25
   

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

 
 
Arella Mae
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2010 03:26 pm
@firefly,
Wait! I get it! Why didn't I think of this before!? He thinks we are one person with multiple personalities! Yeah, that's it! That way, he can accuse one of us of saying something and...............................well, you know the rest. And just in case, by some offchance, HE tries to use this statement against me later, it is meant as PURE sarcasm. He doesn't forgive very well, you know.

Whether he drinks or not I don't know. I do know that he's not a very nice person, that's he is a pervert, and an out and out liar. Actually, that's more than I ever wanted to know about him.

tsk, tsk, tsk. He has been caught with his pants down, so to speak, accusing me of saying something I did not say and lying about his statement about you can only try them for one crime at a time and he calls me not too bright?
BillRM
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2010 03:35 pm
@Arella Mae,
No I do not think that you and Firefly are one and the same as I assume that it would be too hard for her to shut down half her intellect when she is in AM mode.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2010 03:41 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Imagine how upset poor Hawkeye and BillRM will be to find out you might need your wife's consent to even read her e-mail.
I am sure that you are not the least bit embarrassed to support this kind of expansion of the criminal code, as the rape feminists long ago hooked their wagon up to that train. This use of the law is not appropriate, as reading the wife's email is not a crime against the state, and if the wife has a problem she already has a remedy....it is called divorce, which the state makes very easy to do.

I have long said that the state is drunk with power and needs to be pared back, and that the criminal justice system is misused, this abuse of the individual at the hands of the state supports my position.
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2010 03:43 pm
Okay, I have to stop. This is just too easy. He does nothing but show how (fill in the blank) he is with every post. I even put in that post that it was sarcasm (meaning I don't really believe he believes that). Talk about open mouth and inserting foot. Rolling Eyes Well, if he doesn't drink, he sure is missing a good opportunity. At least it would be a plausible excuse.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2010 03:44 pm
@firefly,
I read that article, and I have a serious problem with the husband being charged with a crime. He did nothing wrong, IMHO.
If it was a common computer, one they both shared, then I don't see how she could expect privacy.
And if he already had her password, then what did he do wrong.
My wife knows my password and I know hers.

And for this husband to be charged with a felony is ridiculous.[img][/img]
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2010 03:48 pm
@mysteryman,
Quote:

I read that article, and I have a serious problem with the husband being charged with a crime. He did nothing wrong, IMHO.
This charge is where blind allegiance to consent theory leads. It is past time for you to wake up and to take a stand for individual rights to freedom from being dictated to by the state.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2010 04:17 pm
@mysteryman,
I hope you don't mind me commenting. First, and foremost, what has to be looked at is exactly what does the law state about this? I would love to see the written law to know exactly what it says. Then, once you know what the law is, you have to decide if it was broken or not. He is being charged so odds are they feel they have enough evidence to indict him. The article said she had previously given him the password but then he had to look around for it, right? Let me ask you something, if you have evidence on your computer that you are having an affair, are you going to give your spouse your password? I'm not saying she didn't give it to him before, I am just looking at some options here.

If you have a password to an account, that, if I remember correctly, gives you a reasonable expectation of privacy. Unless this woman is really, let's just say, not real bright, do you think she'd let her husband have her password knowing what is on her computer can incriminate her?

Mind you, I'm not arguing whether this law is right or not, I am only commenting on how the legal peeps might view it.
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2010 04:28 pm
@Arella Mae,
Quote:
A Michigan father faces up to five years in prison for snooping in his then-wife's e-mail account in the first known domestic case for unauthorized e-mail login.

Leon Walker, 33, a computer technician from Rochester Hills, Michigan, easily logged into his then-wife's Gmail account last year when he suspected she was having an affair with her second husband (she was). The two shared a laptop at home and, according to Walker, his wife kept her passwords in a notebook next to the computer, AP reports.

According to the Detroit Free Press, Leon Walker was Clara Walker's third husband. When he discovered she was having an affair with her second husband, a man arrested for beating her up in front of her son with her first husband, Leon Walker sent the e-mails to the child's father, who immediately claimed emergency custody.

Clara Walker, who divorced Leon Walker earlier this month, promptly filed felony charges for the e-mail "theft." Her complaint was approved by Michigan DA Jessica Cooper and the jury will decide Leon Walker's fate when he goes to trial in February.

"The guy is a hacker," Oakland prosecutor Jessica Cooper said in public statements. "It was password protected, he had wonderful skills, and was highly trained. Then he downloaded them and used them in a very contentious way."

