17-Year-Old Sexual Assault Victim, Ruined Attacker's Life Says His Lawyer

reply to post by bjarneorn

So it's okay to touch her breasts and genitals without her consent while she's unconscious?

Originally posted by bjarneorn
What, to touch? without the penetration ... what, that's a crime now? Seriously ... people are really getting out of touch here ...

Perhaps you would reconsider if you were a female who was surrounded by males being molested and completely unable to stop it. I dont think you understand what kind of fear that could inspire. But no, unless there is penetration, its not sexual, right?

Originally posted by bjarneorn
Maybe we should ban sexual organs, and sex all together ... maybe we should create a drug, that makes "sexual" desire just "vanish". Because it's obviously only men that have it, who feel desire and like sex ... women are obviously all "victims" here. Poor souls, to have to suffer sex ... it must be horrible on them, to have men want to do this to them. huh.

Ok, so with this you prove you do not understand the difference between consentual sex and non-consentual. Are you by any chance a rapist? But you wouldnt know if you were, would you? After all, your doing the women a favor..........

Originally posted by bjarneorn
I really think some people need help here, I think the social illusion of "men are all monsters, and women are all truthful speaking angels" is just exploding out of proportion here.

No one is suggesting that.

Originally posted by aaaiii
reply to post by nightbringr

 

Right on cue ~ the race card.

Huh?

Im simply trying to illustrate to you that its not a good idea for posses to form to lynch people for crimes.

If you will remember back in the past, many posses were simply racists making up crimes so they could hang blacks. Tell me im wrong.

reply to post by nightbringr

You can't talk about history without someone bringing color into it. Pathetic.

Originally posted by aaaiii
reply to post by nightbringr

 

You can't talk about history without someone bringing color into it. Pathetic.

Why are you calling me names? You said you wanted to bring back frontier justice and im simply trying to show you what happened!

Lets drop the "black" thing as you are obviously reactionary and freak out over anything. Lets say a citizen of the USA is wrongly accused of theft. So, a posse is formed, they hunt him down and hang him. Two weeks later, the supposed stolen item is found.

It happens. And this is the type of justice you want? You know, i was agreeing with you 100% on everything you said until you flew off the handle and called me pathetic for trying to illustrate a simple point to you. Some people are so freaking senstive.............. Im starting to think your from the deep south and your great grandpappy was the Grand Dragon of the KKK and your all butthurt.

reply to post by nightbringr

So you actually believe I advocate vigilantism based on my post. Read it carefully.

Sometimes I think.....

That means from time to time I'm so disgusted with the state of this country that.....

It's an opinion. It means nothing outside of my own head.

Re: the race thing, I've been beaten over the head with color because of my career. Yes, I'm sensitive about it.


Butthurt? NEVER.

Originally posted by aaaiii
reply to post by nightbringr

 

So you actually believe I advocate vigilantism based on my post. Read it carefully.

Sometimes I think.....

That means from time to time I'm so disgusted with the state of this country that.....

It's an opinion. It means nothing outside of my own head.

Re: the race thing, I've been beaten over the head with color because of my career. Yes, I'm sensitive about it.

Yes, and all i did if you will look back to my first post in response to yours, was suggest that in the past, vigiliante justice was bad. Thats all. I used a point of how whites often hung blacks, and used your vigilate angle. I was simply illustrating a point. I have no agenda.

Edit. And yes, the butthurt thing was out of line, but so were you in calling me pathetic for simply trying to illustrate a point.

Clearly there is no easy answer here... there is also no one involved in this scenario with clean hands. What the boys did was wrong. Period. What the girl did (drinking underage, violating a court order that was found in her favor and on her behalf) was wrong. Period.

The culture of non-accountability for one's own actions has gotten us to a point where the girl has zero blame for her actions. She DOES have zero blame for being sexually assaulted, but she DOES NOT have zero blame for drinking underage which led to a condition where she was unable to protect herself and she also DOES NOT have zero blame for tweeting the names of these boys, accusing them of rape after a court order was finalized.

I feel bad that she was assaulted. I also feel bad that she was dumb enough to break the law and drink underage to the point where she couldn't help stop what was happening. I also feel bad that she was stupid enough to violate a court order. Frankly, punishment all around is honestly appropriate for this situation. Had she not tweeted the names, I might feel more for her - but she clearly made a conscious decision to break the law (just as the boys had when they sexually assaulted her but without the fuel of alcohol). It is an unfortunate situation, but she needs to be held accountable for her illegal actions just as the boys were held accountable for their illegal actions.

reply to post by nightbringr

Your comment doesn't bother me. In fact, I laughed.

Peace.

Innocent until proven guilty.

