Annonymous exposes Steubenville Rape Case (2 Viewers)

[Ilov80s]

I feel the need to address the bolded part. Anonymous is not just teenage kiddy scripters some of their past hacks have been, well elegant; some would say professional even. Not that they are White Knights in shinning armor coming to save the world through the internet, but I can say for the most part they do not really seem that interested in money; which to me speaks volumes about their intent and what they try to accomplish.

Can we talk about the case where these guys got the wrong person? That seems very dangerous to me.

They don't get people. They don't arrest people or even make accusations. They release information. Emails, videos, photos, etc. don't lie. Could they fake emails or begin to more aggressively prosecute people, yes. I also don't agree with every move they have made. My point was that they are performing a rather important duty in the world and exposing a lot of BS that is swept under the rug. I think the benefits outweigh the negatives at this time. I am open to changing my opinion though as circumstances may change.

 

[General Malaise]

I feel the need to address the bolded part. Anonymous is not just teenage kiddy scripters some of their past hacks have been, well elegant; some would say professional even. Not that they are White Knights in shinning armor coming to save the world through the internet, but I can say for the most part they do not really seem that interested in money; which to me speaks volumes about their intent and what they try to accomplish.

Can we talk about the case where these guys got the wrong person? That seems very dangerous to me.

They don't get people. They don't arrest people or even make accusations. They release information. Emails, videos, photos, etc. don't lie. Could they fake emails or begin to more aggressively prosecute people, yes. I also don't agree with every move they have made. My point was that they are performing a rather important duty in the world and exposing a lot of BS that is swept under the rug. I think the benefits outweigh the negatives at this time. I am open to changing my opinion though as circumstances may change.

This is all so new to me. I'm very intrigued and the vigilante in me likes that these Rape Crew punks are getting all the public humiliation they can handle for perhaps the rest of their lives. Good! But reading this took me to the case of Amanda Todd where they apparently outed the wrong guy. THAT terrifies me.

 

[Slapdash]

I read the nyt article and that live leak article. Besides for not charging that kid from the YouTube with any crime so far (could be because a lack of evidence of him actually raping her) the police seemed to have done a proper job. They interviewed everyone at those parties, they confiscated 15 phones. I guess they dropped charges against that one kid as well, but this does not sound like a police coverup at all. The trial was set for February, nothing was being swept under the rug

I obviously mostly agree. I will say that the "best" evidence of a coverup, or at least the decision that might be most easily publically criticized, is the decision to try the assailants as juveniles. Because juvenile records are closed, you could argue that the prosecutors made a knowing decision to try the case so as to elude public scrutiny.I think the LocalLinks page is pretty different from WikiLinks as I understand it. Whatever we feel about publishing private personal information and/or confidential government information on-line (and how we feel and what the law allows may be two different things), the LocalLinks page does a lot more than that. It casts a lot of innuendo. It asserts conspiracies and cover-ups without a lot of documentary evidence. It suggests that certain accessories must have participated in the rape. I'm not surprised that there have been defamation lawsuits (which I still think will be very hard to win because of the public concern in the case, but still). I don't think the site asks any inappropriate questions, but I question it to the extent that it seems to think it already knows the answers.

That was sort of my question last night in reading this...it read more like a "matter of fact" account of what happened than it did innuendo. How do they know the answers? They didn't just allege that the football coaches let the boys view porn, dabble in drugs and hang out in local bars - they stated it as a matter of fact. I've never stumbled on this site before and I'm not familiar with this sort of 'reporting' (not sure if that is even close to the right word) but I read the whole thing with my jaw on the floor. And let's say the town of Steubenville wants to fight back here. How do they do it? Who do they go after? Is the group "Knight Sec" identifiable in any way? Who gets sued here? This whole thing reads like a science fiction novel to me as I'm just not tuned in to what these "Anonymous" groups are all about, though I do feel like I'm ramping it up a bit.

Oh, and I did click on some other links (the linking on this site also puzzles me, it just threw me to different random blogs by strangers talking nothing about this case; never before has the internet seemed so foreign to me) and one of the sites I stumbled on alleges that "Anonymous" outed the wrong guy in the case of the 15-year old Canadian girl (Amanda Todd?) who committed suicide after a man posted topless pictures of her. I'd like to open up that conversation if anybody knows anything about it. From what I can gather, they set out to ruin this man's life for posting her picture, but they got the wrong dude? Holy mother forking crap...now THAT is scary!

I guess I'm missing how this stuff is all too different than the regular press when considering how they reacted to the Newtown tragedy.

meh...i'm not really interested in that hijack.

Carry on with your other hijacks then.

My hijacks are good. Your hijack is stupid.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I feel the need to address the bolded part. Anonymous is not just teenage kiddy scripters some of their past hacks have been, well elegant; some would say professional even. Not that they are White Knights in shinning armor coming to save the world through the internet, but I can say for the most part they do not really seem that interested in money; which to me speaks volumes about their intent and what they try to accomplish.

Can we talk about the case where these guys got the wrong person? That seems very dangerous to me.

Yes it is very dangerous.Anything else to add?

No, I guess that's it. Scares me.

When I was 19 I worked at a large department store in women's shoes. So one night during the holidays I was cleaning the floor and helping my manager stack the shelves. She was about 25 redhead with a great personality and a body to match. She is up on the latter and I am handing her boxes while she is stacking them by size/brand. After we finished I clock out but forget my coat and badge I go back. I walk back to the stockroom and get my coat but can;t find my badge. Now the way this stockroom is designed is that their is a small desk in one corner with a PC on it - there is only one exit/entrance in an L shape. So i walk back thinking I might have left it on one of the boxes. Lisa is leaning back on the desk with this weird scared look on her face (not sexual). I said "Hey, was going on". She looks me right in the eyes and said "Someone is back here with me." I said very loudly "Come on. We are leaving now".We make our way to the exit. I turn the corner of the L and see a someone standing in the doorway.Got to go be back later to finish.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

This is all so new to me. I'm very intrigued and the vigilante in me likes that these Rape Crew punks are getting all the public humiliation they can handle for perhaps the rest of their lives. Good! But reading this took me to the case of Amanda Todd where they apparently outed the wrong guy. THAT terrifies me.

Well, as has been pointed out, the traditional media can also misidentify a suspect. Richard Jewell, for example. Jewell settled several defamation claims, although he said most of the money went to charity and lawyers.In the online context, there may be a defamation claim as well as state and federal private rights of action under wiretapping statutes.Of course, this assumes that you can identify the person who misidentified you. In the Amanda Todd case, it appears that a member of Anonymous corrected the identification fairly quickly (they apparently had the right person, but the wrong details such as the address and age). I don't know what remedies the wrongly accused had under Canadian law.

 

[General Malaise]

I feel the need to address the bolded part. Anonymous is not just teenage kiddy scripters some of their past hacks have been, well elegant; some would say professional even. Not that they are White Knights in shinning armor coming to save the world through the internet, but I can say for the most part they do not really seem that interested in money; which to me speaks volumes about their intent and what they try to accomplish.

Can we talk about the case where these guys got the wrong person? That seems very dangerous to me.

Yes it is very dangerous.Anything else to add?

No, I guess that's it. Scares me.

