25
   

1 in 5 women get raped?

 
 
FOUND SOUL
 
  4  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2015 05:18 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
https://lindsaychapie.wordpress.com/2014/03/07/new-bedford-in-1983/

Quote:
The defendants:

John Cordeiro- 24, unemployed.
•Accused of holding the woman down and trying to force her to have oral sex.

Virgilio Medeiros- 24, unemployed boat builder.
•Charged for joint enterprise
•Witnesses claimed that he shouted,” Do it! Do it!” and blocked the bartender’s way from getting help.

Jose Medeiros- 23, unemployed landscape worker.
•Charged with joint enterprise for touching the victim and shouting encouragement.

Victor Raposo- 23, handyman.
•Charged with aggravated rape
•Tried to force the victim to have oral sex.

Daniel Silvia- 27, factory worker.
•Charged with aggravated rape.
•Witnesses say he actually raped the victim.

Joseph Vieira- 28, dairy farm worker.
•Charged with aggravated rape.
•Victim said he helped Silva carry her to pool table and also raped her.

The witnesses:
•Valdimiro Pacheco- customer in Big Dan’s Tavern the night of the rape. •Said victim came to bar and was talking to Silvia.
•Also saw Silvia “put his hands in her pants.”

•Carlos Machado- Bartender at Big Dan’s Tarvern. •Testified that Raposo and Cordeiro tried to force the woman to perform oral sex.
•Also claimed that Virgilio and Jose encouraged the others with shouts. According to the Gadsden Times on March 7, 1984.
•Said he was blocked by Virgilio when he tried to help the victim.


I can't find anything other than the four being charged and the bartender as a witness. Though I read that the bartender apparently asked someone to call the police but gave that person the wrong number.

Sorry Smile Best I could find
Lustig Andrei
 
  4  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2015 05:43 pm
@FOUND SOUL,
"Charged with joint enterprise." Smile Ain't legal jargon wonderful? Thnx much, FS.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  3  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2015 05:43 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
There was a movie with Jodi Foster that was based on this event and some of the prosecutions. The Accused

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Accused_(1988_film)
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2015 06:38 pm
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:

There was a movie with Jodi Foster that was based on this event and some of the prosecutions. The Accused

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Accused_(1988_film)
great movie BTW.........
0 Replies
 
nononono
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2015 08:32 pm
THE NEW RAPE RULES WHICH WILL INFANTILISE WOMEN AND CRIMINALISE INNOCENT MEN

A word of advice, chaps. The next time you head off for a night out on the tiles, don’t forget to take everything you might need with you.

Wallet, phone and, if you hope to get lucky later on, maybe a packet of condoms and, of course, a legal consent form, an alcohol breath test kit, two independent witnesses, preferably female, and a lawyer to verify that the lady in question has indeed consented to sex and also that she was in a condition to give that consent knowingly and soberly.

Thanks to the newly announced overhaul of how the Crown Prosecution Service should treat rape cases, this is what a typical Friday night out will soon involve for any man who doesn’t fancy facing rape charges the morning after the night before. According to Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the concept of “No means No” just doesn’t hack it anymore.

It turns out that Yes sometimes means No too, particularly when a woman is judged to be too inebriated to be capable of making a conscious decision. If she’s three sheets to the wind, then the new rule is that she is not capable of consenting to get between the sheets.

Even if she has said Yes and has even undressed herself or initiated the sexual advances. Even if she at no point suggested she had changed her mind or asked the man to stop. Even if she blatantly enjoyed herself at the time.

This is patently absurd. And yet this is precisely what the DPP has announced.

Unlike any other offence, where the onus is on the prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty of a crime, this puts the responsibility squarely (if not fairly) on the shoulders of the accused to prove that he is innocent. In one fell swoop, Mrs Saunders has turned a fundamental principle of our justice system – the presumption of innocence – on its head.

Instead of requiring evidence of non-consensual sex, the CPS will now look only for the absence of evidence that there was consent. As the DPP said, she wants the police to ask suspects HOW they knew the alleged victim was saying yes, and was doing so “freely and knowingly”.

“For too long society has blamed rape victims for confusing the issue of consent – by drinking or dressing provocatively for example,” Mrs Saunders explained. “But it is not they who are confused, it is society itself and we must challenge that. Consent to sexual activity is not a grey area – in law it is clearly defined and must be given fully and freely.”

I’m sure there is a good motivation behind this to ensure that more rapists are brought to justice and that more victims feel confident in coming forward to the police, with only a tiny percentage of rapes ever reported to the police let alone taken through the courts. But this new move does the exact opposite of empowering women. Instead it infantilises them, and renders them incapable of taking responsibility for their own actions.

