Hey, Can A Woman "Ask To Get Raped"?

@firefly,

Do you know much about the Mel Ignatow/Brenda Shafer story? I just read that he had died. How ironic. He seems to have fallen on the same coffee table that he raped Brenda Shafer on. He bled to death.

This story has always bothered me. He was acquitted of the rape and murder even though his other girlfriend was an eye witness and testified. A few years later, a bag containing jewelry and cannisters of film were found in his house in a hidden heat vent. He had sold the house and the new owners were replacing the carpet. They immediately called the authorities and the film was sent to the crime lab and was proof positive of what Marion Shore (I think that is her name) testified to in court. There were graphic pictures of the rape and murder of Brenda.

I know there is a reason for the double jeopardy law but I still do not understand when there is undeniable proof such as pictures or video of the actual crime, a person cannot be held accountable by law. I didn't know he had died until a few minutes ago. I don't know how I feel about that. It is a strange case all around.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

We will ban people for trying to have a greater say than they deserve by monopolizing conversation (flooding) and being disruptive. We prohibit behavior, not ideas.

Any rational review of this thread would serve as ample evidence that RM has done precisely that. He has regularly posted a half a dozen times in a row, frequently posted the same mindless dribble over and over again, gamed your very system and bragged about it, and you have done nothing… save attack me.

Robert Gentel wrote:

So again, I put it to you: what is your rule. Stop acting so damn flabbergasted that I compare your inability to be civil with theirs. Take personality out of it entirely: what is your rule? What behavior should result in a ban?

This is not complicated Robert. I object to the deliberate targeting of innocents for abuse. The only bans I’ve ever advocated were against people who do this.

You continue to act like you don’t know what constitutes trolling. Here:

wiki wrote:

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

You are being patently dishonest to suggest my posting history is in the same category as, let alone worse than, that of the demented trolling duo.

He who violently attacks another is a batterer. He who responds in kind is not.

He who shows up with the purpose causing emotional injury to an innocent is a troll. He who responds in kind is not. Both the action and reaction can be attributed to the troll, and removal of same is the logical remedy.

Pretending that Shorteyes’ and RM’s deliberate button pushing is merely opinion, rather than the deliberate trolling it is, is as absurd as it is dishonest. There is no rational excuse for suggesting a woman is lying about having been beaten for failing to climax, because she didn’t fake it. No rational human being could have trouble assessing the intent of such a comment. It is pure mean-spirited trolling, and you damn well know it.

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

I think that Arella Mae is just trying to get this thread back on topic.

I was trying.

1 Reply

@djjd62,

Here we see the little dog syndrome in action. As if Robert requires the assistance of a pathetic loser like you. I am exactly who I portray myself to be. Ask any of the several members who've met me, or come see for yourself. You're just another anonymous coward, ankle-biting in anonymity. **** you too.

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

eh, whatever, i just hate whiney, "oooh the trolls upset me" bullshit, ignore them, i can do it and i don't even use the ignore function if i see billr's **** i pass on by until i see another posters, it's not that difficult, use the function if you have to

1 Reply

@djjd62,

Well aware of how easy it is to ignore mindless idiocy. I pass on virtually all of your inane posts.
Wait, what? Rolling Eyes

1 Reply

@Arella Mae,

I'm not familiar with the Brenda Shafer case, Arella Mae.

The other story you posted, about the woman who was allegedly kept as a sex slave, reminded me of a Larry King show about sex slavery that was on just this past week. Did you happen to see it? According to Dan Rather, who was on the show, child prostitution and sex slavery is apparently a wide spread problem right here in the U.S. Young girls, of about 14, are approached in places like the food courts of malls, by a young man who pretends to be interested in them, and then they gradually ensnare her into a prostitution situation she often can't get out of (they threaten to kill her family if she leaves, etc). Although this is also promoting statutory rape, they apparently have difficulty getting convictions in these cases too. This is a link to an article about what Dan Rather found out was going on in Portland:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-rather/pornland-oregon-child-pro_b_580035.html

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

as usual, you have no idea what you're talking about

enough of us have met dj for your stupid little comment to clang like a f'ing broken bell

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

ha, okay that was good, i probably shouldn't have unloaded on you as i did, i like the fact that A2K is more open than it was when i first started that direct confrontation (and yes trolling dicks) are tolerated i think it's for the better

it just seems that the same people complain about the same people thread after thread, seems odd that they'd give them the time, but i'm a dick so what do i know

sorry for the shitstorm, keep being chivalrous, you are good at it

and my posts aren't inane, they are facile (though i aim for infantile), just ask JTT

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

He who shows up with the purpose causing emotional injury to an innocent is a troll. He who responds in kind is not. Both the action and reaction can be attributed to the troll, and removal of same is the logical remedy.