When I was 19 I worked at a large department store in women's shoes. So one night during the holidays I was cleaning the floor and helping my manager stack the shelves. She was about 25 redhead with a great personality and a body to match. She is up on the latter and I am handing her boxes while she is stacking them by size/brand. After we finished I clock out but forget my coat and badge I go back. I walk back to the stockroom and get my coat but can;t find my badge. Now the way this stockroom is designed is that their is a small desk in one corner with a PC on it - there is only one exit/entrance in an L shape. So i walk back thinking I might have left it on one of the boxes. Lisa is leaning back on the desk with this weird scared look on her face (not sexual). I said "Hey, was going on". She looks me right in the eyes and said "Someone is back here with me." I said very loudly "Come on. We are leaving now".We make our way to the exit. I turn the corner of the L and see a someone standing in the doorway.Got to go be back later to finish.

I approve this hijack.

 

[Mr Capicollo]

This is all so new to me. I'm very intrigued and the vigilante in me likes that these Rape Crew punks are getting all the public humiliation they can handle for perhaps the rest of their lives. Good!

But reading this took me to the case of Amanda Todd where they apparently outed the wrong guy. THAT terrifies me.

Well, as has been pointed out, the traditional media can also misidentify a suspect. Richard Jewell, for example. Jewell settled several defamation claims, although he said most of the money went to charity and lawyers.In the online context, there may be a defamation claim as well as state and federal private rights of action under wiretapping statutes.

Of course, this assumes that you can identify the person who misidentified you. In the Amanda Todd case, it appears that a member of Anonymous corrected the identification fairly quickly (they apparently had the right person, but the wrong details such as the address and age). I don't know what remedies the wrongly accused had under Canadian law.

This really doesn't matter. According to Pratkanis' research, people believe the first negative attack upon someone, even if the attack is baseless and/or the attacker isn't trustworthy. Worse, he found that people refused to believe that this effect existed (at least as to themselves) further entrenching the effects. Even if Anonymous outs someone inadvertently, the social backlash is going to be massive. And remember, legal remedies (even to the extent you could identify the actors) aren't really relevant in what amounts to an information campaign.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

This really doesn't matter. According to Pratkanis' research, people believe the first negative attack upon someone, even if the attack is baseless and/or the attacker isn't trustworthy. Worse, he found that people refused to believe that this effect existed (at least as to themselves) further entrenching the effects. Even if Anonymous outs someone inadvertently, the social backlash is going to be massive. And remember, legal remedies (even to the extent you could identify the actors) aren't really relevant in what amounts to an information campaign.

I don't see how that research really relates when the exact same source ends up posting the correction prominently in the same place that the erroneous identification was. I find it hard to believe that anyone still believes Jewell was the Olympic bomber. We could test this, but I'd wager that the wrongly outed Amanda Todd guy is no longer receiving threats. It's not as if other media published his identity.

 

[massraider]

Let's wait until Anonymous becomes some massive problem for innocent people, like the mainstream media for instance, then deal with it. I'd rather the focus remain on justice being served for these little turds, than one or two people who have made up some vague threat in their minds, that may or may not ever come happen.

 

[Mr Capicollo]

This really doesn't matter. According to Pratkanis' research, people believe the first negative attack upon someone, even if the attack is baseless and/or the attacker isn't trustworthy. Worse, he found that people refused to believe that this effect existed (at least as to themselves) further entrenching the effects. Even if Anonymous outs someone inadvertently, the social backlash is going to be massive. And remember, legal remedies (even to the extent you could identify the actors) aren't really relevant in what amounts to an information campaign.

I don't see how that research really relates when the exact same source ends up posting the correction prominently in the same place that the erroneous identification was. I find it hard to believe that anyone still believes Jewell was the Olympic bomber. We could test this, but I'd wager that the wrongly outed Amanda Todd guy is no longer receiving threats. It's not as if other media published his identity.

Jewell's name is remembered by far more people than the real bomber's name and therefore more associated with the incident, wouldn't you agree?Yes, while a quick retraction is better than a slow one, all other things being equal, it's still damaging and as a practical matter only so much damage can be undone. As more and more employers are using social media and online references (blogs, forum posts, etc.) to do employment background research/checks, you still have that stink hanging about you for years potentially.

 

[Sweet J]

This really doesn't matter. According to Pratkanis' research, people believe the first negative attack upon someone, even if the attack is baseless and/or the attacker isn't trustworthy. Worse, he found that people refused to believe that this effect existed (at least as to themselves) further entrenching the effects. Even if Anonymous outs someone inadvertently, the social backlash is going to be massive. And remember, legal remedies (even to the extent you could identify the actors) aren't really relevant in what amounts to an information campaign.

I don't see how that research really relates when the exact same source ends up posting the correction prominently in the same place that the erroneous identification was. I find it hard to believe that anyone still believes Jewell was the Olympic bomber. We could test this, but I'd wager that the wrongly outed Amanda Todd guy is no longer receiving threats. It's not as if other media published his identity.

Jewell's name is remembered by far more people than the real bomber's name and therefore more associated with the incident, wouldn't you agree?Yes, while a quick retraction is better than a slow one, all other things being equal, it's still damaging and as a practical matter only so much damage can be undone. As more and more employers are using social media and online references (blogs, forum posts, etc.) to do employment background research/checks, you still have that stink hanging about you for years potentially.

This is an interesting point. To the extent that I give Jewel any thought, it would be (1) he got shafted; and (2) but he's still a bit of a weirdo. I wouldn't want him dating my mom, and probably wouldn't be in a hurry to hire him for my company (unless it was a security guard company, I guess).

 

[Joe Summer]

Jewell's name is remembered by far more people than the real bomber's name and therefore more associated with the incident, wouldn't you agree?

Just because his name is remembered, that doesn't mean that people remember him as being guilty. I think most people remember him as the guy who was falsely accused.

 

[General Malaise]

This really doesn't matter. According to Pratkanis' research, people believe the first negative attack upon someone, even if the attack is baseless and/or the attacker isn't trustworthy. Worse, he found that people refused to believe that this effect existed (at least as to themselves) further entrenching the effects. Even if Anonymous outs someone inadvertently, the social backlash is going to be massive. And remember, legal remedies (even to the extent you could identify the actors) aren't really relevant in what amounts to an information campaign.

I don't see how that research really relates when the exact same source ends up posting the correction prominently in the same place that the erroneous identification was. I find it hard to believe that anyone still believes Jewell was the Olympic bomber. We could test this, but I'd wager that the wrongly outed Amanda Todd guy is no longer receiving threats. It's not as if other media published his identity.

Jewell's name is remembered by far more people than the real bomber's name and therefore more associated with the incident, wouldn't you agree?Yes, while a quick retraction is better than a slow one, all other things being equal, it's still damaging and as a practical matter only so much damage can be undone. As more and more employers are using social media and online references (blogs, forum posts, etc.) to do employment background research/checks, you still have that stink hanging about you for years potentially.

This is an interesting point. To the extent that I give Jewel any thought, it would be (1) he got shafted; and (2) but he's still a bit of a weirdo. I wouldn't want him dating my mom, and probably wouldn't be in a hurry to hire him for my company (unless it was a security guard company, I guess).

Can I date your mom?Also, who WAS the real bomber in Atlanta? I have no clue or forgot.

 

[Ilov80s]

This is all so new to me. I'm very intrigued and the vigilante in me likes that these Rape Crew punks are getting all the public humiliation they can handle for perhaps the rest of their lives. Good!

But reading this took me to the case of Amanda Todd where they apparently outed the wrong guy. THAT terrifies me.

Well, as has been pointed out, the traditional media can also misidentify a suspect. Richard Jewell, for example. Jewell settled several defamation claims, although he said most of the money went to charity and lawyers.In the online context, there may be a defamation claim as well as state and federal private rights of action under wiretapping statutes.

Of course, this assumes that you can identify the person who misidentified you. In the Amanda Todd case, it appears that a member of Anonymous corrected the identification fairly quickly (they apparently had the right person, but the wrong details such as the address and age). I don't know what remedies the wrongly accused had under Canadian law.

