Teen Girl Gets Sexually Assaulted, Tweets About It And May Land In Jail

Originally posted by MaryStillToe
This girl was so high on drugs or alcohol that she passed out. How can she or anyone else know for sure that she wasn't a willing participant and just happened to fall asleep after it started?

One cannot "consent" to anything while intoxicated and have it be deemed a legal binding choice. Go to vote drunk and see what happens...

Minors can say "yes" all they want but until they reach the age at which the law allows it is no defense to claim his/her consent.

Same goes for one being intoxicated, high, or incapacitated (either mentally or physically) in any way.

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by MaryStillToe
This girl was so high on drugs or alcohol that she passed out. How can she or anyone else know for sure that she wasn't a willing participant and just happened to fall asleep after it started?

One cannot "consent" to anything while intoxicated and have it be deemed a legal binding choice. Go to vote drunk and see what happens...

Minors can say "yes" all they want but until they reach the age at which the law allows it is no defense to claim his/her consent.

Same goes for one being intoxicated, high, or incapacitated (either mentally or physically) in any way.

The boys accused were also minors and possibly intoxicated too. So they were all guilty of a crime unless one person says they were raped. Minors who have consensual sex with each other are usually not prosecuted by the law.

It is not a crime for two adults to get drunk and have sex. If you are saying the law says that adults are not capable of consenting to sex when intoxicated, then you will have to back up that statement with some proof. I have never heard of any such thing.

reply to post by MaryStillToe


Men get accused of rape all the time if the girl is drunk.

WTF.

If anyone in the legal system supports this decision based on whatever interpretation of the spirit of law and justice, then they should have been artists. I don't know how to see that much BS from a clear case of injustice.

It's like TPTB are trying to make our courts so nonsensical that we become so desperate with them that we remove them ourselves for them. This is just being done with malice now.

Originally posted by MaryStillToe
reply to post by blah yada

 

The fact that the boys took a plea deal does not make them 100% guilty. It's not like it would be the first time that an innocent person took a guilty plea in order to avoid a long drawn out 'he-said' vs 'she-said trial. Does the name Brian Banks ring a bell?

Not all cases are the same. They took pictures and distributed them.

Originally posted by igor_ats

Originally posted by MaryStillToe
reply to post by blah yada

 

The fact that the boys took a plea deal does not make them 100% guilty. It's not like it would be the first time that an innocent person took a guilty plea in order to avoid a long drawn out 'he-said' vs 'she-said trial. Does the name Brian Banks ring a bell?

Not all cases are the same. They took pictures and distributed them.

You can't prove rape in a picture or 'still image'. Did you even read my entire post that you quoted?

They took pictures and showed it to their friends. No proof in a picture that she didn't consent.The girl might not even remember saying yes or agreeing if she eventually passed out or blacked out. How many times do you hear drunk people saying I don't even remember doing or saying such and such. How can a picture prove she was passed out anyway? You can't see mannerisms in a picture, whether someone is closing their eyes in enjoyment or actually unresponsive.

A lot of people are defending the girl with very little evidence about the case. Honestly, if she had a strong case, the prosecutors would have probably never offered the boys a very lenient plea deal in the first place. The girl did some shady things and the prosecutors didn't believe a jury would have found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Unless someone is alleging that the boys received the plea deal based on family status or a hidden connection in the courts, I can't say that I agree with what she did. She made some bad decisions and this was the result. Hopefully, she learns from her mistakes and makes smarter choices in the future.

Originally posted by MaryStillToe

Originally posted by igor_ats

Originally posted by MaryStillToe
reply to post by blah yada

 

The fact that the boys took a plea deal does not make them 100% guilty. It's not like it would be the first time that an innocent person took a guilty plea in order to avoid a long drawn out 'he-said' vs 'she-said trial. Does the name Brian Banks ring a bell?

Not all cases are the same. They took pictures and distributed them.

You can't prove rape in a picture or 'still image'. Did you even read my entire post that you quoted?

They took pictures and showed it to their friends. No proof in a picture that she didn't consent.The girl might not even remember saying yes or agreeing if she eventually passed out or blacked out. How many times do you hear drunk people saying I don't even remember doing or saying such and such. How can a picture prove she was passed out anyway? You can't see mannerisms in a picture, whether someone is closing their eyes in enjoyment or actually unresponsive.

A lot of people are defending the girl with very little evidence about the case. Honestly, if she had a strong case, the prosecutors would have probably never offered the boys a very lenient plea deal in the first place. The girl did some shady things and the prosecutors didn't believe a jury would have found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Unless someone is alleging that the boys received the plea deal based on family status or a hidden connection in the courts, I can't say that I agree with what she did. She made some bad decisions and this was the result. Hopefully, she learns from her mistakes and makes smarter choices in the future.

edit on 24-7-2012 by MaryStillToe because: (no reason given)

Victim blaming much?