I completely disagree with this. The action and the reaction continuing ad nauseum prevents those trying to ignore the action from participating in a discussion without wading through the reaction as well. Both are equally trollish to anyone not interested in the troll. Not interacting with the troll starves him of the attention he craves and tends to shut him up. Reacting to him only fuels and emboldens him. Trolling the troll is equally trollish.

2 Replies

@firefly,

I didn't see the show but I have been coming across more and more articles about child sex slavery. It's a very frightening thing but it seems it is hard to get to the heart of it because even though it is so widespread, it is also hush hush.

I have heard on a few shows, though I couldn't quote which ones, that it is assumed that a lot of missing children are out there in these rings. How horrible for the children. It is such a sick and perverted business.

1 Reply

@djjd62,

Apology appreciated and accepted. I wasn’t expecting to be blindsided below the belt.

0 Replies

@Arella Mae,

god bless you, trudging on through our nonsense

as a wide women, er, wise women once said, you go girl

1 Reply

@Arella Mae,

Double jeopardy is double jeopardy, Arella Mae, and you cant't be tried twice for the same crime.

They did get him on perjury, twice, so he did serve some jail time. And he did confess to the rape/murder.

Quote:

Ignatow was brought to trial for perjury in his grand jury testimony. Knowing that he could not be retried for the murder because of double jeopardy, Ignatow confessed in court at his perjury trial. He turned to Schaefer's brothers in court and said that he had killed her, but that she had died peacefully.

Ignatow served five years of an eight year sentence for perjury. The state later prosecuted him on perjury charges for testimony he gave in a case against Schaefer's employer for threatening to kill Ignatow if he didn't tell where Schaefer was. He was sentenced to nine years for that perjury charge.

Author Bob Hill wrote a book on the case called Double Jeopardy, which became a bestseller and provoked widespread interest in the case. Television documentaries on the case are occasionally aired on MSNBC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Ignatow

1 Reply

@JPB,

that's what i was getting at when i said the same people seem to mention having problems with the same people thread after thread

sounds like the definition of insanity, doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result

0 Replies

@djjd62,

djjd62 wrote:

god bless you, trudging on through our nonsense

as a wide women, er, wise women once said, you go girl

We all have our passions and we all get caught up in them sometimes.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Double jeopardy was to keep prosecutors from trying a person until they found a jury that would convict them (that is what the prosecutor said on the show about Mel Ignatow the other day) and I don't disagree with it.

But, there were over a hundred pictures (I believe it was) showing everything from him forcing her to undress to the horrible rape and torture to the murder. It's hard to reconcile that with such proof he got away with the murder. Yes, he spent time for perjury but I can't help but think how he laughed behind everyone's back that he got away with murder. For awhile, he even claimed to now be a born again Christian and evangelist. That was before he admitted what he did. This man was a sexual sadist of the worst sort. I suppose I must be grateful he didn't kill anyone else.

I know he will face the final justice with God. But, to me, it still feels like he got a slap on the wrist for his crimes.

0 Replies

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

Quote:
He who shows up with the purpose causing emotional injury to an innocent is a troll. He who responds in kind is not. Both the action and reaction can be attributed to the troll, and removal of same is the logical remedy.

I completely disagree with this. The action and the reaction continuing ad nauseum prevents those trying to ignore the action from participating in a discussion without wading through the reaction as well. Both are equally trollish to anyone not interested in the troll. Not interacting with the troll starves him of the attention he craves and tends to shut him up. Reacting to him only fuels and emboldens him. Trolling the troll is equally trollish.

I can certainly appreciate this point of view, as I too have attempted to ignore the trolls and that effort is certainly frustrated by those who don't.

However, both the action and reaction are attributable to the troll, for without the initial trolling there is no cause to react.

Do you think he who punches back is equally guilty as the guy who punches unprovoked? Is it reasonable to expect greater society to avoid the guy who punches at random? Or does it make more sense to assign the blame or at least the greater share of it to the instigator?

IMO, your expectation that everyone should adjust their behavior to cater to the initial offender is unreasonable and unrealistic.

2 Replies

Since there are a bunch of new people on the thread I would love to hear your views about this Mel Ignatow that was acquitted and then proof positive was found of his crime yet he was never held accountable for it.

I am not a huge fan of wikipedia but from what I know of the case they are pretty accurate about it.

How do you feel about a sexual sadist that raped, tortured, and murdered a woman getting away with it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Ignatow

1 Reply

@Arella Mae,

i'm not a big fan of double jeopardy, i don't think the courts should be able to just try someone over and over again in some vendetta, but new evidence should be grounds for being able to charge someone with the same crime again

1 Reply

Hey, Can A Woman "Ask To Get Raped"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know