25
   

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

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 May, 2014 11:37 pm
@firefly,
there are 20,000 sexual assault convictions a year. How many are you intending to stick up in this thread as a diversion from talking about policy?
firefly
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 May, 2014 11:51 pm
@hawkeye10,
As many as necessary to focus on the reality of rape.

Rape is a crime--a quite real crime, with real victims. It's important not to forget that.







hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2014 12:00 am
@firefly,
Quote:
Rape is a crime--a quite real crime, with real victims. It's important not to forget that.
So was Snowden telling us what the NSA is up to. I reserve the right to make up my own mind if wrong as been done even after the state has made its pronouncement.
firefly
 
  0  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2014 12:30 am
@hawkeye10,
Bully for you.

I'm less interested in what your personal opinions are than I am in what actually goes on in our courtrooms regarding crimes of sexual assault.

I'm more interested in how laws define the crime of rape than I am in your personal definitions.

I'm more interested in empowering victims to report sexual assaults, and having them taken seriously, than listening, yet again, to your hot air pontificating about how "anti-male" all the sexual assault laws are.

I'm more interested in disseminating factual information, and promoting education, than listening to your various nebulous whines about feminists, the government, etc.

I'm more interested in seeing fewer people raped.







izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2014 01:33 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
In any case we will never know if he is an innocent man or a guilty one given the time since he was supposed to had acted.


We know full well he was guilty. That is not in doubt. You just don't see rape and paedophilia as a crime. As far as you're concerned those people are living the life.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2014 01:44 am
@firefly,
firefly wrote:

Bully for you.

I'm less interested in what your personal opinions are than I am in what actually goes on in our courtrooms regarding crimes of sexual assault.

I'm more interested in how laws define the crime of rape than I am in your personal definitions.

I'm more interested in empowering victims to report sexual assaults, and having them taken seriously, than listening, yet again, to your hot air pontificating about how "anti-male" all the sexual assault laws are.

I'm more interested in disseminating factual information, and promoting education, than listening to your various nebulous whines about feminists, the government, etc.

I'm more interested in seeing fewer people raped.










All of your " the state got another rapist!" bullets dont get you there, as the state never tells us what happened. This should concern you. Too often in history the state has used this tactic to get people that it wanted to get, for instance when the Soviets told their people " we got another lunatic off the streets" or when Saddam proclaimed " I got another traitor off the streets!". If what these alleged rapists did was so horrible that we need to reform the justice system so that we can hit them harder then tell us what they did, it must be so bad that we would agree with the state. Unless the state is lying.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2014 07:52 am
@hawkeye10,
Hawkeye the police in the UK dug up 14 repeat 14 women from the far past using the same methods they used in the Clifford case on a gentleman and then dropped the charges as there was not enough evidences!!!!!!!!!!

Can you just imagine the level of women they must had come up with that all 14 of their testimonies was not enough!!!!!!!!!!

The method of going fishing for women willing to charge some guy with sexual crimes seem to find women just not at all credible witnesses.

Hopefully the UK government in the future will stop using this method that by it very nature is all too likely to result in false claims/charges.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2014 08:36 am
@BillRM,
You don't understand the outrage caused by the Jimmy Savile scandal. This was a serious paedophile who had a top spot in the BBC, abusing literally hundreds of children throughout his career. He may even have had sex with the corpse of his dead mother. He was extremely powerful, hobnobbing with the Royal family amongst others. It wasn't until after his death that the truth came out, which prompted other victims of other abusers to come forward. Operation Yewtree is not just a fishing expedition, victims come forward telling of past abuse. Only when a public figure is known to be arrested do other victims come forward.

It has the support of the British public, and the British police are not going to pay any attention to the views of a semi literate nonce from Florida who used kittens in an attempt to groom children.

Stuart Hall is currently on trial, he is currently serving a sentence for sex with under age children that he pleaded guilty to, but that was just the tip of the iceberg.

Quote:
Ex-BBC presenter Stuart Hall has admitted indecently assaulting a girl under 16 but denies 20 further charges.

Mr Hall, 84, is to go on trial accused of 15 rapes and five indecent assault offences against two young girls, allegedly between 1976 and 1981 in Greater Manchester and Cheshire.

The charge he admits was put to him ahead of the trial at Preston Crown Court.

The court heard the attack happened between January 1978 and January 1979.

Mr Hall, of Wilmslow, Cheshire, is charged with seven counts of rape against one alleged victim between 1976 and 1978, in Manchester.

Five of the rapes are said to have taken place when she was aged under 16.