You don't know what all the evidence is for all you know, they were mouthing off to the ppl who saw the pictures. "She was totally out of it dude. . ." which would've been open and shut legally.

Oh right, like victims can't lie and because they can't lie always assume they're telling the truth, ESPECIALLY if it's a female. Females are better than men, simply because they are more virtuous than men just by virtue of being a female.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
Oh right, like victims can't lie and because they can't lie always assume they're telling the truth, ESPECIALLY if it's a female. Females are better than men, simply because they are more virtuous than men just by virtue of being a female.

I don't think it was a "he-said she said" case. Those cases usually don't even get to court.

reply to post by igor_ats


Actually there are a number of cases where they did go to court and the guy lost.

If you don't believe me do a google for false claims of rape against men.

In fact, here's a place you can start:

www.mens-rights.net...

I warn you, it's a real eye opener.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


My daughter was sexually assaulted, raped, by two underage boys. they pled out and were charged as minors, and had to stay in juvi until they were 21.

Then they walked away scot free, no adult record and everything in juvenile records is sealed.

They raped and sodomized her, this is how she lost her virginity, one held her down while one had his way in every imaginable orfice, then the other took his turn....

she was 14 at the time, this is her first experience as to what sex is..... she tried to kill herself after, this is how I found out, after having to have her life flighted and watch machines breathe for her

if the boys this girl in your story is upset about were tried as juveniles, which appears to be the case if they are saying it is illegal for her to state their names (because these will later be sealed records) then yeah, they got off light for what they took

Edit:

One difference between my daughters story and this one is the fact I did not want my daughter to go through any further trauma by having to testify in open court. We were informed of our options right down the line, and what could happen either way if we chose to allow my daughter to testify or if we let evidence alone be the soul conviction.... we decided upon evidence alone, and a private interview with my daughter due to the emotional trauma she suffered that we did not want expanded upon.

It has been years, and my daughter still has very serious emotional issues because of what happened, rape is a serious crime. It is sad that it is always the victim who seems to pay the highest price.

Originally posted by MaryStillToe
The boys accused were also minors and possibly intoxicated too. So they were all guilty of a crime unless one person says they were raped. Minors who have consensual sex with each other are usually not prosecuted by the law.

1) All the people involved were of the age of consent in the State of KY.

The age of consent in Kentucky is 16. Section 510.020 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes deems a person unable to consent if he or she is less than 16 years old. It is a defense however if the "victim" is at least 14 and the actor is less than 5 years older [510.130(b)].

2) They were all minors having not reached the age of 18 and therefore the rules governing the sealing of court records and sentencing applied.

3) Being intoxicated during the commission of a crime is never allowed when the suspect becomes so of their own free will as a defense to prove diminished capacity. So unless someone was forcing them to drink under duress they have no defense… They were impaired – yes. However, they were not so impaired as to not be able to commit the acts therefore they being capable of acting were also capable of not acting.

Originally posted by MaryStillToe

It is not a crime for two adults to get drunk and have sex. If you are saying the law says that adults are not capable of consenting to sex when intoxicated, then you will have to back up that statement with some proof. I have never heard of any such thing.

Your statement is generally true up to the point one of the people involved becomes unconscious or near and unable to resist – should this occur even if consent was given at a earlier time either verbally or with acts of participation then the actor continues at their own risk.

This varies greatly from State to State; some places have very unforgiving “drunk sex” laws while others have very forgiving ones.

It is pretty clear that in this case the “boys” continued to perform acts and take pictures of the acts without her "consent" because she was so intoxicated as to be unable to resist.

In all cases when one has an encounter with another there are many levels of continued consent and layers of participation – one “yes” doesn’t imply a literal “open door” even after the point of unconsciousness. The young men went too far…

I think by their own admissions “she was totally out of it”. They probably plead because they knew they were screwed otherwise.

Blaming the victim for being drunk is no different than the old addage - "look how she was dressed, she wanted it".

Originally posted by Gridrebel

Originally posted by groingrinder
A civil lawsuit would be better than tweets. Once they have pled guilty in a criminal court, getting a civil judgement should almost be guaranteed.

Wish I could give you more stars. My thought sexactly. Hit 'em where it hurts, hurt them where it counts. Sue the # outta them.

All it would accomplish is to make the boy's parents go broke. Why would you wish to create even more victims out of this situation? As far as I know you cannot sue a person under 18 in any financial capacity, the money comes from their parents. And it will stay with the parents, the obligation to pay doesn't transfer to the person once they turn 18.

Originally posted by babybunnies
I think it's ridiculous that the press have free reign to name victims but are unable to name criminals in many cases.

Why shouldn't the victims of crime have their say, especially after a conviction has been secured?

It's also illegal for the press to name victims if they are underage. And the court can order that the name of anybody can be withheld regardless of age.