This really doesn't matter. According to Pratkanis' research, people believe the first negative attack upon someone, even if the attack is baseless and/or the attacker isn't trustworthy. Worse, he found that people refused to believe that this effect existed (at least as to themselves) further entrenching the effects. Even if Anonymous outs someone inadvertently, the social backlash is going to be massive. And remember, legal remedies (even to the extent you could identify the actors) aren't really relevant in what amounts to an information campaign.

The social backlash would be minor because the large majority of the people in the country never come across Anonymous news or likely even know what Anonymous is. When the mainstream media gets ahold of BS like ATL Olympic Bomber or the myriad of falsehoods that came out during Sandy Hook and Columbine, that is what people see and remember.

 

[DiStefano]

I feel the need to address the bolded part. Anonymous is not just teenage kiddy scripters some of their past hacks have been, well elegant; some would say professional even. Not that they are White Knights in shinning armor coming to save the world through the internet, but I can say for the most part they do not really seem that interested in money; which to me speaks volumes about their intent and what they try to accomplish.

Can we talk about the case where these guys got the wrong person? That seems very dangerous to me.

Yes it is very dangerous.Anything else to add?

No, I guess that's it. Scares me.

When I was 19 I worked at a large department store in women's shoes. So one night during the holidays I was cleaning the floor and helping my manager stack the shelves. She was about 25 redhead with a great personality and a body to match. She is up on the latter and I am handing her boxes while she is stacking them by size/brand. After we finished I clock out but forget my coat and badge I go back. I walk back to the stockroom and get my coat but can;t find my badge. Now the way this stockroom is designed is that their is a small desk in one corner with a PC on it - there is only one exit/entrance in an L shape. So i walk back thinking I might have left it on one of the boxes. Lisa is leaning back on the desk with this weird scared look on her face (not sexual). I said "Hey, was going on". She looks me right in the eyes and said "Someone is back here with me." I said very loudly "Come on. We are leaving now".We make our way to the exit. I turn the corner of the L and see a someone standing in the doorway.Got to go be back later to finish.

Did she go down on the former before she went up on the latter?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Also, who WAS the real bomber in Atlanta? I have no clue or forgot.

Eric Rudolph

 

[Leroy Hoard]

The social backlash would be minor because the large majority of the people in the country never come across Anonymous news or likely even know what Anonymous is. When the mainstream media gets ahold of BS like ATL Olympic Bomber or the myriad of falsehoods that came out during Sandy Hook and Columbine, that is what people see and remember.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

This really doesn't matter. According to Pratkanis' research, people believe the first negative attack upon someone, even if the attack is baseless and/or the attacker isn't trustworthy. Worse, he found that people refused to believe that this effect existed (at least as to themselves) further entrenching the effects. Even if Anonymous outs someone inadvertently, the social backlash is going to be massive. And remember, legal remedies (even to the extent you could identify the actors) aren't really relevant in what amounts to an information campaign.

I don't see how that research really relates when the exact same source ends up posting the correction prominently in the same place that the erroneous identification was. I find it hard to believe that anyone still believes Jewell was the Olympic bomber. We could test this, but I'd wager that the wrongly outed Amanda Todd guy is no longer receiving threats. It's not as if other media published his identity.

Jewell's name is remembered by far more people than the real bomber's name and therefore more associated with the incident, wouldn't you agree?Yes, while a quick retraction is better than a slow one, all other things being equal, it's still damaging and as a practical matter only so much damage can be undone. As more and more employers are using social media and online references (blogs, forum posts, etc.) to do employment background research/checks, you still have that stink hanging about you for years potentially.

This is an interesting point. To the extent that I give Jewel any thought, it would be (1) he got shafted; and (2) but he's still a bit of a weirdo. I wouldn't want him dating my mom, and probably wouldn't be in a hurry to hire him for my company (unless it was a security guard company, I guess).

Who is the weirdo in this situation?Your mom who dates dead guys OR your company for hiring dead guys? Richard Jewell died in August of 2007.

 

[General Malaise]

Also, who WAS the real bomber in Atlanta? I have no clue or forgot.

Eric Rudolph

Oh yeah....without clicking the link, he was the anti-abortionist who was living in the woods or something?Pretty fair point that the dim-wits of the world remember Jewell's name only.

 

[Mr Capicollo]

Jewell's name is remembered by far more people than the real bomber's name and therefore more associated with the incident, wouldn't you agree?

Just because his name is remembered, that doesn't mean that people remember him as being guilty. I think most people remember him as the guy who was falsely accused.

I have no such confidence in the population at large. After one or a couple of spurious reports dating back four or more years, which have been refuted conclusively, massive numbers of people in this country think Obama is Muslim.

 

[Mr Capicollo]

This is all so new to me. I'm very intrigued and the vigilante in me likes that these Rape Crew punks are getting all the public humiliation they can handle for perhaps the rest of their lives. Good!

But reading this took me to the case of Amanda Todd where they apparently outed the wrong guy. THAT terrifies me.

Well, as has been pointed out, the traditional media can also misidentify a suspect. Richard Jewell, for example. Jewell settled several defamation claims, although he said most of the money went to charity and lawyers.In the online context, there may be a defamation claim as well as state and federal private rights of action under wiretapping statutes.

Of course, this assumes that you can identify the person who misidentified you. In the Amanda Todd case, it appears that a member of Anonymous corrected the identification fairly quickly (they apparently had the right person, but the wrong details such as the address and age). I don't know what remedies the wrongly accused had under Canadian law.

This really doesn't matter. According to Pratkanis' research, people believe the first negative attack upon someone, even if the attack is baseless and/or the attacker isn't trustworthy. Worse, he found that people refused to believe that this effect existed (at least as to themselves) further entrenching the effects. Even if Anonymous outs someone inadvertently, the social backlash is going to be massive. And remember, legal remedies (even to the extent you could identify the actors) aren't really relevant in what amounts to an information campaign.

The social backlash would be minor because the large majority of the people in the country never come across Anonymous news or likely even know what Anonymous is. When the mainstream media gets ahold of BS like ATL Olympic Bomber or the myriad of falsehoods that came out during Sandy Hook and Columbine, that is what people see and remember.

Mainstream media isn't the sole or even primary problem anymore given social media, but now that the mainstream media feels it's in competition with social media, it's reporting faster but more recklessly to keep up. Things have changed since the Atlanta bombing and Jewell.I happened to be following Twitter on the day of Sandy Hook, and for hours people were hounding, putting up pictures of and even making death threats against another local guy with the last name of Lanza. It got picked up by the mainstream media within a couple of hours (no more), and it included posting a picture of this guy. It was corrected by the end of the day - again, first by social media before the mainstream media - but I'm sure searches with that "other Lanza's" photo still come up in Sandy Hook searches.

Here's another example of how fast things can move. We're in the communications age, and we're only just starting to get a grasp upon its effects upon us and how we see the world.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I feel the need to address the bolded part. Anonymous is not just teenage kiddy scripters some of their past hacks have been, well elegant; some would say professional even. Not that they are White Knights in shinning armor coming to save the world through the internet, but I can say for the most part they do not really seem that interested in money; which to me speaks volumes about their intent and what they try to accomplish.

Can we talk about the case where these guys got the wrong person? That seems very dangerous to me.

Yes it is very dangerous.Anything else to add?

No, I guess that's it. Scares me.