Walker's defense attorney, Leon Weiss, fired back, "I have to ask: 'Don't the prosecutors have more important things to do with their time?'"

The statute Walker allegedly violated, 752.795, is the same one used to prosecute identify theft or stealing of trade secrets.

It reads in part:


A person shall not intentionally and without authorization or by exceeding valid authorization do any of the following:


(a) Access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to acquire, alter, damage, delete, or destroy property or otherwise use the service of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/zd/20101228/tc_zd/258489

this prosecutor is of the same ilk as are those who twists child porn laws into sexting charges against teens. They are creative, immoral, and rouge...Unfortunately we see a lot of this kind of abuse of the citizen at the hands of the state, as the criminal justice system is broken,

Taking most of the sex and drug cases out of the courts would help a great deal, the servants of the collective could then concentrate their attention on getting the rest of the cases right,
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2010 04:41 pm
@hawkeye10,
The problem here is that he used the information on the computer to log onto her email account on the net.

If he had just placed software to record anything that go into or out of the computer assuming it was a share computer he would had been fine. He in fact would be doing the same thing all companies claim the right to do to their employees.

The results would had been the same but not the legal ability to charge him with hacking into her account that exist outside the computer would not had been there.

He is being overcharging but that is another issue

Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2010 04:46 pm
Quote:
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
The Fourth Amendment only protects you against searches that violate your reasonable expectation of privacy. A reasonable expectation of privacy exists if 1) you actually expect privacy, and 2) your expectation is one that society as a whole would think is legitimate.

This rule comes from a decision by the United States Supreme Court in 1967, Katz v. United States, holding that when a person enters a telephone booth, shuts the door, and makes a call, the government can not record what that person says on the phone without a warrant. Even though the recording device was stuck to the outside of the phone booth glass and did not physically invade Katz’s private space, the Supreme Court decided that when Katz shut the phone booth’s door, he justifiably expected that no one would hear his conversation, and that it was this expectation — rather than the inside of the phone booth itself — that was protected from government intrusion by the Fourth Amendment. This idea is generally phrased as "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places."


.........................

Residences. Everyone has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their home. This is not just a house as it says in the Fourth Amendment, but anywhere you live, be it an apartment, a hotel or motel room, or a mobile home.

However, even things in your home might be knowingly exposed to the public and lose their Fourth Amendment protection. For example, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in conversations or other sounds inside your home that a person outside could hear, or odors that a passerby could smell (although the Supreme Court has held that more invasive technological means of obtaining information about the inside of your home, like thermal imaging technology to detect heat sources, is a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant). Similarly, if you open your house to the public for a party, a political meeting, or some other public event, police officers could walk in posing as guests and look at or listen to whatever any of the other guests could, without having to get a warrant.


More of this article at: https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2010 04:57 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
It is being overcharging but that is another issue

are we now to lay a criminal charge for looking into a partners cell phone? mail addressed to them? listening to voice mail??

But hey, the state can put a tracking device on our car without a court order because we dont have the expectation that the movement of our car will not be monitored according to the courts...or check our easy-pass use, or track our movements through debt/credit card use, or check our cell phone location.

According to the state it is not the level of invasion that matters, it is who is doing it. The state can do what ever it wants in monitoring the citizens , private citizens..not so much....unless there are kids involved (nanny cams) or they are on the employer side of the employer/employee relationship.

The hypocrisy of the state in this case is astounding, even by garden variety hypocrisy of the American Government standards.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2010 06:22 pm
@Arella Mae,
AM your husband have the right to consent to law enforcement for a complete warrantless search of your home even against your wishes just as you do in reverse.

That would include any family computers.
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2010 06:28 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
AM your husband have the right to consent to law enforcement for a complete warrantless search of your home even against your wishes just as you do in reverse.

In other words I can give away my wife's privacy rights to the state but I can not violate them myself, says the state. Convenient for the state this is....
BillRM
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2010 06:43 pm
@hawkeye10,
I agree however as a computer technician he should had known better and just place a monitoring program on the laptop.

Hell some of them are free and the most costly is 50 dollars or so.

Completely legal on share computers and commonly used in divorce situations.

An if he did taken a short cut by logging on to her email account I can not see how they could prove it but for the fool admitting that he had done so.

Hmm maybe a few thousand dollars forensics examination of the hard drive might had proven it assuming he did nothing at all to cover his tracks.