He is also accused of two counts of indecent assault against the woman in the same period.

In addition, he is charged with eight counts of rape and three of indecent assault against a second alleged victim between 1976 and 1981, at various locations in Greater Manchester and Cheshire.

One of those alleged rapes is said to have taken place when the complainant was aged under 13.

At a trial last year, Stuart Hall was jailed for 15 months - later extended to 30 months by the Court of Appeal - for sexually abusing young girls aged between nine and 17.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27291032

Hopefully the American police will take a leaf out of Scotland Yard's book and start going after nonces who thought they'd got away with it.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2014 09:04 am
@izzythepush,
LOL so the British police are trying to make up for not pursuing a case they have every reason that they should have, by going crazy in the other direction and looking to made cases against men that there is no real causes to do so?

They do not need to worry about my opinions but I do not think such behaviors is going to go over well with most of the UK population.

Somehow I questions if our courts would allow our police to follow the UK police examples and it would seems that your police are already backing away from such craziness.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2014 09:04 am
@izzythepush,
LOL so the British police are trying to make up for not pursuing a case they have every reason that they should have, by going crazy in the other direction and looking to made cases against men that there is no real causes to do so?

They do not need to worry about my opinions but I do not think such behaviors is going to go over well with most of the UK population.
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2014 09:10 am
Izzy:The statute of limitations laws sometimes make it hard to prosecute sex crimes in the US

Tennessee
Tenn. Code § 39-13-527 Sexual battery by an authority figure of a victim 13 or older but less than 18: Class C felony.
For a class C or class D felony, within four years after commission of the offense

Florida:(2) (a) For a felony of the first degree, within four years after commission of the offense
(2) (b) For any other felony, within three years after commission of the offense
(5) Period of limitation does not run during any time when the defendant is continuously absent from the state or has no reasonably ascertainable place of abode or work within the state (up to 3 years)

The laws are a jumble of contradictions as you can see from this site:
http://www.rainn.org/public-policy/laws-in-your-state
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  0  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2014 10:40 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
All of your " the state got another rapist!" bullets dont get you there, as the state never tells us what happened. This should concern you.

Of course the state tells you "what happened". This is more unsubstantiated meaningless hot air on your part, revealing mainly your abysmal ignorance of the criminal justice process.

In cases of sexual assault/rape, each charge is accompanied by a description of the defendant's behavior to justify that charge. At trial, witnesses and other evidence are presented to corroborate the charges. All of this takes place in public courtrooms, all documents and transcripts related to the proceedings are also publicly available. The public is most definitely informed about "what happened" that led to the arrest and prosecution.

You do nothing but set up straw-men to attack--to give you an excuse to grind your usual ax against the government. But your straw-men glaringly reveal your ignorance of actual due process and criminal procedures and proceedings. Consequently, you only succeed in making yourself look foolish.

Even the news stories regarding sexual assaults/rapes, the ones you think are irrelevant and don't bother reading, describe "what happened". Look at the last item I posted, regarding the arrest for a rape in a Maryland high school, it describes the alleged criminal conduct that led to the arrest--you know what he is accused of doing to the female student. The state is not failing to tell you "what happened" that led to the arrest.

If you're clueless, it's your own fault. The information is all available to you, you're just choosing to ignore or disregard it. Don't blame "the state" for that.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2014 10:53 am
@firefly,
Quote:
In cases of sexual assault/rape, each charge is accompanied by a description of the defendant's behavior to justify that charge
which is not readily available to the public...I believe that a freedom of information act request must be submitted to get it

Quote:
At trial, witnesses and other evidence are presented to corroborate the charges.
Trials are relatively rare, with less than 1 in ten cases having one, and again the transcripts are not readily available

Quote:
All of this takes place in public courtrooms
I see, well I suppose I could be like that dedicated citizen who broke the news that mortgage companies were foreclosing on homes without proper documentation, in fact often with fake documents (with judge approval, natch) .......go to courtrooms for months compiling information and requesting to look at documents. But I dont have the time, and I should not need to do this to find out what our government is doing to citizens.
firefly
 
  0  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2014 11:01 am
@hawkeye10,
Stop the crap. Arraignments are held in public courtrooms.

If you don't want to take the time and effort to inform yourself, don't complain that you don't know what the government is doing, and don't falsely accuse them of hiding information about "what happened" when they arrest someone for sexual assault/rape. If you're clueless, it's because you're willfully ignorant.

Here's another very current news article that also tells you "what happened" that's going to lead to charges, and the information was disseminated by the police. And, if you choose to go to the public courtroom, for the arraignment, you'll likely learn more. The alleged criminal behavior is made clear.