When I was 19 I worked at a large department store in women's shoes. So one night during the holidays I was cleaning the floor and helping my manager stack the shelves. She was about 25 redhead with a great personality and a body to match. She is up on the latter and I am handing her boxes while she is stacking them by size/brand. After we finished I clock out but forget my coat and badge I go back. I walk back to the stockroom and get my coat but can;t find my badge. Now the way this stockroom is designed is that their is a small desk in one corner with a PC on it - there is only one exit/entrance in an L shape. So i walk back thinking I might have left it on one of the boxes. Lisa is leaning back on the desk with this weird scared look on her face (not sexual). I said "Hey, was going on". She looks me right in the eyes and said "Someone is back here with me." I said very loudly "Come on. We are leaving now".We make our way to the exit. I turn the corner of the L and see a someone standing in the doorway.Got to go be back later to finish.

I approve this hijack.

We take a step back.Tell Lisa to go back to the desk and call "F"ing security and I round the corner again and walk straight toward the exit, sure as #### he is there. Then at the last minute I rev back a throw a punch as hard as I can. The sound of glass breaking was mystifying, and it wasn't until the pain of my hand that I realize my mistake.

Spoiler

Visual had put a new mirror over he weekend and it was reflecting a mannequin.

Lisa was very grateful anyway, but not that grateful. We did become very close friends and later I found out she was gay - which is weird because she kind of looks like Gillian Anderson who has admitted that she had a gay relationship in college. We have kept in touch and a few years later I got invited to her wedding. It was a huge bash with about 250 people at a country club estate. While eating dinner I notice that my old department manager is there also, Susan... but that is a story for another time.

 

[General Malaise]

I feel the need to address the bolded part. Anonymous is not just teenage kiddy scripters some of their past hacks have been, well elegant; some would say professional even. Not that they are White Knights in shinning armor coming to save the world through the internet, but I can say for the most part they do not really seem that interested in money; which to me speaks volumes about their intent and what they try to accomplish.

Can we talk about the case where these guys got the wrong person? That seems very dangerous to me.

Yes it is very dangerous.Anything else to add?

No, I guess that's it. Scares me.

When I was 19 I worked at a large department store in women's shoes. So one night during the holidays I was cleaning the floor and helping my manager stack the shelves. She was about 25 redhead with a great personality and a body to match. She is up on the latter and I am handing her boxes while she is stacking them by size/brand. After we finished I clock out but forget my coat and badge I go back. I walk back to the stockroom and get my coat but can;t find my badge. Now the way this stockroom is designed is that their is a small desk in one corner with a PC on it - there is only one exit/entrance in an L shape. So i walk back thinking I might have left it on one of the boxes. Lisa is leaning back on the desk with this weird scared look on her face (not sexual). I said "Hey, was going on". She looks me right in the eyes and said "Someone is back here with me." I said very loudly "Come on. We are leaving now".We make our way to the exit. I turn the corner of the L and see a someone standing in the doorway.Got to go be back later to finish.

I approve this hijack.

We take a step back.Tell Lisa to go back to the desk and call "F"ing security and I round the corner again and walk straight toward the exit, sure as #### he is there. Then at the last minute I rev back a throw a punch as hard as I can. The sound of glass breaking was mystifying, and it wasn't until the pain of my hand that I realize my mistake.

Spoiler

Visual had put a new mirror over he weekend and it was reflecting a mannequin.

Lisa was very grateful anyway, but not that grateful. We did become very close friends and later I found out she was gay - which is weird because she kind of looks like Gillian Anderson who has admitted that she had a gay relationship in college. We have kept in touch and a few years later I got invited to her wedding. It was a huge bash with about 250 people at a country club estate. While eating dinner I notice that my old department manager is there also, Susan... but that is a story for another time.

unsubscribe

 

[Class Dismissed]

So where do things sit right now? Has the Anonymous stuff pushed things forward at all?

Well all the area schools went into lockdown after a shooting threat was made.LinkAnd the Attorneys for the 2 arrested football players say that witnesses for the defense are afraid to come forward and testify.LinkAnd Adam Nemann, the lawyer for 16-year-old defendant Trent Mays, told CNN he wants the case moved out of Steubenville because of the extensive publicity it has received “and what we perceive as threats to individuals, perhaps witnesses, and also defendants and even defense counsel.”LinkA sophmore member of the football team has said he has been threatened and told that all members of the football Team should be lined up and shot.And The mother of a 9-year-old boy, told her son that if he ever rapes anyone, “I will cut your penis off, shove it down your throat and watch you die slowly.”Eat This and dieOther than that, two football players remain arrested and charged with a trial date of 2/13The state says that none of the evidence that Anonymous released is new.The County prosecutor who anonymous had an issue with recused herself, In AUGUST.And the corrupt Sheriff who Anonymous either does, or does not want on the case, is still, not on the case, as the case was handled by the City Police.

 

[General Malaise]

And The mother of a 9-year-old boy, told her son that if he ever rapes anyone, “I will cut your penis off, shove it down your throat and watch you die slowly.”

See, now THIS is good parenting. Rape Crew parents need to sit up and pay attention here. Maybe their sons wouldn't rape women and brag about it social media if they had moms and dads that parented them with a moral compass.

 

[Mr Capicollo]

And The mother of a 9-year-old boy, told her son that if he ever rapes anyone, “I will cut your penis off, shove it down your throat and watch you die slowly.”

See, now THIS is good parenting. Rape Crew parents need to sit up and pay attention here. Maybe their sons wouldn't rape women and brag about it social media if they had moms and dads that parented them with a moral compass.

I blame rapey video games.

 

[General Malaise]

And The mother of a 9-year-old boy, told her son that if he ever rapes anyone, “I will cut your penis off, shove it down your throat and watch you die slowly.”

See, now THIS is good parenting. Rape Crew parents need to sit up and pay attention here. Maybe their sons wouldn't rape women and brag about it social media if they had moms and dads that parented them with a moral compass.

I blame rapey video games.

It really all circles back to the Kennedys.

 

[Ilov80s]

This is all so new to me. I'm very intrigued and the vigilante in me likes that these Rape Crew punks are getting all the public humiliation they can handle for perhaps the rest of their lives. Good!

But reading this took me to the case of Amanda Todd where they apparently outed the wrong guy. THAT terrifies me.

Well, as has been pointed out, the traditional media can also misidentify a suspect. Richard Jewell, for example. Jewell settled several defamation claims, although he said most of the money went to charity and lawyers.In the online context, there may be a defamation claim as well as state and federal private rights of action under wiretapping statutes.

Of course, this assumes that you can identify the person who misidentified you. In the Amanda Todd case, it appears that a member of Anonymous corrected the identification fairly quickly (they apparently had the right person, but the wrong details such as the address and age). I don't know what remedies the wrongly accused had under Canadian law.

This really doesn't matter. According to Pratkanis' research, people believe the first negative attack upon someone, even if the attack is baseless and/or the attacker isn't trustworthy. Worse, he found that people refused to believe that this effect existed (at least as to themselves) further entrenching the effects. Even if Anonymous outs someone inadvertently, the social backlash is going to be massive. And remember, legal remedies (even to the extent you could identify the actors) aren't really relevant in what amounts to an information campaign.

The social backlash would be minor because the large majority of the people in the country never come across Anonymous news or likely even know what Anonymous is. When the mainstream media gets ahold of BS like ATL Olympic Bomber or the myriad of falsehoods that came out during Sandy Hook and Columbine, that is what people see and remember.

