Annonymous exposes Steubenville Rape Case (2 Viewers)

[pittstownkiller]

Really, that is how it is in a courtroom, you can bring up any defense no matter how ludicrous?

It's not ludicrous, prima facie, for counsel to claim that that they can establish something like consent of sexual acts. Even when the defense attorneys know they can't ... the judge and jury doesn't necessarily know that the defense knows they can't. They will get a chance to demonstrate that consent was given.

I guess that is where the some question comes in.

 

[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.

 

[bigbottom]

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.

You're completely changing all the facts of the case. This wasn't a forcible rape case in which the victim physically protested and the defendants overcame those protests by physical force. Her being drunk was necessary to show incapacitation and inability to consent. Evidence of her drunken state not only helped the State's case, it was a central component of the State's case.And to answer your question, if she was stone cold sober and allowed these guys to do these things to her without protest, the DA's case would be weaker, not stronger.

 

[pittstownkiller]

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.

See to me, this is logically inconsistent. If she bears responsibility, she shares blame -- full stop. The hair you're trying to split can only keep slipping off the blade.And, something others have pointed out -- getting blackout drunk is not a situation that invites "hey it's OK" rape. Since you say you're not saying that, the sentence I quoted from you above is all the more logically inconsistent.

It is why I included the phrase "to herself", it was not a throwaway statement. She did not have a responsibility to these two boys, others at the party, or to society-at-large. She made a mistake and I would imagine she knows it. In no way does that mitigate, alter, or absolve, what was done to her. When this girl tells this story to whomever (maybe her daughter), I am sure she will utter the phrase "I was stupid". Are my two statements so incongruous to each other that they have to be mutually exclusive? Can she really not act irresponsibly and be a victim of a crime; it would seem these two frequently go hand-in-hand.

 

[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.

You're completely changing all the facts of the case. This wasn't a forcible rape case in which the victim physically protested and the defendants overcame those protests by physical force. Her being drunk was necessary to show incapacitation and inability to consent. Evidence of her drunken state not only helped the State's case, it was a central component of the State's case.And to answer your question, if she was stone cold sober and allowed these guys to do these things to her without protest, the DA's case would be weaker, not stronger.

I am not arguing with you, I am asking you. You don't think that the DA's case was made demonstrably more difficult when the victim cannot even testify as to whether a crime was even committed against her?

 

[bigbottom]

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.

You're completely changing all the facts of the case. This wasn't a forcible rape case in which the victim physically protested and the defendants overcame those protests by physical force. Her being drunk was necessary to show incapacitation and inability to consent. Evidence of her drunken state not only helped the State's case, it was a central component of the State's case.And to answer your question, if she was stone cold sober and allowed these guys to do these things to her without protest, the DA's case would be weaker, not stronger.

I am not arguing with you, I am asking you. You don't think that the DA's case was made demonstrably more difficult when the victim cannot even testify as to whether a crime was even committed against her?

Again, if she were stone cold sober (your words), she wouldn't have been incapacitated, and the State's case would have been far more difficult. I'm not sure why this isn't obvious to you. She did not physically protest what had happened to her. As far as I'm aware, she didn't verbally protest what happened to her. For the most part, she was compliant (because she was wasted drunk and passed out). It was rape because she was incapacitated. If she had been sober and alert, and allowed them to finger her without protest of any kind, a rape case would be difficult, if not impossible.

 

[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.

This is text book victim blaming.

I guess that she made great decisions that allowed her to be so drunk that she is carried, more or less, hog-tied from party to with no recollection. If she was in this condition (and no one touched her) and there was a fire in the house which resulted in her death, would she bear some responsibility for her failure to hear a smoke alarm? Being too drunk to function is not a blanket absolution. How can I be blaming the victim if I readily state a crime was committed against her and the defendants got off too easily? I just don't share your view that she did absolutely nothing "wrong" an could not have made better choices.

 

[bigbottom]

The penalty for drunkenness should be having penises drawn on her face with Magic Marker, not . . . what actually happened.

A guy I used to work with was at a party in college where a guy drank a ton and passed out. His friend drew pictures and profanity all over him with marker. His face, arms, etc. He died of alcohol poisoning during the night. The marker was still all over him when his parents identified his body the next day. One of the more horrible stories I've ever heard.

 

[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.