Quote:
Thursday, May 8, 2014
Nichols College student accused of rape in dorm room
By Brian Lee TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF

DUDLEY — An 18-year old Nichols College student is being summoned to court on allegations he raped a classmate Friday during a night of partying in a dormitory.

Joshua A. Goldman of 111 Country Club Place, Southbridge, is to be arraigned May 14 on two counts of rape and assault and battery.

Asked about Mr. Goldman's status at Nichols, a school spokesman said the law prohibited him from making any comment about any student at the school.

About 1:45 a.m. Sunday, a woman told police she had been sexually assaulted, the police report said.

The woman told police she and a group of friends were hanging out in her dorm room Thursday night. Mr. Goldman eventually joined the group, the report said.

The woman said she had consumed several alcoholic drinks and at one point joined Mr. Goldman outside to smoke marijuana, the police report said.

The two returned to the dorm room and continued to party until a resident assistant ordered everyone who was not a resident to leave the room, she told police.

The next thing the woman remembered, she told police, was waking up in Mr. Goldman's room. She said "she became aware" of Mr. Goldman's attempts to pull her shorts off, police said.

The woman said she tried to resist and pulled her shorts back up and repeatedly told him, "We can't." But he was able to make sexual contact with her, the report said.

The woman told police she "continued telling him no to the point where Mr. Goldman spit on her while attempting to try to have sex with her," the report said.

She said he collapsed on top of her before going into the bathroom, and she seized the opportunity to return to her room, the report said.

The woman said she went to the nurse in the morning, and she was directed to go to a local hospital, where an exam was conducted, and the evidence kit was provided to investigators.

She was also granted an emergency restraining order, police said.

On Monday, Officer Philip Megas and Nichols College Public Safety Director Jack Caulfield met with Mr. Goldman, who said he didn't remember being alone in his room with the woman, but noticed blood on his sheets Friday morning, the report said.

He told investigators he washed the sheets; he had the mattress cover in his vehicle, the report said. He voluntarily gave the mattress cover to police, who placed it in the evidence room, the report said.
http://www.telegram.com/article/20140508/NEWS/305089813/1116


panzade
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2014 11:09 am
@firefly,
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KhGUf-5B3IA/UoJSfdQlDYI/AAAAAAAABOU/CQnpRtYQlT4/s1600/christmas+pup+small.JPG
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2014 11:41 am
@firefly,
We dont know what happened...the guy is on two counts of rape but the victim says the he attempted to rape her but she fought him off. What is this " sexual contact" that is worth two counts of rape? Did he maybe touch her tit twice by accident as he was attempting to rape her? why dont we know the factual basis for the charge?
firefly
 
  0  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2014 12:16 pm
@hawkeye10,
Hawkeye, if you're too dumb to understand that the male is being charged with rape because he allegedly engaged in forcible non-consensual sex, the circumstances of which the complainant described, you shouldn't even bother to contribute to this thread. According to the police report, she said she tried to fight him off, but she wasn't able to.

And, as I said, if you wanted to know more, you could go sit in the public courtroom during his arraignment, when the charges will be presented, along with the descriptions of his behavior to justify each of the charges. The type of sexual contact that justifies a rape charge is defined in the law, so a description of what took place must be presented as part of the justification for the charge.

The state isn't hiding "what happened"--you're willfully ignorant, and that's why your straw-men lack substance, and any interest.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  0  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2014 01:47 pm
I am concerned when judges act in ways that undermine laws and the justice process--as was the case with that Texas judge who appeared to question the victim's credibility, and to blame a 14 year old girl for her own rape, despite the fact that the defendant had already admitted to committing rape and had pled guilty to the charge. And the judge appears to have violated both state rape shield laws, as well as federal laws ensuring confidentiality of medical records, by her comments about the girl's past.

Today, the new judge assigned to the case imposed more appropriate, and standard, conditions on this convicted rapist's probation.
Quote:
Judge imposes new terms in teen rape case
May 8, 2014

DALLAS - A Dallas County judge on Thursday changed the terms of probation for a man found guilty of rape. It's a case that's generated national attention and brought a judge's words and rulings into the spotlight.

It took very little time for Judge Carter Thompson to impose what the district attorney and the victim's family wanted – strict probation requirements for 20-year-old Sir Young.

And, the judge warned him if he did anything at all to violate probation he would find out, "Your previous court gave you a second chance. Do not expect a third chance."

Judge Thomson imposed all the requirements of a sex offender on probation.

