing it with.

There are also various ways to show consent for acts that may otherwise be construed as abuse / rape etc. There are "contracts" that, while I don't know what standing they have in a court of law, would certainly demonstrated that a couple had consented to a Dom/sub or S&M type of relationship. It's not illegal to get whipped if you consent to being whipped, basically (no pun intended )

Yeah, you can't really contract out of being allowed to revoke consent to sexual activity at any time, but those certainly make it less likely that you'll be prosecuted.

 

[Koya]

No, you don't have to continually ask a person who's not incapacitated. And you're not guilty of rape if she passes out during sex if - and this is important - you stop when she passes out. If you keep having sex with someon who is passed out, you are legally comitting a rape. Because you're having sex with someone who is incapacitated. It also means you're a sick #### who needs help.

A friend of mine wanted me to ask what happens if the woman in question falls asleep from boredom during sex. Is that rape too? Also -- and my friend stresses that this is just hypothetical and would obviously never really happen -- what if she says something like "Would you just finish up already? I have a long day tomorrow." What's the proper protocol in a hypothetical case like that?

I am curious too about breath play and choking; if the purpose of you sexual encounter is the mutually consented act of making someone unconscious and having sex with them, are you in fact committing rape? How about if a person liked to be immobilized and gagged, how would you ever know if you accidentally slipped into rape? I can think of a few other fetishes/perversions that put a barrier between you and another person that would prevent you from ascertaining their ability to give a lucid consent.

First, if breath play for you means choking someone unconscious and then having sex with her, you're doing it wrong.Second, yes there are a lot of fetishes which would fit the legal definition of rape. Better trust the person you're doing it with.

There are also various ways to show consent for acts that may otherwise be construed as abuse / rape etc. There are "contracts" that, while I don't know what standing they have in a court of law, would certainly demonstrated that a couple had consented to a Dom/sub or S&M type of relationship. It's not illegal to get whipped if you consent to being whipped, basically (no pun intended )

Yeah, you can't really contract out of being allowed to revoke consent to sexual activity at any time, but those certainly make it less likely that you'll be prosecuted.

Understood, which is why I mentioned that I don't know their particular standing in court.That said, if a couple has an explicit written agreement that consents to say one of them being tied up and whipped and then after that act suddenly an assault charge is raised, there are definite grounds for that to be dismissed.

You can get into finer slices of hair here by talking about safe words, consent to not use safe words (gets real murky there) etc.

But having SOMETHING that clearly states the two agreed to certain acts would provide some level of security in the eyes of the law I'd think

 

[pittstownkiller]

No, you don't have to continually ask a person who's not incapacitated. And you're not guilty of rape if she passes out during sex if - and this is important - you stop when she passes out. If you keep having sex with someon who is passed out, you are legally comitting a rape. Because you're having sex with someone who is incapacitated. It also means you're a sick #### who needs help.

A friend of mine wanted me to ask what happens if the woman in question falls asleep from boredom during sex. Is that rape too? Also -- and my friend stresses that this is just hypothetical and would obviously never really happen -- what if she says something like "Would you just finish up already? I have a long day tomorrow." What's the proper protocol in a hypothetical case like that?

I am curious too about breath play and choking; if the purpose of you sexual encounter is the mutually consented act of making someone unconscious and having sex with them, are you in fact committing rape? How about if a person liked to be immobilized and gagged, how would you ever know if you accidentally slipped into rape? I can think of a few other fetishes/perversions that put a barrier between you and another person that would prevent you from ascertaining their ability to give a lucid consent.

First, if breath play for you means choking someone unconscious and then having sex with her, you're doing it wrong.Second, yes there are a lot of fetishes which would fit the legal definition of rape. Better trust the person you're doing it with.

There are also various ways to show consent for acts that may otherwise be construed as abuse / rape etc. There are "contracts" that, while I don't know what standing they have in a court of law, would certainly demonstrated that a couple had consented to a Dom/sub or S&M type of relationship. It's not illegal to get whipped if you consent to being whipped, basically (no pun intended )

Yeah, you can't really contract out of being allowed to revoke consent to sexual activity at any time, but those certainly make it less likely that you'll be prosecuted.

