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

Are you quite sure that the police can just pick men at random and ask them to "donate DNA samples"? If the police rang your doorbell and, out of the blue, asked for DNA would you give it to them? Wouldn't they have to already be investigating you for a crime and have some evidence that lead them to you as a suspect?

If they already had his DNA in the data base, why would they need another sample from him? Wouldn't the police be trying to match the DNA sample on the woman's sheet, or clothing, or in the woman's body, with a particular man's DNA. If this man's DNA was already in the database, they wouldn't need to ask him to give another sample. Either the DNA they already had as rape evidence would match what was in the database or it wouldn't. Your version of events doesn't make any sense.

So, how did his DNA get on her sheet?

Your point seems to be that the police are idiots.

The law defines the crime of rape. Rape does not require "force or the threat of force or drugging behind the woman back to have sex with her". The essential element in rape is that the sex was without consent, and the woman can indicate that with a "No".

Anyone with nothing to hide would have no problem giving a sample and ensuring that their good name is kept in tact.

That is agreed. And, therefore, women who feel the sex was freely consenting won't feel they were raped, correct?

if the offender threatens the victim with force or violence, if prior to the sexual battery or rape the offender administers a narcotic or other substance that incapacitates the victim, or if the victim is considered to be “mentally incapacitated,”

The 2009 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 794
SEXUAL BATTERY

794.011 Sexual battery.--

(1) As used in this chapter:

(a) "Consent" means intelligent, knowing, and voluntary consent and does not include coerced submission. "Consent" shall not be deemed or construed to mean the failure by the alleged victim to offer physical resistance to the offender.

She must be alert, and fully able to understand what she is doing, and able to make "intelligent" decisions. Her consciousness cannot be clouded, or impaired, by alcohol or drugs, even if she voluntarily ingested those substances.

This can also apply to an intoxicated victim:

Quote:

"Physically helpless" means unconscious, asleep, or for any other reason physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act

Any person who falsely accuses any person listed in paragraph (4)(g) or other person in a position of control or authority as an agent or employee of government of violating paragraph (4)(g) is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0794/SEC011.HTM

So why do you keep saying false accusations go unpunished?

that ended up with him going though a court marshal as she claimed she was too drunk to grant consent at the time.

Sorry Inrepid are leaving out the full law that clearly state that the mentally incapacitated can not be the result of her own actions.

I posted the the whole section already on this thread and I am not going to do so once more because Intrepid is an idiot that I had block already.

No, he was not found guilt but it sure did not aid his military career any and her whim/regret put him though a full blown court marshal for no good reason

Sorry Inrepid are leaving out the full law that clearly state that the mentally incapacitated can not be the result of her own actions.

But, if she says, "No", and he ignores that, and thrusts his penis into her anyway, that is rape, correct? If he was drinking too, what can he claim--that he was too drunk to realize she was saying,"No"? He's responsible for making sure she did give consent, and not ignoring signs, any signs, that she is unwilling. His being drunk does not get him off the hook. He is responsible for his behavior, whether he is drunk or sober. If drinking impairs his judgment, and he misreads, or ignores, her signals and her communications, that's his responsibility, it is not an excuse, or a defense, against rape. He's got to be absolutely sure she's willing--freely willing--to engage in the act.

Some women are too drunk to be able to give legal consent. The man may not care about that. In fact, in a date rape, the man may want the woman drunk so she offers no resistance. Generally, these men have been with the woman when she was drinking, so they know how much alcohol she has consumed, and they know she is legally intoxicated, just as they know, or should know, how much alcohol they can legally drink before driving.
Or, if they just suddenly happen to come upon an already intoxicated woman, they are expected to be able to know just how drunk she is. The fact she can walk and talk isn't enough to indicate she isn't legally impaired. Can she carry on an extended rational conversation? Does she slur her words? Have any balance problems? Are you saying men are too dumb to know when a women is intoxicated?

Isn't the real problem that some men just don't care. They are more than willing to "take advantage of" a woman in that condition. They are sexual opportunists. They don't consider themselves rapists, but the law doesn't see it that way. They are rapists. Having sex with an intoxicated woman is like having sex with a women who is mentally impaired, cognitively impaired, or disabled, and those groups of women can not legally give consent either. If men want to disregard the law, they should be ready and willing to accept the consequences. And that may include a rape charge.

It is the man who claims the sex was with her consent. Are you so naive you don't believe men lie about that? And don't you think they lie about that far, far, far more often than women make false rape accusations?

Can we discuss the broad issues involved with this, and not get bogged down in the same few cases, mostly irrelevant, that you keep bringing up over and over again.A handful of cases, one way or the other, proves nothing.

They don't consider themselves rapists, but the law doesn't see it that way. They are rapists

She can't be too drunk to be able to legally give consent

What makes you think she accused him on a "whim"? If that is correct, then the army put him through a court martial on a "whim". Obviously they thought her case had merit, otherwise they wouldn't have held a trial.

He wasn't convicted, stop bringing this case up.

Billy wrote:
At the time frame women at West Point was fairly new and Congress and the newspapers was looking over the shoulders of the military decisions makers so instead of using commonsense they put the young man though hell to cover their asses.