Some people here are discussing the issue of her being too drunk to consent to sexual activities. My viewpoint is actually starting to change after reading some people's arguments.

For instance, if you are black-out drunk you can accuse the person who had sex with you of rape, even if you gave consent. What if that person was drunk too? If two people are black out drunk, and have sex, the woman just instantly becomes a victim? Why not the man? When a black out drunk man has sex with a black out drunk woman, why is the man not instantly considered a victim, like the woman is?

This goes back to gender bias. It's OK for a woman to have sex with a drunk man, but if a man has sex with a drunk woman (even if he too is drunk) then he is a rapist and she is a victim. This definitely seems like some BS.

Like I said I'm starting to change my mind here. Someone brought up the point that it's possible she did give consent, but then passed out. Even if the boys said "she was so drunk" what does it matter if they were also drunk?

The more I think about it, the idea that a woman being drunk means she cannot legally give consent seems like total bull chit. It's gender biased aimed at attacking men and allowing women to not have to deal with their choices. A woman wakes up and regrets having sex with a man the night before, she didn't make a bad choice, she got raped. She sleeps with a man while drunk and gets pregnant, she didn't make a bad choice, she was raped. The whole idea that being drunk means you can't legally give consent is just an easy way out so that women can avoid being responsible for their choices.

I've slept with women several times while I was black out drunk (don't remember much at all the next day) While usually there is enough evidence around that I know what happened, one time I actually DID have to ask the woman who was in my bed with me the next morning whether or not we actually had sex. So in the opinion of some people here, I was raped several times by women in the last few years? Huh, that's funny. You know, when I do stupid stuff when drunk I blame MYSELF, not other people. I guess some folks still have the idea that women are stupid and men are too strong willed and intelligent, that even a blackout drunk man is still more in control of himself than a sober or slightly drunk woman. How shameful.

Another way to look at the idea is the following: The basic idea is that if a woman is drunk,she is not able to give consent, and is therefore not responsible for her actions. Meaning, consentual sex somehow magically turns into rape simply by nature of the women's state of mind. This same type of legal magic also applies to age. Consentual sex between a 16 year old girl and 22 year old man magically turns into rape by nature of the woman's state of mind (being underage their mentally equal to a drunk adult, evidently) once again not able to give consent, therefore not responsible for their actions.

So, if being drunk means you are not legally able to consent to an act, and not responsible for the outcome, WHY can you not use being drunk as a legal defense for some illegal act you did?

Break into someone's house? Sorry officer, it was not my fault, I was really drunk, therefore I wasn't able to legally consent to the idea of breaking into the house. My friend Brian said we should break into that house, and since I'm drunk, I went along with it, but it's still not my fault because the law states I'm not legally able to consent and therefore am not able to be held responsible for my actions.

Get caught drunk driving? Sorry officer, it was not my fault, I was really drunk, therefore I was not legally able to give consent to my friend Brian, who asked for a ride home.

See what I mean? Where is the difference? If being a drunk woman means you are not in control, and therefore not responsible for your actions, then why can't someone use the excuse that they are drunk to get out of any number of illegal activities?

The concept that a woman being drunk means she cannot legally consent to sex not only seems like sexist bs, it also opens up a can of worms as to how we can use being drunk as an excuse for things we did. Anyone care to explain why if being drunk means it's not your fault you had sex, why isn't being drunk ALSO an excuse as to why it's not your fault you went out driving your car?

Thanks to the people in this thread who were discussing this. At first this whole thing seemed like a simple case, but after reading those people's comments I'm beginning to question whether or not these boys are actually guilty of anything.

Why is this an argument of rape/sexual assault?

That question was answered in court.

I would be more concerned with the fact that the court of public opinion is starting to have more say than the actual courts.

In this case, no biggie, the dudes are douche bags, they earned what is coming.

What happens in the next case? Maybe not so clear cut? Maybe not even guilty before the names are all over the net?

These laws were put in place for a reason and that reason had very little to do with protecting the guilty...everything to do with protecting everyone else.

Is nice to see that the emotional, knee-jerk, wagon is till riding strong though. Nothing shows the government how easily people are manipulated like a good emotional knee-jerk.

Originally posted by phroziac
reply to post by ModernAcademia

 

Ive had a woman claim i raped her before. Hell she was the one that wanted sex. But you say this neverhappens. Hmmm

Hmmm, just checked your Avatar...

You're KIDDING, right???

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by igor_ats

 

Actually there are a number of cases where they did go to court and the guy lost.

Except this wasn't a he-said she-said case. Plus your reply doesn't fit with what I said.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


WOW.
The more I read your posts on different threads, the more I wonder what your deal is...
Curious....
Anyway, the whole nonsense of not making juvenile criminal records public is fine for misdemeanors, and petty stuff, but when they commit a felony, or something that points to further trouble in the future, like sexual assault, or animal cruelty, their ass should be front and center in the paper just like an adult.