This is where I would have gone. It doesn't really matter what you agree upon, as soon as she is unconscious you have committed rape, correct? With that scenario in mind, if the videotape demonstrated that she gave consent but also showed that she was unconscious during the penetration, would the boys be less likely to be prosecuted? You have seem to imply that the videotape is the only evidence that was needed, since it showed her penetrated and unconscious, that the case could easy rest on that. Why would a DA with all this damning evidence, go for the youth sentences while it was clear that they were guilty of repeated rape? If there was a jury trial, the judge would most assuredly have had to issue instructions to the jury that the law states a consensual act stops being consensual when one becomes incapacitated; without this instruction I would imagine at least one juror would find not guilty if they believed the girl had given consent. By the description given someone like Robert Chambers could have been charged with rape, as well as murder; it would seem that with both those charges facing him, he never would have been able to plea to manslaughter.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

This is where I would have gone. It doesn't really matter what you agree upon, as soon as she is unconscious you have committed rape, correct? With that scenario in mind, if the videotape demonstrated that she gave consent but also showed that she was unconscious during the penetration, would the boys be less likely to be prosecuted? You have seem to imply that the videotape is the only evidence that was needed, since it showed her penetrated and unconscious, that the case could easy rest on that. Why would a DA with all this damning evidence, go for the youth sentences while it was clear that they were guilty of repeated rape? If there was a jury trial, the judge would most assuredly have had to issue instructions to the jury that the law states a consensual act stops being consensual when one becomes incapacitated; without this instruction I would imagine at least one juror would find not guilty if they believed the girl had given consent. By the description given someone like Robert Chambers could have been charged with rape, as well as murder; it would seem that with both those charges facing him, he never would have been able to plea to manslaughter.

This has been answered several times already in the past couple of pages. I don't understand why you keep coming back to it.

 

[Henry Ford]

This is where I would have gone. It doesn't really matter what you agree upon, as soon as she is unconscious you have committed rape, correct? With that scenario in mind, if the videotape demonstrated that she gave consent but also showed that she was unconscious during the penetration, would the boys be less likely to be prosecuted?

No.

You have seem to imply that the videotape is the only evidence that was needed, since it showed her penetrated and unconscious, that the case could easy rest on that.

Yes.

Why would a DA with all this damning evidence, go for the youth sentences while it was clear that they were guilty of repeated rape?

You'll have to ask him.

If there was a jury trial, the judge would most assuredly have had to issue instructions to the jury that the law states a consensual act stops being consensual when one becomes incapacitated

Why? The law is that you can't commit a sexual act with someone who's unconscious. That's pretty clear wording.

without this instruction I would imagine at least one juror would find not guilty if they believed the girl had given consent. By the description given someone like Robert Chambers could have been charged with rape, as well as murder; it would seem that with both those charges facing him, he never would have been able to plea to manslaughter.

Why? Was there some evidence I'm unaware of that Chambers penetrated an unconscious woman? If there was evidence of penetration in Chambers' case, you can bet he would have been charged with rape, even in the late 80s.Also, have you been in some kind of time capsule? Rape laws have come a long, long way in the last 25-30 years. Lots of things are legally rape now that weren't when Chambers was tried. Or when Hawkins was murdered in New York.

 

[Kanil]

I don't what to speak for Pitt (mainly due to the fact that I'm not sure what point he's trying to make) but let's look at this hypothetical:

Let's say I decide to get rid of a bunch of my old financial documents. Instead of shredding or burning them, I just throw them in a recycling bin. Let's say someone finds these documents and uses them to commit identity theft against me.

Were my actions stupid and careless? Yes

Am I partially responsible for what happened? Yes

Should I accept some blame? Yes

Am I a good example for others on what not to do? Yes

Did my carelessness excuse the actions of the identity thief in any way? No

Should the identity thief be punished less because of my carelessness? No

Did I deserve what happened to me? No

I agree. Women shouldn't drink at all because it can impair their judgment and there is obviously a sexual predator waiting in the wings willing to have sex with her if she passes out from drinking. Same thing really

Odd that you would take it that far. There is a difference between a woman having a drink and getting ####faced around a bunch of immature drunk boys. It's a sad reflection on society and men in general, but, yes, women should be careful to not put themselves in situations where the risk of being raped is significant. (Of course, that doesn't reduce the responsibility of the rapists in any way.)

