25
   

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

 
 
Ionus
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 07:05 pm
@Arella Mae,
Quote:
I have no problem with people having differing opinions.
Didnt you also say :
Quote:
I will vote down and ignore.

Quote:
This is about having a discussion
Apparently not.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 07:08 pm
@Intrepid,
Quote:
You, apparently, are Hawkeye's sock puppet.
And you apparently, think you will be bigger man if you fulfill the role of male protector. Yes dear...no dear... whatever you say dear....you know the problem of sucks like you ? When it comes to protecting anyone they fail miserably. Women can sense that and they tolerate you temporarily. When the **** hits the fan they run from you and shelter with a man.
Ionus
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 07:11 pm
@Arella Mae,
Continually posting horrific crime is sick. It puts you in the same league as JTT and Pamela Rose.
hawkeye10
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 07:23 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
Continually posting horrific crime is sick. It puts you in the same league as JTT and Pamela Rose.
In league with the ones who collect crime scene photos of murder victims, which BTW has long been considered a form a mental illness.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 07:34 pm
Convictions can be obtained in acquaintance rape he said/she said situations--even against well known professional athletes. Meggett will be spending a lot of time behind bars.
Quote:
Former NFL-star David Meggett sentenced to 30 years in prison for rape and burglary
November 10th, 2010

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA (BNO NEWS) — Former National Football League (NFL) player David Meggett on Wednesday was sentenced to 30 years in prison after being found guilty in a rape and burglary case.

Meggettt, 42, was found guilty of 1st degree criminal sexual conduct and 1st degree burglary and was sentenced to 30 years of imprisonment on both charges to be served concurrently. He will not be eligible for parole for at least 25 years.

The former NFL all star was accused of raping a 21-year-old college student at her Charleston, South Carolina residence in January 2009. Prosecutors said Meggett entered the residence without permission and argued with the victim before choking her and forcing her to have sex with him.

Meggett’s attorneys alleged that the two were friends and had consensual sex as she allegedly agreed to have sex in order to repay a debt she had with the ex-football player. Attorneys for the defense, however, argued that Meggett asked for condoms and, after the sexual encounter, asked for forgiveness, something that rapists they said ‘do not do.’

The victim testified on Monday for over one hour and disclosed more alleged details of the assault, including the use of physical violence on her by Meggett. However, he was not charged with assault and battery.

Meggett declined to testify and passed up his last chance to speak during the three-week trial before the sentence was read. His sister asked the judge to have leniency for her brother.

The former NFL’s career punt returner also faces charges relating to an incident with a teenager who alleges that Meggett forced her have sex at a home after inviting her to have breakfast.

However, prosecutors are not sure if they can pursue the case, which allegedly occurred in September 2008, as it is weaker than the rape and burglary case.

Meggett is a former professional NFL running back who played from 1989 to 1998 for the New York Giants, New England Patriots, and the New York Jets.
http://wireupdate.com/wires/12222/former-nfl-star-david-meggett-sentenced-to-30-years-in-prison-for-rape-and-burglary/


Besides the possible additional charges facing him in the case with the teenager, Meggett has quite a track record in terms of sexual assaults. It's about time he headed for prison.
Quote:
In 1998, Meggett was arrested in Toronto after authorities said he allegedly assaulted an escort worker after a three-way sexual encounter. A trial on the assault charge ended with a hung jury in April 2000.

Meggett later worked as parks and recreation director in Robersonville, N.C., but resigned four years ago after he was accused of sexually assaulting his former girlfriend.

He was convicted of misdemeanour sexual battery in 2007, receiving received two years probation in the North Carolina case. Authorities said he was allowed to move back to South Carolina to serve his probation.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jSbyr9YyZl9v1p7Y6eVGHDlhHy1g?docId=5096790


Arella Mae
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 07:38 pm
@firefly,
Another one off the street! Thank God for that.
hawkeye10
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 07:44 pm
@Arella Mae,
Quote:

Another one off the street! Thank God for that.
You sound like General Westmorland counting VC dead totals claiming that each one made us one step closer to victory. It did not exactly work out that way did it? He forgot that there are always more where the dead come from so long as the supply is not dealt with. We will not have success with rape until we deal with why men are driven to rape.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 07:44 pm
@firefly,
What if a rape victim were to read this ? How is rehashing everything healthy ? There was a Vietnam War Vet who was the only survivor of an ambush. He killed the entire ambush almost single handedly. The stress damaged him. Every day of his life the fools had him relive it in therapy. This prolonged and insulted the injury till he was a complete wreck. What he needed was to forget, not "deal with it". Rape affects some like combat. Some things can not be "gotten over"...you have to move on with the damage and hope a healthy life will cure it.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 07:53 pm
Another method of apprehending potential rapists. And stopping them before they can commit the act...
Quote:
Mitel Patel Case: State Supreme Court Says 'Fictitious Rapes' Can be Prosecuted, too
By Rick Anderson
Nov. 10 2010