Under these new rules, without a legal consent form being signed in front of witnesses (unlikely in most circumstance, I think we can all agree) a drunk man will be held 100% responsible for anything he does during any sexual encounter with a woman. From the first kiss to the zipping up of his trousers, he is culpable for all of his actions – and hers too.

A drunk woman, by contrast, will have zero responsibility and culpability for anything that happens between the two of them simply by virtue of her consumption of alcohol. Now, of course women have the right to get drunk (and wear whatever they want, for that matter) and not get raped, but these new rules ignore the fact that there are consequences to everything that we do.

Just as leaving your front door unlocked doesn’t mean you “deserve” to get burgled, it just makes it more likely, wouldn’t it be a good idea if we stopped telling young women it’s okay to go out and get wrecked and to hell with the consequences? We all know that alcohol makes us less inhibited and more sexually open. That’s why we drink. And we also know that our 2am beer goggles have led to more regretted sex than most of us care to admit.

Indeed, it’s rare to meet a woman these days who does not regret at least one of her past sexual encounters, whether it be the choice of partner, the timing, the circumstance or even just a failure to put a stop to things at third base rather than fourth. But waking up in the morning, regretting what you did and wishing it hadn’t happened, is not the same thing as “being raped”.

It’s just a lesson learned and an embarrassing incident to put down to experience. Most date rapes don’t end in conviction for the simple reason that there is reasonable doubt, mostly due to a combination of a lack of independent witnesses and the woman being drunk.

As the former Crown Court Judge Mary Jane Mowat said last year, rape convictions won’t go up “until women stop getting drunk”, because juries face an impossible task to decide whose version of events is the truth when the woman admits she was too drunk to know what actually happened. Now Alison Saunders wants to take away that reasonable doubt by requiring men to prove they had consent while women, quite unreasonably, won’t have to prove anything but their drinks bill.

If we’re going to start jailing drunk men for having drunken sex with drunk women, then we will soon see millions of men behind bars who have made the foolish mistake of not getting consent in writing and in triplicate before the first kiss.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/29/the-new-rape-rules-which-will-infantilise-women-and-criminalise-innocent-men/
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  5  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2015 09:33 am
Or you COULD just stop working to get her sloppy drunk. And yourself too. Asshole. Drink responsibly.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2015 01:13 pm
@MontereyJack,
Of course as women are children when it come to dealing with sex with men they have no responsibility for their own drinking and actions while under the voluntary influnence of alcohol if there is a man anywhere near.

If that the thinking then maybe we should not legally allow women to drink.
firefly
 
  6  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2015 01:56 pm
@BillRM,
I suggest you go back one page in this thread to read the news of this past week.

Two former football players from Vanderbilt University were convicted of raping an unconscious/incapacitated female student, and they now face decades in prison. Others involved in this incident still await trial.

A Stanford University student was observed raping an unconscious woman in public by two bystanders who chased him down and held him for the police. He faces likely conviction because his criminal acts were witnessed.

Both of the above cases were date/acquaintance rapes, and both were in the news in just the past few days.

It's not the females in these situations who were responsible for their rapes, no matter how intoxicated they were--the Vanderbilt jury returned their guilty verdicts in just 3 hours, showing just how clearly they recognized that.

Getting drunk is not illegal, but committing rape is. And, when the victim is incapacitated there is no doubt it is legally rape.

nononono
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2015 04:47 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Two former football players from Vanderbilt University were convicted of raping an unconscious/incapacitated female student, and they now face decades in prison. Others involved in this incident still await trial.

A Stanford University student was observed raping an unconscious woman in public by two bystanders who chased him down and held him for the police. He faces likely conviction because his criminal acts were witnessed.


Did you get that Bill?

There were two cases of that appear to be actual rape in the news recently. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that ALL rape claims are legitimate, and NO women ever act irresponsibly while intoxicated. NO women ever in the history of time have called a regretful hangover "rape".

Men have super powers that enable them to be fully responsible for everything they do while drunk. But women can't be held accountable for ANYTHING they do while drunk. To even suggest that is M I S O G Y N Y!

Duh Bill.

Duh.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2015 04:51 pm
@nononono,
Have you ever watched the show Snapped? The # of women on that show that kill their husbands or boyfriends and then claim they were raped or beaten makes it hard to take the claim seriously every time it is used. It's a cry wolf situation.
nononono
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2015 04:56 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote:
It's a cry wolf situation.


Women don't cry wolf Baldimo! It's ma soggy nist for you to suggest that.

Women never lie. Ever.

I'm pretty sure it's in the bible somewhere.