You're completely changing all the facts of the case. This wasn't a forcible rape case in which the victim physically protested and the defendants overcame those protests by physical force. Her being drunk was necessary to show incapacitation and inability to consent. Evidence of her drunken state not only helped the State's case, it was a central component of the State's case.And to answer your question, if she was stone cold sober and allowed these guys to do these things to her without protest, the DA's case would be weaker, not stronger.

I am not arguing with you, I am asking you. You don't think that the DA's case was made demonstrably more difficult when the victim cannot even testify as to whether a crime was even committed against her?

Again, if she were stone cold sober (your words), she wouldn't have been incapacitated, and the State's case would have been far more difficult. I'm not sure why this isn't obvious to you. She did not physically protest what had happened to her. As far as I'm aware, she didn't verbally protest what happened to her. For the most part, she was compliant (because she was wasted drunk and passed out). It was rape because she was incapacitated. If she had been sober and alert, and allowed them to finger her without protest of any kind, a rape case would be difficult, if not impossible.

I understand this, I really do, just walk me through this last part. If this case was such a slam-dunk, why the rather light charges brought against the boys; was this really the maximum the DA could have charged them with? I have asked that question repeatedly and have not gotten an answer. I have heard that these boys could have been charged as adults, or at least charged with actual rape counts; why were they not?

 

[Chaka]

I guess that she made great decisions that allowed her to be so drunk that she is carried, more or less, hog-tied from party to with no recollection. If she was in this condition (and no one touched her) and there was a fire in the house which resulted in her death, would she bear some responsibility for her failure to hear a smoke alarm? Being too drunk to function is not a blanket absolution. How can I be blaming the victim if I readily state a crime was committed against her and the defendants got off too easily? I just don't share your view that she did absolutely nothing "wrong" an could not have made better choices.

Have you never gotten blotto? How did you learn that drinking too much might lead to a negative outcome?You are not making any points that relate to this rape.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Also if you guys wouldn't mind trimming some of the nesting on these stories (I know it is a pet peeve of Nikki's), it is a bear to do on my phone.

 

[bigbottom]

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.

You're completely changing all the facts of the case. This wasn't a forcible rape case in which the victim physically protested and the defendants overcame those protests by physical force. Her being drunk was necessary to show incapacitation and inability to consent. Evidence of her drunken state not only helped the State's case, it was a central component of the State's case.And to answer your question, if she was stone cold sober and allowed these guys to do these things to her without protest, the DA's case would be weaker, not stronger.

I am not arguing with you, I am asking you. You don't think that the DA's case was made demonstrably more difficult when the victim cannot even testify as to whether a crime was even committed against her?

Again, if she were stone cold sober (your words), she wouldn't have been incapacitated, and the State's case would have been far more difficult. I'm not sure why this isn't obvious to you. She did not physically protest what had happened to her. As far as I'm aware, she didn't verbally protest what happened to her. For the most part, she was compliant (because she was wasted drunk and passed out). It was rape because she was incapacitated. If she had been sober and alert, and allowed them to finger her without protest of any kind, a rape case would be difficult, if not impossible.

I understand this, I really do, just walk me through this last part. If this case was such a slam-dunk, why the rather light charges brought against the boys; was this really the maximum the DA could have charged them with?

They were charged with, and found guilty of, rape. That's not a "light charge."

I have asked that question repeatedly and have not gotten an answer. I have heard that these boys could have been charged as adults, or at least charged with actual rape counts; why were they not?

They were charged with rape. As for why they were not charged as adults, I do not know the answer.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

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.

What sort of world would it be to expect fine, upstanding, clean-cut, honor student, football players not to videotape themselves kidnapping, sodomizing, raping and urinating on a girl when she makes a mistake?

Also, a Public Service Reminder: arguing with trolls should only be undertaken for your own entertainment purposes.

 

[Chaka]

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.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I guess that she made great decisions that allowed her to be so drunk that she is carried, more or less, hog-tied from party to with no recollection. If she was in this condition (and no one touched her) and there was a fire in the house which resulted in her death, would she bear some responsibility for her failure to hear a smoke alarm? Being too drunk to function is not a blanket absolution. How can I be blaming the victim if I readily state a crime was committed against her and the defendants got off too easily? I just don't share your view that she did absolutely nothing "wrong" an could not have made better choices.

Have you never gotten blotto? How did you learn that drinking too much might lead to a negative outcome?You are not making any points that relate to this rape.

I am not trying to retry the case; I am asking questions about the case. Yes, I have been blotto but I learned from a very young age to put myself in an ideal situation beforeI am ####faced. I willingly concede that one of my pre-blotto situations that I look for is to be surrounded by friends, so someone looks after me; if this is what this girl did, and this is how she got treated, it is almost like a second crime against her in my book.