​Can a person be convicted of attempting to rape a child who doesn't exist? Yes, the state Supreme Court ruled today. If the suspect intended to have sex with an underage person and convincingly demonstrated that intent, he can be prosecuted even if the child was a fictitious person - such as an adult cop posing as a kid. That's what happened in the case of Mitel Patel, 26, who got caught up in an Internet sting.

As part of the operation, according to court records, a Spokane police detective, Jerry Keller, using the screen name kimberleyanne420, posed as a fictitious 13-year-old girl.

The detective chatted with Patel over the AOL instant messaging service.

In his initial message, Mr. Patel wrote "HELLO . . . U LIKE OLDER GUYS?" Kimberley then asked "how old r u." Mr. Patel indicated that he was 26 years old. In response, Kimberley stated "wow im 13 but look and act older." Mr. Patel replied "RIGHT ON" and asked for her picture. Thereafter, Mr. Patel shifted the focus of the conversation to sexual topics, including various forms of sexual intercourse. Immediately after Kimberley described herself, Mr. Patel asked "U EVER HAD SEX?" When she responded affirmatively, Mr. Patel wrote "I WANNA GET ME SOME"...When she expressed concern about becoming pregnant, Mr. Patel volunteered to bring five flavored condoms with him.

Following several sexually explicit conversations, Patel agreed to meet the girl/cop at her apartment for sex. When Patel knocked on the door, he was swiftly arrested by police. There was no girl to attempt to rape, but that's what Patel was convicted of - attempted 2nd-degree rape - in 2004.

He appealed, arguing that in order to convict a defendant for attempted rape of a child, the state "must always prove there was an actual underage victim."

That's not necessary, the high court decided today in an opinion written by Justice Tom Chambers. Patel's intentions were clear and, most importantly, he "took a substantial step toward" committing rape, or attempting it, by going to the fictitious girl's apartment, Chambers said. That appears to be the legislature's intent in passing the laws in question, and the court's position, he noted, "further[s] the legislature's intent with regard to the child rape and criminal attempt statutes."

Two justices, Barbara Madsen and Richard Sanders, concurred but wrote separate opinions questioning some aspects of the ruling, which reinterpreted several statutes. Wrote Sanders: "As the saying goes, 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.' The statutes here are not broken, and the lead opinion has neither the authority nor the justification to 'fix' them."
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/11/state_supreme_court_child_rape.php
hawkeye10
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 08:04 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Another method of apprehending potential rapists. And stopping them before they can commit the act...
Once you criminalize desire you put to rest any argument that you support the democratic form of justice. You are talking us back to the law as it was practiced by kings. It will never stop until we stop it, our mistake was allowing the criminalization of the viewing of Child Porn, from that point onwards it was desire that was criminal, no longer was it the violating of other peoples rights.

I await with baited breath the coming of the day when I get thrown in the cling for failing a mind probe test.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 08:10 pm
Rape is an ugly crime--particularly when the victim is 10, and she is impregnated as a result of the rape. Finally her rapist will be where he belongs.
Quote:
Man gets 17 years for rape of 10-year-old
By Matt Gryta
November 10, 2010

Charles Frohnheiser today was ordered to spend the next 17 years in prison for fathering the child of the 10-year-old girl he raped in the spring of 2005.

The now 16-year-old victim sobbingly spoke at the sentencing today of how Frohnheiser's attack on her had "destroyed" her life and forced her to put the child up for adoption after birth.

State Supreme Court Justice John L. Michalski denounced the 37-year-old Frohnheiser for his "reprehensible" crime and imposed the prison term. He also imposed 20 years of court supervision after Frohnheiser is released from prison.

Frohnheiser was arrested Aug. 13 after his victim told Buffalo police he was trying to contact her. He pleaded guilty to first-degree rape in a preindictment proceeding after court-ordered DNA tests confirmed he was the father of the victim's child, Prosecutor Lynette M. Reda said.