So you are saying that women don't have a right to drink as much as they would like to because the consequences of that will be that they get unwillingly violated by men who see them as a hole to stick things into? Do you also stipulate that men should not drink copious amounts of alcohol or is that restriction just on women?

I don't think it was the drinking that made her responsible. It was the fact that if she didn't want it, she wouldn't have dressed that way. /sarcasm

 

[bigbottom]

Why would a DA with all this damning evidence, go for the youth sentences while it was clear that they were guilty of repeated rape?

1) Because, weighing the listed factors set forth in Ohio's criminal statute regarding when a juvenile may be tried as an adult, the DA felt that prosecuting them as juveniles (they are juveniles after all) was the appropriate course of action.2) Given the strife and sentiment in the community, and the love of "Big Red" football, the DA was concerned about a juror hanging the jury notswithstanding the weight of the evidence.3) Some mixture of both of the above.

 

[bigbottom]

By the way, this is the post that started this little tangent:

Could the DA asked for them to be tried as adults in Ohio? I am under the impression that there was problems with this case that the DA felt that they could not get a conviction on more serious charges; one of these problems was that the girl's behavior cast some doubt on the boys guilt of more serious charges.

As Ramsey explained, the DA had to prove the same elements of the charge for rape in the juvenile proceeding as he would have had to prove if the boys were charged as adults. The question of guilt, and the evidence necessary to prove the elements, are the same. So, to summarize: The "girl's behavior" in getting drunk did not cast doubt on the boy's guilt of more serious charges. They would have been charged with the same offense as adults. The evidence would have been the same, and her incapacitation and inability to give consent would have been a central element of the prosecution's case in both proceedings.

 

[Henry Ford]

By the way, this is the psot that started this little tangent:

Could the DA asked for them to be tried as adults in Ohio? I am under the impression that there was problems with this case that the DA felt that they could not get a conviction on more serious charges; one of these problems was that the girl's behavior cast some doubt on the boys guilt of more serious charges.

As Ramsey explained, the DA had to prove the same elements of the charge for rape in the juvenile proceeding as he would have had to prove if the boys were charged as adults. The question of guilt, and the evidence necessary to prove the elements, are the same. So, to summarize: The "girl's behavior" in getting drunk did not cast doubt on the boy's guilt of more serious charges. They would have been charged with the same offense as adults. The evidence would have been the same, and her incapacitation and inability to give consent would have been a central element of the prosecution's case in both proceedings.

Having read his posts in the 'born gay' thread and this one, I'm not sure he fully understands how serious rape is. Which is really weird to be able to say about an adult.

 

[Chaka]

By the way, this is the psot that started this little tangent:

Could the DA asked for them to be tried as adults in Ohio? I am under the impression that there was problems with this case that the DA felt that they could not get a conviction on more serious charges; one of these problems was that the girl's behavior cast some doubt on the boys guilt of more serious charges.

As Ramsey explained, the DA had to prove the same elements of the charge for rape in the juvenile proceeding as he would have had to prove if the boys were charged as adults. The question of guilt, and the evidence necessary to prove the elements, are the same. So, to summarize: The "girl's behavior" in getting drunk did not cast doubt on the boy's guilt of more serious charges. They would have been charged with the same offense as adults. The evidence would have been the same, and her incapacitation and inability to give consent would have been a central element of the prosecution's case in both proceedings.

Yes but what if macaques like to have the #### choked out of them before covering their genitals in Reddi Whip and flinging poo at nearby siamangs? What then Mr. Smart Guy? What then?

 

[Doug B]

Saying people should be vigilant does not mean that their failure to do so makes them at least partially responsible for any crime they are the victim of.

In general, I'd agree. In this particular Steubenville case, I'd disagree over a subtlety.I submit that getting blackout drunk among friends is not, on its face, lack of due vigilance. I find it likely that she assessed her personal risk with the knowledge she had going into the part -- roughly, that she was among friends and could let loose because of the presence of people who should have had an interest in her personal safety. In a sense, not only was she raped, but she was personally betrayed. In another sense, she was a vicitim of unforeseeable "friendly fire".