Mainstream media isn't the sole or even primary problem anymore given social media, but now that the mainstream media feels it's in competition with social media, it's reporting faster but more recklessly to keep up. Things have changed since the Atlanta bombing and Jewell.I happened to be following Twitter on the day of Sandy Hook, and for hours people were hounding, putting up pictures of and even making death threats against another local guy with the last name of Lanza. It got picked up by the mainstream media within a couple of hours (no more), and it included posting a picture of this guy. It was corrected by the end of the day - again, first by social media before the mainstream media - but I'm sure searches with that "other Lanza's" photo still come up in Sandy Hook searches.

Here's another example of how fast things can move. We're in the communications age, and we're only just starting to get a grasp upon its effects upon us and how we see the world.

The media was reckless before Twitter and Facebook. Most people still think Columbine was carried out the by some Trench Coat Mafia and was revenge on the jocks for bullying 2 geeky goth kids because the media made all kinds of assumptions and ran with unsubstantiated hearsay and created their own narrative. We have no problem letting Nancy Grace on the air daily speculating sensationalizing every homicide she thinks she can package and sell in a headline. I just fail to see how a group releasing evidence is anymore dangerous than what happens everyday on TV, radio, and formal print.

 

[Mr Capicollo]

This is all so new to me. I'm very intrigued and the vigilante in me likes that these Rape Crew punks are getting all the public humiliation they can handle for perhaps the rest of their lives. Good!

But reading this took me to the case of Amanda Todd where they apparently outed the wrong guy. THAT terrifies me.

Well, as has been pointed out, the traditional media can also misidentify a suspect. Richard Jewell, for example. Jewell settled several defamation claims, although he said most of the money went to charity and lawyers.In the online context, there may be a defamation claim as well as state and federal private rights of action under wiretapping statutes.

Of course, this assumes that you can identify the person who misidentified you. In the Amanda Todd case, it appears that a member of Anonymous corrected the identification fairly quickly (they apparently had the right person, but the wrong details such as the address and age). I don't know what remedies the wrongly accused had under Canadian law.

This really doesn't matter. According to Pratkanis' research, people believe the first negative attack upon someone, even if the attack is baseless and/or the attacker isn't trustworthy. Worse, he found that people refused to believe that this effect existed (at least as to themselves) further entrenching the effects. Even if Anonymous outs someone inadvertently, the social backlash is going to be massive. And remember, legal remedies (even to the extent you could identify the actors) aren't really relevant in what amounts to an information campaign.

The social backlash would be minor because the large majority of the people in the country never come across Anonymous news or likely even know what Anonymous is. When the mainstream media gets ahold of BS like ATL Olympic Bomber or the myriad of falsehoods that came out during Sandy Hook and Columbine, that is what people see and remember.

Mainstream media isn't the sole or even primary problem anymore given social media, but now that the mainstream media feels it's in competition with social media, it's reporting faster but more recklessly to keep up. Things have changed since the Atlanta bombing and Jewell.I happened to be following Twitter on the day of Sandy Hook, and for hours people were hounding, putting up pictures of and even making death threats against another local guy with the last name of Lanza. It got picked up by the mainstream media within a couple of hours (no more), and it included posting a picture of this guy. It was corrected by the end of the day - again, first by social media before the mainstream media - but I'm sure searches with that "other Lanza's" photo still come up in Sandy Hook searches.

Here's another example of how fast things can move. We're in the communications age, and we're only just starting to get a grasp upon its effects upon us and how we see the world.

The media was reckless before Twitter and Facebook. Most people still think Columbine was carried out the by some Trench Coat Mafia and was revenge on the jocks for bullying 2 geeky goth kids because the media made all kinds of assumptions and ran with unsubstantiated hearsay and created their own narrative. We have no problem letting Nancy Grace on the air daily speculating sensationalizing every homicide she thinks she can package and sell in a headline. I just fail to see how a group releasing evidence is anymore dangerous than what happens everyday on TV, radio, and formal print.

Because it's not (just) evidence, and for all of the other reasons stated.I'm sure we're going to hear stories of Anonymous operators starting to blackmail people at some point. It's the natural evolution of having this much power.

 

[Todd Andrews]

So where do things sit right now? Has the Anonymous stuff pushed things forward at all?

Well all the area schools went into lockdown after a shooting threat was made.Link

Um, the Sheriff has said today that the school threat wasnt made by anonymous.

And the Attorneys for the 2 arrested football players say that witnesses for the defense are afraid to come forward and testify.

Link



You mean the all of the many people who were coming forward and testifying before, right? ...oh wait, the Police Chief says no one will say anything and the only three witnesses who have gone on the record at an earlier hearing were three other football players connected to the incident by their own social media and it appears that they were given immunity.

And Adam Nemann, the lawyer for 16-year-old defendant Trent Mays, told CNN he wants the case moved out of Steubenville because of the extensive publicity it has received “and what we perceive as threats to individuals, perhaps witnesses, and also defendants and even defense counsel.”

Link

A sophmore member of the football team has said he has been threatened and told that all members of the football Team should be lined up and shot.

Who cares?

And The mother of a 9-year-old boy, told her son that if he ever rapes anyone, “I will cut your penis off, shove it down your throat and watch you die slowly.”

Eat This and die



Good.

Other than that, two football players remain arrested and charged with a trial date of 2/13

Many others need to be charged.

The state says that none of the evidence that Anonymous released is new.

So why werent others charged?

The County prosecutor who anonymous had an issue with recused herself, In AUGUST.

The incident occurred on Aug 11/12 and she recused herself more than two weeks later on Aug 28 after overseeing the collection of evidence, interviews (including the initial victim interview where the victim and her family claim she tried to intimidate and scare them into not pursuing the case), and the initial charges which were only against the two black kids involved but not her own son, any assistant coaches at whose houses these parties and events took place, or any of the people circulating nude photos and videos of the victim. Oh wait, you mean the prosecutor who also sits on the Steubenville Board in violation of Ohio law? Wait, wait, you must mean the prosecutor who works at her private law firm with a relative of Mr. Agreste, another School Board member and foster father of one of the accused rapists, right(he was on the Today show this morning with his wife)? Or wait, do you mean the prosecutor whose own son was allegedly at these very same parties where the victim was allegedly raped and these photos and video were taken? Because that prosecutor only recused herself more than two weeks after the case began, for very very very very very very very very very very very very very obvious conflicts of interest, after she had overseen the initial interviews, collection of evidence, and she made the decisions about who would be charged and with what.

And the corrupt Sheriff who Anonymous either does, or does not want on the case, is still, not on the case, as the case was handled by the City Police.



Oh, you cant mean the Sheriff who had his deputies collect evidence in the beginning the case, including the initial phone and other electronic device collection from the football team and players in question at their practice facility, where his deputies allowed the coaches and players to go into the locker room alone to retrieve the devices? Is that the one you mean isnt on the case?

It is an interesting case which you obviously know next to nothing about. Maybe learn about it before weighing in next time.

 

[Ilov80s]

This is all so new to me. I'm very intrigued and the vigilante in me likes that these Rape Crew punks are getting all the public humiliation they can handle for perhaps the rest of their lives. Good!

But reading this took me to the case of Amanda Todd where they apparently outed the wrong guy. THAT terrifies me.

Well, as has been pointed out, the traditional media can also misidentify a suspect. Richard Jewell, for example. Jewell settled several defamation claims, although he said most of the money went to charity and lawyers.In the online context, there may be a defamation claim as well as state and federal private rights of action under wiretapping statutes.

Of course, this assumes that you can identify the person who misidentified you. In the Amanda Todd case, it appears that a member of Anonymous corrected the identification fairly quickly (they apparently had the right person, but the wrong details such as the address and age). I don't know what remedies the wrongly accused had under Canadian law.