0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  5  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2015 07:30 pm
https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/s403x403/1964930_894436813920009_3826502229924930531_n.png?oh=9fe10109fad03245e9e0c2d4bac26898&oe=55590449&__gda__=1432832571_5d14b42297d352e6a0606e9e0fabc8a1
nononono
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2015 10:34 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
"It is the men who are attacking the women."

Well that doesn't sound prejudiced or inaccurate at all.

Here's another suggestion:

People should quit putting locks on their doors. In fact, people should just take all of their money out of their bank accounts and leave it in piles of cash in their front yards. And there should be a curfew established for thieves.

Because if there's one thing that both thieves and rapists have in common, it's that they always follow curfews. Well, that and they always follow all rules in general and don't ever break any laws.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2015 02:41 am

Just a heads up of sorts: The feminist movement is going to push for an equal rights amendment to the Constitution again, just like they did some 30 or so years ago.

It would be worthwhile for the men's rights movement to fight to ensure that the version that ultimately comes out of Congress includes equal rights for men as well.
bobsal u1553115
 
  4  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2015 08:24 am
@Lustig Andrei,
Right on the money!
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  4  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2015 08:54 am
@oralloy,
oralloy says:
Quote:
Just a heads up of sorts: The feminist movement is going to push for an equal rights amendment to the Constitution again, just like they did some 30 or so years ago.[It would be worthwhile for the men's rights movement to fight to ensure that the version that ultimately comes out of Congress includes equal rights for men as well.

This is the ENTIRE TEXT of the original Equal Rights Amendment from thirty years ago. Tell me how you or other men somehow think this discriminates against them

Quote:
•Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
•Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
•Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2015 09:16 am
@MontereyJack,
In fact the ERA would be a very bad thing for laws granting special protections to women and special obligations on men.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2015 09:17 am
@BillRM,
I disagree Bill.

The ERA would have benefits for men, particularly in the area of parenting/custody rights. There are men's rights advocates who strongly support the ERA, and with good reason.

I strongly support it (and I suspect that N.O.W. would secretly hope it failed).
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2015 12:13 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
The ERA would have benefits for men, particularly in the area of parenting/custody rights. There are men's rights advocates who strongly support the ERA, and with good reason.

I strongly support it (and I suspect that N.O.W. would secretly hope it failed).

Why on earth would you think N.O.W. secretly hoped the ERA failed?
It's a major issue for them, which would be glaringly apparent to you if you bothered to inform yourself and look at their web site.

And where is the evidence that national N.O.W. currently opposes parenting/custody rights for men? Can you find it, and link to it, because I've searched and can't find it. Where are you getting your information from?

I don't belong to N.O.W., I've never belonged to it, but I have bothered to inform myself regarding their current positions and issues so I could knowledgably participate in discussions like this one. You don't similarly seem to feel opinions about specific groups, like N.O.W., should be informed by actual information about their policies and positions.

This is N.O.W.'s current position on the ERA--they definitely want it passed.
Quote:
Constitutional Equality

Equality in pay, job opportunities, political structure, social security and education will remain an elusive dream without a guarantee of equality in the U.S. Constitution. The progress we have made — and must continue to make — towards women’s equality can be lost at any time because those advances depend on legislation that can be (and has been) weakened or repealed by Congress. Although we did not succeed in ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment, winning a constitutional guarantee of equality for women remains one of NOW’s top priorities.
http://now.org/issues/constitutional-equality/


Quote:
Women's Rights Must Be Guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution

We won't stand for sexists like Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia interpreting women's rights as unprotected in the U.S. Constitution. In a recent interview, Scalia erroneously stated that women are not protected under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Right now, five justices have the power to pick and choose when women should be considered full citizens. And that's not right.
http://now.org/take-action/womens-rights-must-be-guaranteed-in-the-u-s-constitution/


On Jan. 6 2011, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) stood with NOW and women's rights advocates outside the Capitol to call for putting women into the Constitution.


0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2015 12:39 pm
@MontereyJack,
And it's not just "the feminist movement" that's trying to get equal rights for women enshrined into law. This is the Gov. of New York explaining why NY needs such legislation--because he fully acknowledges that a societal bias against women exists which results in inequality.


Unfortunately, the NY Equality for Women Act has yet to pass, apparently because opponents, mostly male Republicans in the NYS legislature, do not want to guarantee women abortion rights.

 

Related Topics

HOW COME . . . - Question by Setanta
Men who defend feminism? - Question by whatthefudge
Teach Men Not To Rape? - Question by nononono
Does every woman have her price...? - Question by nononono
Men Are Bad, Baaaaaaaaaaad. - Question by nononono
Misogyny - Discussion by chai2
Elliot Rodger - Question by FOUND SOUL
Best Looking Team at the Olympics? - Discussion by hawkeye10
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/22/2024 at 03:35:51