 

[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?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

For those who want to know what type of factors are considered when deciding to bindover a juvenile offender as an adult.

https://www.ohiobar.org/ForPublic/Resources/LawYouCanUse/Pages/LawYouCanUse-380.aspx

 

[pittstownkiller]

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.

You're completely changing all the facts of the case. This wasn't a forcible rape case in which the victim physically protested and the defendants overcame those protests by physical force. Her being drunk was necessary to show incapacitation and inability to consent. Evidence of her drunken state not only helped the State's case, it was a central component of the State's case.And to answer your question, if she was stone cold sober and allowed these guys to do these things to her without protest, the DA's case would be weaker, not stronger.

I am not arguing with you, I am asking you. You don't think that the DA's case was made demonstrably more difficult when the victim cannot even testify as to whether a crime was even committed against her?

Again, if she were stone cold sober (your words), she wouldn't have been incapacitated, and the State's case would have been far more difficult. I'm not sure why this isn't obvious to you. She did not physically protest what had happened to her. As far as I'm aware, she didn't verbally protest what happened to her. For the most part, she was compliant (because she was wasted drunk and passed out). It was rape because she was incapacitated. If she had been sober and alert, and allowed them to finger her without protest of any kind, a rape case would be difficult, if not impossible.

I understand this, I really do, just walk me through this last part. If this case was such a slam-dunk, why the rather light charges brought against the boys; was this really the maximum the DA could have charged them with?

They were charged with, and found guilty of, rape. That's not a "light charge."

I have asked that question repeatedly and have not gotten an answer. I have heard that these boys could have been charged as adults, or at least charged with actual rape counts; why were they not?

They were charged with rape. As for why they were not charged as adults, I do not know the answer.

I was under the impression that they were found guilty of delinquency beyond a reasonable doubt, the juvenile equivalent of an adult rape conviction, but we're not charged as adults. I see, in his sentencing statements that the judge said they could have been tried as adults. It seems to me that they have the evidence that she was raped, if her being incoherent from alcohol was an advantage for the prosecutor why not go full boat?

 

[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.

 

[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.

What sort of world would it be to expect fine, upstanding, clean-cut, honor student, football players not to videotape themselves kidnapping, sodomizing, raping and urinating on a girl when she makes a mistake?

Also, a Public Service Reminder: arguing with trolls should only be undertaken for your own entertainment purposes.

Thanks for the heads up, I'll keep that in mind.

 

[pittstownkiller]

For those who want to know what type of factors are considered when deciding to bindover a juvenile offender as an adult. https://www.ohiobar.org/ForPublic/Resources/LawYouCanUse/Pages/LawYouCanUse-380.aspx

Ramsay, would you unpack this for me? It seems the defendant easily meet the qualifications of being able to tried as an adult (to me). Would it be safe for me to assume that the DA felt he would have had a hard time winning this case if the defendants were looking at 15 years of hard time? Do you think the judge would have been as ready to find a guilty verdict with adult sentencing guidelines?

 

[Rayderr]

For those who want to know what type of factors are considered when deciding to bindover a juvenile offender as an adult. https://www.ohiobar.org/ForPublic/Resources/LawYouCanUse/Pages/LawYouCanUse-380.aspx

Ramsay, would you unpack this for me? It seems the defendant easily meet the qualifications of being able to tried as an adult (to me). Would it be safe for me to assume that the DA felt he would have had a hard time winning this case if the defendants were looking at 15 years of hard time? Do you think the judge would have been as ready to find a guilty verdict with adult sentencing guidelines?

I'm prtty sure they would've been found guilty if tried as adults. It's not like the photos and video would suddenly disappear. I can only assume the decision to try them as juveniles is because of the "future potential for rehabilitation."

 

[IvanKaramazov]

For those who want to know what type of factors are considered when deciding to bindover a juvenile offender as an adult. https://www.ohiobar.org/ForPublic/Resources/LawYouCanUse/Pages/LawYouCanUse-380.aspx

Ramsay, would you unpack this for me? It seems the defendant easily meet the qualifications of being able to tried as an adult (to me). Would it be safe for me to assume that the DA felt he would have had a hard time winning this case if the defendants were looking at 15 years of hard time? Do you think the judge would have been as ready to find a guilty verdict with adult sentencing guidelines?