This really doesn't matter. According to Pratkanis' research, people believe the first negative attack upon someone, even if the attack is baseless and/or the attacker isn't trustworthy. Worse, he found that people refused to believe that this effect existed (at least as to themselves) further entrenching the effects. Even if Anonymous outs someone inadvertently, the social backlash is going to be massive. And remember, legal remedies (even to the extent you could identify the actors) aren't really relevant in what amounts to an information campaign.

The social backlash would be minor because the large majority of the people in the country never come across Anonymous news or likely even know what Anonymous is. When the mainstream media gets ahold of BS like ATL Olympic Bomber or the myriad of falsehoods that came out during Sandy Hook and Columbine, that is what people see and remember.

Mainstream media isn't the sole or even primary problem anymore given social media, but now that the mainstream media feels it's in competition with social media, it's reporting faster but more recklessly to keep up. Things have changed since the Atlanta bombing and Jewell.I happened to be following Twitter on the day of Sandy Hook, and for hours people were hounding, putting up pictures of and even making death threats against another local guy with the last name of Lanza. It got picked up by the mainstream media within a couple of hours (no more), and it included posting a picture of this guy. It was corrected by the end of the day - again, first by social media before the mainstream media - but I'm sure searches with that "other Lanza's" photo still come up in Sandy Hook searches.

Here's another example of how fast things can move. We're in the communications age, and we're only just starting to get a grasp upon its effects upon us and how we see the world.

The media was reckless before Twitter and Facebook. Most people still think Columbine was carried out the by some Trench Coat Mafia and was revenge on the jocks for bullying 2 geeky goth kids because the media made all kinds of assumptions and ran with unsubstantiated hearsay and created their own narrative. We have no problem letting Nancy Grace on the air daily speculating sensationalizing every homicide she thinks she can package and sell in a headline. I just fail to see how a group releasing evidence is anymore dangerous than what happens everyday on TV, radio, and formal print.

Because it's not (just) evidence, and for all of the other reasons stated.I'm sure we're going to hear stories of Anonymous operators starting to blackmail people at some point. It's the natural evolution of having this much power.

I will concede that Anonymous group isn't a bunch of saints and they have done some very suspect things. It is a criminal organization. Still, criminal does not always mean bad for the average citizen.

 

[Abraham]

They were told to come forward and apologize. They didn't. I fail to see the problem unless you truly believe nothing happened (which seems impossible).

 

[Class Dismissed]

So where do things sit right now? Has the Anonymous stuff pushed things forward at all?

Well all the area schools went into lockdown after a shooting threat was made.Link

Um, the Sheriff has said today that the school threat wasnt made by anonymous.

And the Attorneys for the 2 arrested football players say that witnesses for the defense are afraid to come forward and testify.

Link



You mean the all of the many people who were coming forward and testifying before, right? ...oh wait, the Police Chief says no one will say anything and the only three witnesses who have gone on the record at an earlier hearing were three other football players connected to the incident by their own social media and it appears that they were given immunity.

And Adam Nemann, the lawyer for 16-year-old defendant Trent Mays, told CNN he wants the case moved out of Steubenville because of the extensive publicity it has received “and what we perceive as threats to individuals, perhaps witnesses, and also defendants and even defense counsel.”

Link

A sophmore member of the football team has said he has been threatened and told that all members of the football Team should be lined up and shot.

Who cares?

And The mother of a 9-year-old boy, told her son that if he ever rapes anyone, “I will cut your penis off, shove it down your throat and watch you die slowly.”

Eat This and die



Good.

Other than that, two football players remain arrested and charged with a trial date of 2/13

Many others need to be charged.

The state says that none of the evidence that Anonymous released is new.

So why werent others charged?

The County prosecutor who anonymous had an issue with recused herself, In AUGUST.

The incident occurred on Aug 11/12 and she recused herself more than two weeks later on Aug 28 after overseeing the collection of evidence, interviews (including the initial victim interview where the victim and her family claim she tried to intimidate and scare them into not pursuing the case), and the initial charges which were only against the two black kids involved but not her own son, any assistant coaches at whose houses these parties and events took place, or any of the people circulating nude photos and videos of the victim. Oh wait, you mean the prosecutor who also sits on the Steubenville Board in violation of Ohio law? Wait, wait, you must mean the prosecutor who works at her private law firm with a relative of Mr. Agreste, another School Board member and foster father of one of the accused rapists, right(he was on the Today show this morning with his wife)? Or wait, do you mean the prosecutor whose own son was allegedly at these very same parties where the victim was allegedly raped and these photos and video were taken? Because that prosecutor only recused herself more than two weeks after the case began, for very very very very very very very very very very very very very obvious conflicts of interest, after she had overseen the initial interviews, collection of evidence, and she made the decisions about who would be charged and with what.

And the corrupt Sheriff who Anonymous either does, or does not want on the case, is still, not on the case, as the case was handled by the City Police.



Oh, you cant mean the Sheriff who had his deputies collect evidence in the beginning the case, including the initial phone and other electronic device collection from the football team and players in question at their practice facility, where his deputies allowed the coaches and players to go into the locker room alone to retrieve the devices? Is that the one you mean isnt on the case?

It is an interesting case which you obviously know next to nothing about. Maybe learn about it before weighing in next time.

Your comment;Um, the Sheriff has said today that the school threat wasnt made by anonymous.

Is quite possibly the dumbest thing that I have ever seen written on a message board or uttered by a public official.

Do you have a link to the Sheriff allegedly stating that the Anonymous Death threat received, wasn't made by Anonymous?

In addition your comment "Oh wait, you mean the prosecutor who also sits on the Steubenville Board in violation of Ohio law? Is demonstrably false."

Link to Hanlin Resigning From School Board

 

[Todd Andrews]

So where do things sit right now? Has the Anonymous stuff pushed things forward at all?

Well all the area schools went into lockdown after a shooting threat was made.Link

Um, the Sheriff has said today that the school threat wasnt made by anonymous.

And the Attorneys for the 2 arrested football players say that witnesses for the defense are afraid to come forward and testify.

Link



You mean the all of the many people who were coming forward and testifying before, right? ...oh wait, the Police Chief says no one will say anything and the only three witnesses who have gone on the record at an earlier hearing were three other football players connected to the incident by their own social media and it appears that they were given immunity.

And Adam Nemann, the lawyer for 16-year-old defendant Trent Mays, told CNN he wants the case moved out of Steubenville because of the extensive publicity it has received “and what we perceive as threats to individuals, perhaps witnesses, and also defendants and even defense counsel.”

Link

A sophmore member of the football team has said he has been threatened and told that all members of the football Team should be lined up and shot.

Who cares?

And The mother of a 9-year-old boy, told her son that if he ever rapes anyone, “I will cut your penis off, shove it down your throat and watch you die slowly.”

Eat This and die



Good.

Other than that, two football players remain arrested and charged with a trial date of 2/13

Many others need to be charged.

The state says that none of the evidence that Anonymous released is new.

So why werent others charged?

The County prosecutor who anonymous had an issue with recused herself, In AUGUST.

The incident occurred on Aug 11/12 and she recused herself more than two weeks later on Aug 28 after overseeing the collection of evidence, interviews (including the initial victim interview where the victim and her family claim she tried to intimidate and scare them into not pursuing the case), and the initial charges which were only against the two black kids involved but not her own son, any assistant coaches at whose houses these parties and events took place, or any of the people circulating nude photos and videos of the victim. Oh wait, you mean the prosecutor who also sits on the Steubenville Board in violation of Ohio law? Wait, wait, you must mean the prosecutor who works at her private law firm with a relative of Mr. Agreste, another School Board member and foster father of one of the accused rapists, right(he was on the Today show this morning with his wife)? Or wait, do you mean the prosecutor whose own son was allegedly at these very same parties where the victim was allegedly raped and these photos and video were taken? Because that prosecutor only recused herself more than two weeks after the case began, for very very very very very very very very very very very very very obvious conflicts of interest, after she had overseen the initial interviews, collection of evidence, and she made the decisions about who would be charged and with what.