Frohnheiser, who faced parole violation proceedings in a 2009 Buffalo burglary case and has a criminal record dating 25 years, declined comment during the sentencing. His victim came to court today with her mother and brother.
http://www.buffalonews.com/city/police-courts/courts/article248134.ece
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 09:52 pm
@Ionus,
Exactly what Hawkeye would say
Ionus
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 09:55 pm
@Intrepid,
Quote:
Exactly what Hawkeye would say
What does that mean ? Are you saying he must be wrong because he disagrees with you, and I must be wrong because you see a similarity in our arguments ? Is it remotely possible there might be an aspect that your emotions wont let you even consider ?
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 09:59 pm
@hawkeye10,
Personally I would like to ban all pornography. There is some evidence that it promotes "creep", where someone starts off watching rather mild sex and ends up pursuing a full blown criminal act, like rape or child molestation. Anyway, you are not allowed to plan a murder, but you are allowed to watch one so there is no precedence in law to ban child pornography.
hawkeye10
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 10:18 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
Personally I would like to ban all pornography.
we part ways on this subject. I would criminalize only snuff, scat, and clearly sexualized photos of children...pretty much children involved in a sex act where nudes were fine.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 10:29 pm
Hawk - I agree with some of what you say - but viewing child porn enriches those who either kidnap children for this purpose or parents, who profit by putting their kids in this industry. No child has the ability to make a reasoned decision to pose for porn. I think a decent society must protect children from those who would do this to them.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 10:46 pm
@Lash,
Child pornography exploits the child, and also invades the privacy of the child. That has constituted the basis for law suits brought by those depicted in such images. This issue was discussed earlier in this thread. The pornography is damaging to the actual children displayed in this way. And, if the child is corerced into a sex act to produce the images, that is abusive.

One way to try to limit the production of child porn is to criminalize the possession of it.

This man was just arrested for possession of child pornography.
Quote:

Bestiality and Child "Rape" Videos Found on Buckeye Man's Computer
By James King
Nov. 10 2010

​Time for a game of which is more disturbing -- starring 26-year-old Michael Barham, of Buckeye.

Barham was arrested yesterday after Phoenix police got word that he may have some kiddy-porn on his computer. After searching his home and computer, kiddy-porn was the least disturbing stuff cops dug up -- as hard to fathom as that may be.

The most disturbing of the many items found in Barham's posession is probably a toss up between the "child rape" videos and the bestiality flicks, but we'll get to those later.

According to court documents obtained by New Times, in August, the Phoenix Police Department Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force was forwarded two emails, each with 13 images attached.

The images were of kids -- all under the age of 12 -- having sex and the IP address used to send the emails was registered to Barham's mother, with whom he lives.

Cops paid a visit to the home and found the mother to be an unlikely suspect for the kiddy-porn. Barham's father, who also lives in the home, was also ruled out.

Police asked the two if there was anyone else who may have used the IP address to send emails and they told officers their son was the only other person who used it.

They also asked the couple what their son's email address is, and, sure enough, it was the same address used to send the email that initially tipped off authorities.

Barham, unfortunately, wasn't home at the time -- he was in Georgia visiting his 3-month-old baby.

On October 26, detectives got a warrant to search all of the computer equipment that was seized from the home, including a laptop taken from Barham's bedroom.

Jackpot!

On the laptop, police found not only images of child pornography, but videos "titled as being rape videos of of underage girls." As if child rape and kiddy-porn isn't disturbing enough, police also found several videos on the computer of people having sex with animals.

After his arrest, Barham denied possessing any kiddy-porn but admitted to posting the bestiality videos on the Internet and to sending the kiddy-porn-filled emails that led police to his door.

Barham was taken to the Fourth Avenue Jail and has been charged with four counts of sexual exploitation of a minor.
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2010/11/bestiality_and_child_rape_vide.php


Note that the charge against this man is "sexual exploitation of a minor".
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 10:48 pm
@firefly,
You're preaching to the choir, firefly.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 10:52 pm
@Lash,
I was simply elaborating on what you said. And, indirectly, replying to Ionus comment that there is no precedent in law to ban child pornography. There is precedent in the law.
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2010 12:51 am
@firefly,
I think we are better off if we ban all pornography. Porno-creep is real and it has affected some men to the point where they cant have sex with real women. It is also how most watches of child pornography get started. They watch adult porn and then move on.

I am aware of what the law is, but the basis of it should have been disputed before it was passed. Because it was about child pornography and everyone is horrified by that, it got through.

Think about the basis of it for a minute. If you are in possession of any evidence of a crime you are guilty, not for committing the crime, but for witnessing it. There must have been a better way then to attack the problem after it has occured. It is like leaving banks undefended so you get to chase robbers.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 02/11/2025 at 12:20:36