When the law does not require transfer, the court has a choice whether to try a child as an adult, but may do so only if the child was 14 years or older at the time of a felony offense. First, the court conducts a hearing to determine if there is probable cause that the child committed the offense. Next, the court orders an investigation, including a mental examination, and conducts another hearing, often called an “amenability” hearing, to decide whether or not the child is likely to be rehabilitated within the juvenile system, and whether or not the community’s safety requires that the child be subject to adult penalties. Some of the factors the court considers are age, physical and mental maturity, past attempts and future potential for rehabilitation, harm suffered by the victim, use of a firearm, and public safety.

I have no legal background at all so I suppose I'm mostly talking out of my ###, but my guess is that these defendents scored highly on "future potential for rehabilitation" and "public safety," so they ended up in the juvenile system as opposed to the adult system. For me personally, that makes a lot of sense. I recognize that there are situations in which it's best for a minor to be tried as an adult, but those situations should be very rare. When there's a strong likelihood of successful rehabilitation, which is probably the case here, I'm half-inclined to take an adult trial off the table altogether.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

For those who want to know what type of factors are considered when deciding to bindover a juvenile offender as an adult. https://www.ohiobar.org/ForPublic/Resources/LawYouCanUse/Pages/LawYouCanUse-380.aspx

Ramsay, would you unpack this for me? It seems the defendant easily meet the qualifications of being able to tried as an adult (to me). Would it be safe for me to assume that the DA felt he would have had a hard time winning this case if the defendants were looking at 15 years of hard time? Do you think the judge would have been as ready to find a guilty verdict with adult sentencing guidelines?

Well, I don't have any special insight into the thought processes of the independent prosecutor, but the way I read that material is that the judge would have had to make a number of findings before the accused could be bound over (the defendants don't meet any of the mandatory criteria).Obviously, there was probable cause that they committed a serious felony. That's the easy part. But the judge would also have to find that it was unlikely that they could be rehabilitated in the juvenile system. So we know that the crime is heinous, maybe that weighs in favor of finding they are unlikely to be rehabilitated. But they also had clean records. They're not repeat offenders. They don't have a history of violence. And if literally dozens of people treated what they did as no big deal, is it possible that there was culture that lead them to not understand the gravity of what they did? I don't buy that argument, but I might have floated it if I were in the defense attorney's shoes.As much as a circus as the trial itself was, I think a bindover hearing might have been an even bigger circus. I'm not a prosecutor. I don't now what decision I would have made. But the prosecutor's decision isn't inexplicable to me.EDIT: Since I had to fix a few typos, I'll also say that I'm just talking about how I read the requirements (and keep in mind I haven't gone straight to the statute or the caselaw applying it. I'm actually somewhat different than Ivan because I've argued that we've set things like the age of majority and the age of consent too high for years on this board. Which means it would be hypocritical for me to think that 16 year olds aren't old enough to face full criminal responsibility. Philosophically, I think they probably are (or if they're not, that's because of the way we otherwise treat them under the law).

 

[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?

 

[Chaka]

Here's a thought; the legal system went easy on them by trying them as juveniles and they should thank their lucky stars every second of every day for the rest of their lives.

 

[Sweet J]

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.

See to me, this is logically inconsistent. If she bears responsibility, she shares blame -- full stop. The hair you're trying to split can only keep slipping off the blade.And, something others have pointed out -- getting blackout drunk is not a situation that invites "hey it's OK" rape. Since you say you're not saying that, the sentence I quoted from you above is all the more logically inconsistent.

It is why I included the phrase "to herself", it was not a throwaway statement. She did not have a responsibility to these two boys, others at the party, or to society-at-large. She made a mistake and I would imagine she knows it. In no way does that mitigate, alter, or absolve, what was done to her. When this girl tells this story to whomever (maybe her daughter), I am sure she will utter the phrase "I was stupid". Are my two statements so incongruous to each other that they have to be mutually exclusive? Can she really not act irresponsibly and be a victim of a crime; it would seem these two frequently go hand-in-hand.

There were many, many times I got really, really, drunk when I was young. At know point in time did I ever consider that a consequence of my drunkenness was getting ###-raped at some point in the night.So, no, she probably won't say to herself, or her kids, "I was stupid." She was raped. This does not invite reflection about "being stupid." Your posts get more and more egregious as they go on. You are an apologist. Or a very good fisherman.

 

[Chaka]

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.

 

[General Malaise]

Have we solved rape yet?