And the corrupt Sheriff who Anonymous either does, or does not want on the case, is still, not on the case, as the case was handled by the City Police.



Oh, you cant mean the Sheriff who had his deputies collect evidence in the beginning the case, including the initial phone and other electronic device collection from the football team and players in question at their practice facility, where his deputies allowed the coaches and players to go into the locker room alone to retrieve the devices? Is that the one you mean isnt on the case?

It is an interesting case which you obviously know next to nothing about. Maybe learn about it before weighing in next time.

Your comment;Um, the Sheriff has said today that the school threat wasnt made by anonymous.

Is quite possibly the dumbest thing that I have ever seen written on a message board or uttered by a public official.

Do you have a link to the Sheriff allegedly stating that the Anonymous Death threat received, wasn't made by Anonymous?

In addition your comment "Oh wait, you mean the prosecutor who also sits on the Steubenville Board in violation of Ohio law? Is demonstrably false."

Link to Hanlin Resigning From School Board

I am sorry you think Sheriff Abdalla is so dumb.

Jefferson County Sheriff Fred Abdalla told 7News he did not believe the threat was made by anyone affiliated with the hacktivist group "Anonymous."

"Right away everyone wants to blame Anonymous. I can be certain they had nothing to do with this," said Abdalla.

Prosecutor Jane Hanlin became an assistant prosecutor years and years ago in 2004 under a partner from her law who firm was the head prosecutor (he retired in 2010 and she was appointed to take over as boss prosecutor), all when she was on the School Board. Analysis from comments on a website about the Steubenville situation:

"Ohio Revised Code Section 3313.13 prohibits an assistant county prosecuting attorney from being a member of a board of education of a school district. On December 20, 2004, the Ohio Attorney General rendered an official opinion #2004-049 reiterating the law. Instead of following the law, Jane Hanlin and the prosecutor’s office simply ignored the law. Jane Hanlin not only continued as a school board member with Frank Bruzzese’s wife, but eventually became the President of the School Board. Her son and daughter have been the recipients of scholarships and other awards and renumerations from Steubenville High School.

So, when Jane Hanlin allegedly disqualified herself from the recent rape case because of her allegience to the Steubenville School system, she should have disqualified herself from the school system,at least 8 years earlier, in accordance with the law and ethics."

So while I am glad for you that you found a link showing she resigned from the School Board in 2011, you have only proved and reinforced my points about the prosecutor and your lack of knowledge about this case.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I guess we stopped being outraged over this.

 

[Charlie Frown]

'She didn't affirmatively say no'

'She didn't affirmatively say no': Silence means consent according to defense in Ohio high school rape trial where passed out, drunken teenage girl was 'sexually assaulted' by multiple football players

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291926/She-didnt-affirmatively-say-Silence-means-consent-according-defense-Ohio-high-school-rape-trial-passed-drunken-teenage-girl-sexually-assaulted-multiple-football-players.html#ixzz2NMc0mVgm

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Defense lawyers in the coming trial of two high school football players charged with raping a nearly passed-out-drunk 16-year-old girl are expected to argue on the issue of consent.

In the case that has shocked the nation, prosecutors state that the inebriated girl was taken to a number of parties by a group of drunk teenagers, supporting her to walk when she wasn't physically capable.

The prosecution claims that the group later sexually assaulted the girl while she lay unconscious.

But attorney Walter Madison, who represents one of the accused boys, argues she was drinking voluntarily and left willingly with the group of boys.

As reported by the Cleveland Trader Madison said: 'There's an abundance of evidence here that she was making decisions, cognitive choices.' 'She didn't affirmatively say no,' he stated.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291926/She-didnt-affirmatively-say-Silence-means-consent-according-defense-Ohio-high-school-rape-trial-passed-drunken-teenage-girl-sexually-assaulted-multiple-football-players.html#ixzz2NMbje5sx

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Wow.

 

[culdeus]

'She didn't affirmatively say no'

'She didn't affirmatively say no': Silence means consent according to defense in Ohio high school rape trial where passed out, drunken teenage girl was 'sexually assaulted' by multiple football players

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291926/She-didnt-affirmatively-say-Silence-means-consent-according-defense-Ohio-high-school-rape-trial-passed-drunken-teenage-girl-sexually-assaulted-multiple-football-players.html#ixzz2NMc0mVgm

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Defense lawyers in the coming trial of two high school football players charged with raping a nearly passed-out-drunk 16-year-old girl are expected to argue on the issue of consent.

In the case that has shocked the nation, prosecutors state that the inebriated girl was taken to a number of parties by a group of drunk teenagers, supporting her to walk when she wasn't physically capable.

The prosecution claims that the group later sexually assaulted the girl while she lay unconscious.

But attorney Walter Madison, who represents one of the accused boys, argues she was drinking voluntarily and left willingly with the group of boys.

As reported by the Cleveland Trader Madison said: 'There's an abundance of evidence here that she was making decisions, cognitive choices.' 'She didn't affirmatively say no,' he stated.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291926/She-didnt-affirmatively-say-Silence-means-consent-according-defense-Ohio-high-school-rape-trial-passed-drunken-teenage-girl-sexually-assaulted-multiple-football-players.html#ixzz2NMbje5sx

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Wow.

You are aware that we have jury trials in this country, right? And we are entitled to a defense?

 

[Charlie Frown]

'She didn't affirmatively say no'

'She didn't affirmatively say no': Silence means consent according to defense in Ohio high school rape trial where passed out, drunken teenage girl was 'sexually assaulted' by multiple football players

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291926/She-didnt-affirmatively-say-Silence-means-consent-according-defense-Ohio-high-school-rape-trial-passed-drunken-teenage-girl-sexually-assaulted-multiple-football-players.html#ixzz2NMc0mVgm

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Defense lawyers in the coming trial of two high school football players charged with raping a nearly passed-out-drunk 16-year-old girl are expected to argue on the issue of consent.

In the case that has shocked the nation, prosecutors state that the inebriated girl was taken to a number of parties by a group of drunk teenagers, supporting her to walk when she wasn't physically capable.

The prosecution claims that the group later sexually assaulted the girl while she lay unconscious.

But attorney Walter Madison, who represents one of the accused boys, argues she was drinking voluntarily and left willingly with the group of boys.

As reported by the Cleveland Trader Madison said: 'There's an abundance of evidence here that she was making decisions, cognitive choices.' 'She didn't affirmatively say no,' he stated.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291926/She-didnt-affirmatively-say-Silence-means-consent-according-defense-Ohio-high-school-rape-trial-passed-drunken-teenage-girl-sexually-assaulted-multiple-football-players.html#ixzz2NMbje5sx

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Wow.

You are aware that we have jury trials in this country, right? And we are entitled to a defense?

Yeah but to say "she didn't say no, so it wasn't rape" isn't much of a defense in my opinion.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

The defense attorney has to try something. He doesn't have much working in his favor.

 

[NCCommish]

How is it we try 9 year olds as adults and these two shmucks, one 16 and one 17, are being tried as juveniles? I mean this is a horrendous crime. It involved kidnapping, hours of rape, the victim was even urinated on at their behest. Is football really that important in this ####ed up town?