That is all, thank you

Originally posted by nightbringr
Perhaps you would reconsider if you were a female who was surrounded by males being molested and completely unable to stop it. I dont think you understand what kind of fear that could inspire. But no, unless there is penetration, its not sexual, right?

I remember a case, back in the late 80's. A young man, delivering a pizza to a US naval base, to a bunch of US naval ladies, that were having a women's only party. Was raped, molested, beaten and abused. As a result, the man suffered serious brain damage from their beating.

The women, were sent home to the US ... but never charged. That's what your brain is filled with ... they're women ... so, its a OK.

This is the scenario ... in this particular case, we're talking about a young, in a "questionable" situation, to say the least. Everybody was drunk, situation is spooky ... it's questionable. But the girls case, is taken into greater consideration and above that of the men, because of her gender. You can look this up, if you want to ... in a rape charge case, in the west, if a girl-guy case is 50-50, it is automatically judged in the girls favor. This is done, to protect the woman.

But, because it's automatically judged in the womans favor ... it gives you zero right, to abuse the guy in these cases. If it was a clear and shut "rape" case, where violence and abuse was involved ... we'd be going down a different path.

Touching someone, for the purpose of wanting to "stimulate" them, is neither uncommon nor a crime. Women do it, and men do it ... I've had a womans finger all over me, up my butt, over my penis ... multiple times. If you still go ahead, with the act, despite her not responding to the stimuly or showing she doesn't want it, only then is it a crime. In this case, we're talking about jewaniles ... so the case is in the girls favor.

This is from what I can read, and as far as I can understand it ...

But if a man, came up in court, accusing a woman of having led him on ... fingers all over his penis, stimulating him for sex, but he really-really didn't want. She just forced his penis to want it ... the guy would get laughed out of court ... and probably a bit further than that ...

In this particular case, the woman also shows the quality of a perpertrator. She breaks the law, and show malicious intent towards the guy in question. She is no longer a victim here ... and deserves no respect, or sympathy. In this case, it's a pandora box ... the girl is not just to talk about her own experience, but the intent and desire to damage the individual in question. This opens up the possibility, that this desire did not start after the act, but that the situation in question, was designed from the start, for that purpse.

The guy admitted to his actions, and he's served his sentence ... he's paid for his crime. The girl, must pay for hers. But she's no longer a victim to be felt sympathy for, she's crossed that line.

reply to post by bjarneorn

If you think it's okay to inappropriately touch a woman without her consent while she is conscious or unconscious, you are sick.

I cannot believe what I just read.

Originally posted by aaaiii
I cannot believe what I just read.

I think you have some sex problem, issues ... you should talk to someone about it.

Your mind is completely biased, I point out the opposites involved ... however, your mind has obviously only one pole ... biased towards one direction.

Discussion closed.

Originally posted by MrWendal
I do not feel too bad for the guy. These guys raped this girl, took pictures and showed it to their friends. SO clearly they were not too worried about being "outed" when they were the ones bragging.

That being said, the lawyer has a point. For all intents and purposes, they "paid" for their crimes so to speak. Granted the sentence was a joke, and they got nothing more than a slap on the wrist. If anything, this shows the problem with our legal system. When a guy smoking weed in his own home can get more time than a teenager who rapes.... something is really really wrong.

However, I don't have a problem with this girl making his life a nightmare so that he had to move. Had he not raped her to begin with, he wouldn't have this problem. It's called "consequences for your actions". Live with it.

well said i totally agree
if that was my daughter they would be sleeping with the fishes

reply to post by bjarneorn

I don't have any problems with sex.

Suppose your daughter was unconscious for whatever reason and some stranger decided it was okay to touch her breasts and genitals while she was unable to say "no" to stop him.

Are you saying it's okay for him to do that?

I had a look at the case from a few different sources. It's got the air of a 'plea down', as in pleading to a lesser sexual assault in order to avoid being charged with rape and going to trial, which it seems is what may have happened. So they admitted comitting an offence. They are sex offenders.

It worries me about how judgemental some people are being about the girl getting drunk. I got hammered at parties as a teen. Most kids do. We all do dumb things as kids. Most teens have no idea of the bad things than can happen to them and think they are indestructible. What she did was dumb but normal. What the boys did was not dumb, it was bloody sadistic. Opportunistic and sadistic. There is no way that could be down to youthful high spirits, or misreading social cues. Even a drunk teen would know this behaviour is wrong. I'm sure if a sober adult had entered the room while they were assaulting her, they'd have ran off. Also, if you are sober enough to think to redress your victim in an attempt to conceal your actions and maintain a hard on, you have adequate cognitive function to know right from wrong.

I understand her anger, they should not have had the court order.

For all the 'she shouldn't have been drunk' people here:

So, if you were a man passed out at a party, and a group of men stripped you, sexually assaulted you and filmed it to show other people, it would be your partly your fault? How would you feel if someone told you it was your fault for being drunk and not having every inch of flesh covered?