Death penalty?

 

[[icon]]

Ugh... Yet another good FFA thread devolving into a redundant slap fight over semantics.

:needleskippingonrecord:

 

[Chaka]

Have we solved rape yet?

Death penalty?

BAM!!!

 

[Nikki2200]

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??????

 

[General Malaise]

Have we solved rape yet?

Death penalty?

BAM!!!

Lotta rape going on in India these days too. Bunch of savages out there that need a good hanging.

 

[Nikki2200]

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.

This is text book victim blaming.

I guess that she made great decisions that allowed her to be so drunk that she is carried, more or less, hog-tied from party to with no recollection. If she was in this condition (and no one touched her) and there was a fire in the house which resulted in her death, would she bear some responsibility for her failure to hear a smoke alarm? Being too drunk to function is not a blanket absolution. How can I be blaming the victim if I readily state a crime was committed against her and the defendants got off too easily? I just don't share your view that she did absolutely nothing "wrong" an could not have made better choices.

Did you or did you not see my example earlier of a drunk guy getting beaten to death while on his bachelor party in Philly. Thoughts on that?

 

[Nikki2200]

I guess that she made great decisions that allowed her to be so drunk that she is carried, more or less, hog-tied from party to with no recollection. If she was in this condition (and no one touched her) and there was a fire in the house which resulted in her death, would she bear some responsibility for her failure to hear a smoke alarm? Being too drunk to function is not a blanket absolution. How can I be blaming the victim if I readily state a crime was committed against her and the defendants got off too easily? I just don't share your view that she did absolutely nothing "wrong" an could not have made better choices.

Have you never gotten blotto? How did you learn that drinking too much might lead to a negative outcome?You are not making any points that relate to this rape.

I am not trying to retry the case; I am asking questions about the case. Yes, I have been blotto but I learned from a very young age to put myself in an ideal situation beforeI am ####faced. I willingly concede that one of my pre-blotto situations that I look for is to be surrounded by friends, so someone looks after me; if this is what this girl did, and this is how she got treated, it is almost like a second crime against her in my book.

You do know that one of the rapists was someone she had dated and broken up with, right? Imma go ahead and assume that she didn't think getting drunk would lead to her ex-boyfriend anally violating her and posting the pictures and videos all over the interwebs.

 

[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

 

[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

Were you trying to find the worst analogy you could think of?

 

[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

Were you trying to find the worst analogy you could think of?

No, I'm trying to find one that isn't so emotionally explosive.

 

[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

Were you trying to find the worst analogy you could think of?

No, I'm trying to find one that isn't so emotionally explosive.

Well congrats on hitting the exacta.

 

[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

 

[T Bell]

Have we solved rape yet?

Death penalty?

BAM!!!

Lotta rape going on in India these days too. Bunch of savages out there that need a good hanging.

:untouchable:

 

[pittstownkiller]

For those who want to know what type of factors are considered when deciding to bindover a juvenile offender as an adult. https://www.ohiobar.org/ForPublic/Resources/LawYouCanUse/Pages/LawYouCanUse-380.aspx

Ramsay, would you unpack this for me? It seems the defendant easily meet the qualifications of being able to tried as an adult (to me). Would it be safe for me to assume that the DA felt he would have had a hard time winning this case if the defendants were looking at 15 years of hard time? Do you think the judge would have been as ready to find a guilty verdict with adult sentencing guidelines?

Well, I don't have any special insight into the thought processes of the independent prosecutor, but the way I read that material is that the judge would have had to make a number of findings before the accused could be bound over (the defendants don't meet any of the mandatory criteria).Obviously, there was probably cause that they committed a serious felony. That's the easy part. But the judge would also have find that it was unlikely that they could be rehabilitated in the juvenile system. So we know that the crime is heinous, maybe that weighs in favor of finding they are unlikely to be rehabilitated. But they also had clean records. They're not repeat offenders. They don't have a history of violence. And if literally dozens of people treated what they did as no big deal, is it possible that there was culture that lead them to not understand the gravity of what they did? I don't buy that argument, but I might have floated it if I were in the defense attorney's shoes.As much as a circus as the trial itself was, I think a bindover hearing might have been an even bigger circus. I'm not a prosecutor. I don't what decision I would have made. But the prosecutor's decision isn't inexplicable to me.

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.

 

[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.)

 

[mr roboto]

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.)

According to many on this board, it does add responsibility to her. Look out. They'll tell you all 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.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

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.

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

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.