Given the backlog of work for such people for more pressing matters I do not think such an examination is likely.
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2010 07:01 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
I agree however as a computer technician he should had known better and just place a monitoring program on the laptop
regardless, do you really want these relationship disputes clogging up the criminal court dockets? Look where we ended up when we encouraged these same people to throw child abuse allegations into the criminal system as ammunition in their divorce proceedings? we got a lot of false charges, and lots of money and time wasted.

We are not a rich country anymore, we dont have the funds for this kind of expensive game playing. We desperately need to rid our criminal courts of all of the crap cases, get this stuff into a process that is able to handle these disputes cheaper, faster, with more privacy and with less disruption to the lives of all involved. I realize that Firefly will never go for it because her goal is not justice or resolution it is clobbering men and this improvement would not facilitate her barbaric desires, but the rest of use should call for it.
BillRM
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2010 07:21 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
regardless, do you really want these relationship disputes clogging up the criminal court dockets? Look


Hawkeye I agree with you 100 percents I just been addressing the legal/technology aspects of the matter and when you know that if he had taken a slightly difference path to get the same results/informations he could not had been charge with any crime to me point out how silly this matter is.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2010 08:38 pm
An intoxicated young woman, a top mayoral aide, and a possible rape charge. Was what happened on the couch in the mayor's office consensual sex or rape? The mayor apparently didn't wait to find out--he fired the man immediately.
Quote:

Seaton Investigation: Consensual Sex Or Rape?
December 29, 2010

A few more days of interviews need to be done before Shreveport police wrap up their investigation into accusations that Rick Seaton, a top aide to Mayor Cedric Glover, raped a high school student during a nighttime visit to the mayor's office.

It is expected to be a question of whether it was consensual sex.

The investigation of Seaton has sent shockwaves through city hall and the mayor -- in whose office the alleged attack occurred -- fired him hours after the complaint was made Monday night.

Seaton, who has split with his wife, hasn't spoken with police. He has hired well-known defense attorney Marty Stroud of Shreveport to represent him.

"There are more questions right now than answers, but I believe once the investigation is concluded, it will show that there was no criminal conduct," Stroud said Wednesday.

The investigation began Monday night after police got a call that an 18-year-old from Georgia said she had been raped at Government Plaza.

Authorities said she was in town for the Independence Bowl. She had been drinking a lot and her boyfriend had gotten arrested for causing a disturbance.

Seaton was also at the game. Authorities said the young woman told police Seaton noticed she was trying to get money to bond her boyfriend out of jail. She didn't want to get on one of the shuttle buses and Seaton ended up giving her a ride downtown.

The high school senior told authorities she was raped on the mayor's couch.

Police have obtained security videos from Government Plaza that show activity inside the building that night. Authorities said the accuser told detectives she thought she had been raped by a police officer and they were looking for an officer in the videos when they spotted Seaton.

A decision on whether to file felony rape charges against Seaton will be made after police meet with the Caddo district attorney's office. That likely won't happen this week.
http://www.ktbs.com/news/26314182/detail.html


More on this same story
http://www.ktbs.com/news/26297965/detail.html
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2010 08:41 pm
@firefly,
Sheesh! Lots of bad things going on in Shreveport here of late. I guess we will have to wait for more facts on this case but why would an adult take a high school student to the mayor's office at night no less?
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2010 09:43 pm
@Arella Mae,
Have you noticed that they can't respect or address the notion of "consent" even when the issue has nothing to do with sexual assault?
They get all in a twitter about whether the man should be charged with a felony, the intrusion of the government into people's lives, etc. but ignore the very basic issue that the man did not have his wife's consent to read her e-mails or to use the information contained in them.

Consent is the defining factor in many different types of crimes, and not just sexual assaults. It is what helps to protect one individual from being violated by another, whether that violation involves the theft of property, or invasion of privacy, or intrusion of one's body. What makes these things crimes is that consent was not given by the victim--the actions of the other person were not done by mutual agreement, they were unwanted. The ability of a person to give or withhold consent is a powerful protector of basic civil rights, rights which are of necessity backed up by laws.

I guess that those who want to trivialize the importance of consent in sexual activity are inclined to disregard consent in other situations as well. They simply don't respect the rights of others--including the legal rights of others.

Someone should also tell Hawkeye it is already illegal for him to open his wife's regular mail without her consent. I guess that's just another one of those pesky laws he disregards while he's busy worrying about the government violating his rights. Laughing




Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2010 09:45 pm
@firefly,
They have that "well, she shouldn't have gotten drunk" mentality.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 08/01/2025 at 02:38:25