Originally posted by bjarneorn
I remember a case, back in the late 80's. A young man, delivering a pizza to a US naval base, to a bunch of US naval ladies, that were having a women's only party. Was raped, molested, beaten and abused. As a result, the man suffered serious brain damage from their beating.

The women, were sent home to the US ... but never charged. That's what your brain is filled with ... they're women ... so, its a OK.

Huh? My brain? I never said it was ok for anyone to do it. Man or woman. No clue where you got that idea from. And really, this was the 80s. Sexual crimes were almost always overlooked then in the military. For both men and women.

Originally posted by bjarneorn
This is the scenario ... in this particular case, we're talking about a young, in a "questionable" situation, to say the least. Everybody was drunk, situation is spooky ... it's questionable.

Its not questionable. They admitted they molested her.

Originally posted by bjarneorn
But the girls case, is taken into greater consideration and above that of the men, because of her gender. You can look this up, if you want to ... in a rape charge case, in the west, if a girl-guy case is 50-50, it is automatically judged in the girls favor. This is done, to protect the woman.

Tried looking it up, didnt find any information to this effect. Maybe you have something you can link to me? As far as i know, if there is no proof, none, then the accused is always found innocent.

Originally posted by bjarneorn
But, because it's automatically judged in the womans favor ... it gives you zero right, to abuse the guy in these cases. If it was a clear and shut "rape" case, where violence and abuse was involved ... we'd be going down a different path.

Your making this up.

Originally posted by bjarneorn
Touching someone, for the purpose of wanting to "stimulate" them, is neither uncommon nor a crime.

UNLESS the one touched does not consent or is UNCONCIOUS! No idea how you cannot grasp that. Someone unconcious cannot consent to anything.

Originally posted by bjarneorn
Women do it, and men do it ... I've had a womans finger all over me, up my butt, over my penis ... multiple times.

Way too much information here that isnt needed for this discussion.

Originally posted by bjarneorn
If you still go ahead, with the act, despite her not responding to the stimuly or showing she doesn't want it, only then is it a crime. In this case, we're talking about jewaniles ... so the case is in the girls favor.

Huh? Are you suggesting she "responded" to this when she was clearly unconcious? Your delusional.

Originally posted by bjarneorn
But if a man, came up in court, accusing a woman of having led him on ... fingers all over his penis, stimulating him for sex, but he really-really didn't want. She just forced his penis to want it ... the guy would get laughed out of court ... and probably a bit further than that ...

I would be the first to laugh him out of court. A man needs to get hard to penetrate. Getting hard means you are sexually aroused. You cant rape the willing.

Originally posted by bjarneorn
In this particular case, the woman also shows the quality of a perpertrator. She breaks the law, and show malicious intent towards the guy in question. She is no longer a victim here ... and deserves no respect, or sympathy. In this case, it's a pandora box ... the girl is not just to talk about her own experience, but the intent and desire to damage the individual in question. This opens up the possibility, that this desire did not start after the act, but that the situation in question, was designed from the start, for that purpse.

Your suggesting she set up this whole situation, got drunk, passed out because she knew these people would touch her and she would then be able to "punish" them? Quite a stretch dont you think?

Originally posted by aaaiii
reply to post by nightbringr

 

Your comment doesn't bother me. In fact, I laughed.

Peace.

I call your grandpa the leader of the KKK and you laugh, yet you go into hysterics freaking out when i suggest blacks were once lynched by posses?

Stable much?

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by FurthestStar

 

It doesn't matter that she was at a party. It doesn't matter that she was drinking. She should have the freedom to go to a party and to drink and not get sexually assaulted.

edit on 23-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

I absolutely agree. First of all, I'm very sorry about the tragic loss of your friend. And your mother was right, it's the other way around.

What I said was simply a piece of advice to young girls who are going to do what they want no matter what. It was meant as a suggestion.

There shouldn't be rapists out there. There shouldn't molesters out there, but that's just simply something that right now, we can't stop. Just because they shouldn't be there, does not mean that they wont. They will be out there. They shouldn't be, but they are.

So it is best to be safe and have someone you trust with you, than sorry being totally and utterly alone planning to get super drunk in a setting where there are people who you don't know all around. Especially if you're a very very young girl.

It wouldn't be wise to tell a young girl that she SHOULD go out and get drunk out of her mind alone in a room full of strangers because it's the rapists who shouldn't be there, not her.

You can't help the fact that they will be there. You can only help if she will with or without a good friend.

reply to post by nightbringr

I'm not responsible for the fact that you don't laugh at your own jokes. I realize you didn't mean it as a joke but that's how I translated it because it was so absurd.