Young was 18 years old in 2011 when he raped a 14-year-old classmate at Booker T Washington High School for the Performing Arts.

He admitted as much in his trial before Judge Janine Howard, who originally sentenced him to 45 days in jail, 250 hours of community service at a rape crisis center and a loose probation.

Judge Howard commented that the victim was not really a victim.

Public outrage followed and the DA sought another judge to impose new conditions of probation.

"This is a victim and the fact that the judge went on the news and said the victim was the problem as opposed to the defendant who actually committed this crime is just another example of how our criminal justice system is failing us. And so this judge made a determination that he's gonna help us, the district attorney's office, fix our criminal justice system," said Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins.

Defense attorney Scottie Allen suggested the DA was "judge shopping" to get a favorable ruling.

"Not only disappointed, this is unprecedented to have a trial judge circumvent and make conclusions from another trial judge's decisions and judgments without having had the benefit of listening to those witnesses and reviewing that evidence," Allen said.

Young will still have to serve 45 days in jail and will undergo a sex offender evaluation to determine what other counseling he may need.

He will not be allowed to have contact with the victim or be around children or any place where children might be. He must also submit to polygraphs and reasonable unannounced searches, pay for a DNA sample to be taken and register as a sex offender.

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/25465264/judge-imposes-new-terms-in-teen-rape-case#ixzz319Z2Nqfc


The mother of the rape victim in this case plans to file a complaint against Judge Howard for the remarks made regarding her daughter. That seems a reasonable action for her to take.
Quote:
Mother plans complaint against judge in teen daughter's rape case
By Jennifer Emily
May 8, 2014

The mother of a teenage rape victim told The Dallas Morning News on Wednesday that she will file a judicial complaint against the judge who gave her daughter’s attacker probation and then publicly bashed the girl.

The woman, who is not being named to protect her daughter’s identity, said the judge overstepped her authority when she told The News in an interview last week that the girl “wasn’t the victim she claimed to be.” The mother said the judge needed training and to officially be told that what she said was wrong.

She said she will soon file the complaint against state District Judge Jeanine Howard with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, which investigates allegations of wrongdoing against judges. In a case that has drawn national media scrutiny, Howard has come under continued criticism after she gave 20-year-old Sir Young — who admitted raping the girl — five years’ deferred probation and stripped away the most common restrictions for sex offenders.

“I don’t want to file a complaint that just sits in her file,” the mother said Wednesday. “I want them to say something to her"...

Legal ethics expert James Alfini, former dean and current adjunct professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston, said Howard’s remarks should trigger an investigation by the commission.

“The judge’s comments about the victim’s sexual history were inappropriate and uncaring,” Alfini said. “If she wanted to explain her ruling in the case, she could have done so without subjecting the victim to greater anguish, as well as public scorn and ridicule. Simply saying that the defendant was ‘not your typical sex offender’ should have been enough.”

Alfini said the commission may also investigate whether Howard’s remarks about the girl’s sexual history — whether true or untrue — were “nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity.” The state judicial code of conduct forbids judges from releasing such information, which could include medical information.

Howard, a Democrat, will be unopposed in November when she seeks a third term.

Although District Attorney Craig Watkins, who is also a Democrat, has said he is “outraged” by the judge’s comments, his spokeswoman said the DA’s office will not be filing a complaint against Howard.

“We feel the victim’s family can file a judicial complaint if they want,” said the spokeswoman, Debbie Denmon. “We don’t want to put the victim through anything else.”

The head of the Dallas Area Rape Crisis Center, Bobbie Villareal, a former Dallas County prosecutor, offered Wednesday to help the mother file the complaint and write a letter supporting the commission taking action.

“We’re definitely supporting her and will help her,” said Villareal.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/headlines/20140507-mother-plans-complaint-against-dallas-rape-case-judge.ece


Unfortunately, Judge Howard is up for re-election this year and appears to be running unopposed, but I believe it is too late for anyone else to get on the ballot to oppose her. Otherwise, the public might be able to weigh in and decide whether she should be able to retain her job given her actions and comments in this particular case.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2014 02:07 pm
@BillRM,
You're forgetting, both Hall and Clifford were found guilty. The police had every right, and duty, to go after people like that.

izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2014 02:09 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

They do not need to worry about my opinions but I do not think such behaviors is going to go over well with most of the UK population.


Which just shows you haven't got a clue. The British public will always approve of prosecuting celebrity paedos. The redtops thrive on stuff like that.

You're a misogynistic racist from arguably the most reactionary state in America, you haven't got a clue how normal people think.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 07/08/2025 at 12:46:41