 

[Charlie Frown]

How is it we try 9 year olds as adults and these two shmucks, one 16 and one 17, are being tried as juveniles? I mean this is a horrendous crime. It involved kidnapping, hours of rape, the victim was even urinated on at their behest. Is football really that important in this ####ed up town?

Boys will be boys I guess.

 

[maxwelledison]

'She didn't affirmatively say no'

'She didn't affirmatively say no': Silence means consent according to defense in Ohio high school rape trial where passed out, drunken teenage girl was 'sexually assaulted' by multiple football players

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291926/She-didnt-affirmatively-say-Silence-means-consent-according-defense-Ohio-high-school-rape-trial-passed-drunken-teenage-girl-sexually-assaulted-multiple-football-players.html#ixzz2NMc0mVgm

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Defense lawyers in the coming trial of two high school football players charged with raping a nearly passed-out-drunk 16-year-old girl are expected to argue on the issue of consent.

In the case that has shocked the nation, prosecutors state that the inebriated girl was taken to a number of parties by a group of drunk teenagers, supporting her to walk when she wasn't physically capable.

The prosecution claims that the group later sexually assaulted the girl while she lay unconscious.

But attorney Walter Madison, who represents one of the accused boys, argues she was drinking voluntarily and left willingly with the group of boys.

As reported by the Cleveland Trader Madison said: 'There's an abundance of evidence here that she was making decisions, cognitive choices.' 'She didn't affirmatively say no,' he stated.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291926/She-didnt-affirmatively-say-Silence-means-consent-according-defense-Ohio-high-school-rape-trial-passed-drunken-teenage-girl-sexually-assaulted-multiple-football-players.html#ixzz2NMbje5sx

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Wow.

You are aware that we have jury trials in this country, right? And we are entitled to a defense?

Are you serious?

 

[coyote5]

'She didn't affirmatively say no'

'She didn't affirmatively say no': Silence means consent according to defense in Ohio high school rape trial where passed out, drunken teenage girl was 'sexually assaulted' by multiple football players

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291926/She-didnt-affirmatively-say-Silence-means-consent-according-defense-Ohio-high-school-rape-trial-passed-drunken-teenage-girl-sexually-assaulted-multiple-football-players.html#ixzz2NMc0mVgm

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Defense lawyers in the coming trial of two high school football players charged with raping a nearly passed-out-drunk 16-year-old girl are expected to argue on the issue of consent.

In the case that has shocked the nation, prosecutors state that the inebriated girl was taken to a number of parties by a group of drunk teenagers, supporting her to walk when she wasn't physically capable.

The prosecution claims that the group later sexually assaulted the girl while she lay unconscious.

But attorney Walter Madison, who represents one of the accused boys, argues she was drinking voluntarily and left willingly with the group of boys.

As reported by the Cleveland Trader Madison said: 'There's an abundance of evidence here that she was making decisions, cognitive choices.' 'She didn't affirmatively say no,' he stated.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291926/She-didnt-affirmatively-say-Silence-means-consent-according-defense-Ohio-high-school-rape-trial-passed-drunken-teenage-girl-sexually-assaulted-multiple-football-players.html#ixzz2NMbje5sx

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Wow.

You are aware that we have jury trials in this country, right? And we are entitled to a defense?

Are you serious?

What's the problem?

 

[NCCommish]

'She didn't affirmatively say no'

'She didn't affirmatively say no': Silence means consent according to defense in Ohio high school rape trial where passed out, drunken teenage girl was 'sexually assaulted' by multiple football players

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291926/She-didnt-affirmatively-say-Silence-means-consent-according-defense-Ohio-high-school-rape-trial-passed-drunken-teenage-girl-sexually-assaulted-multiple-football-players.html#ixzz2NMc0mVgm

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Defense lawyers in the coming trial of two high school football players charged with raping a nearly passed-out-drunk 16-year-old girl are expected to argue on the issue of consent.

In the case that has shocked the nation, prosecutors state that the inebriated girl was taken to a number of parties by a group of drunk teenagers, supporting her to walk when she wasn't physically capable.

The prosecution claims that the group later sexually assaulted the girl while she lay unconscious.

But attorney Walter Madison, who represents one of the accused boys, argues she was drinking voluntarily and left willingly with the group of boys.

As reported by the Cleveland Trader Madison said: 'There's an abundance of evidence here that she was making decisions, cognitive choices.' 'She didn't affirmatively say no,' he stated.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291926/She-didnt-affirmatively-say-Silence-means-consent-according-defense-Ohio-high-school-rape-trial-passed-drunken-teenage-girl-sexually-assaulted-multiple-football-players.html#ixzz2NMbje5sx

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Wow.

You are aware that we have jury trials in this country, right? And we are entitled to a defense?

Are you serious?

What's the problem?

I think his problem is she was so unconscious they said it was like ####### a dead body so it is more than a little heinous to suggest she didn't say no so she wanted to be pissed on.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

How is it we try 9 year olds as adults and these two shmucks, one 16 and one 17, are being tried as juveniles? I mean this is a horrendous crime. It involved kidnapping, hours of rape, the victim was even urinated on at their behest. Is football really that important in this ####ed up town?

It had nothing to do with the town. The decision to try the accused as juveniles was made by the Special Prosecutor's brought in from the Attorney General's office. Not by anyone from Steubenville.

 

[coyote5]

'She didn't affirmatively say no'

'She didn't affirmatively say no': Silence means consent according to defense in Ohio high school rape trial where passed out, drunken teenage girl was 'sexually assaulted' by multiple football players

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291926/She-didnt-affirmatively-say-Silence-means-consent-according-defense-Ohio-high-school-rape-trial-passed-drunken-teenage-girl-sexually-assaulted-multiple-football-players.html#ixzz2NMc0mVgm

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Defense lawyers in the coming trial of two high school football players charged with raping a nearly passed-out-drunk 16-year-old girl are expected to argue on the issue of consent.

In the case that has shocked the nation, prosecutors state that the inebriated girl was taken to a number of parties by a group of drunk teenagers, supporting her to walk when she wasn't physically capable.

The prosecution claims that the group later sexually assaulted the girl while she lay unconscious.

But attorney Walter Madison, who represents one of the accused boys, argues she was drinking voluntarily and left willingly with the group of boys.

As reported by the Cleveland Trader Madison said: 'There's an abundance of evidence here that she was making decisions, cognitive choices.' 'She didn't affirmatively say no,' he stated.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291926/She-didnt-affirmatively-say-Silence-means-consent-according-defense-Ohio-high-school-rape-trial-passed-drunken-teenage-girl-sexually-assaulted-multiple-football-players.html#ixzz2NMbje5sx

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Wow.

You are aware that we have jury trials in this country, right? And we are entitled to a defense?

Are you serious?

What's the problem?

I think his problem is she was so unconscious they said it was like ####### a dead body so it is more than a little heinous to suggest she didn't say no so she wanted to be pissed on.

I don't think that has anything to do with our legal system and the right to offer a defense, no matter how ridiculous the defense may sound.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

How is it we try 9 year olds as adults and these two shmucks, one 16 and one 17, are being tried as juveniles? I mean this is a horrendous crime. It involved kidnapping, hours of rape, the victim was even urinated on at their behest. Is football really that important in this ####ed up town?

It had nothing to do with the town. The decision to try the accused as juveniles was made by the Special Prosecutor's brought in from the Attorney General's office. Not by anyone from Steubenville.

I imagine he thinks it will be easier to get a conviction that way.

 

[Rayderr]

Per a crawl on the local CBS affiliate, the verdict will be announced in 1 hour.

 

[Rayderr]

Both defendants found "Delinquent" (juvenile version of guilty) on all 3 counts.

 

[Steve Tasker]

Guilty per AP.