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

reply to post by bjarneorn

Some teenagers go get drunk, the girl gets touched ... she files charges of rape. But wasn't ... she files charges of having pictures of her on internet, there are none.

The part, which is important here ... is that after she's had the guy judged on the issue. Something that will stick with him. for all his life ... she goes on and bashes this guy, and commits a crime against this guy.

This girl is not a victim ... she's a perpetrator ... and the fact, that she is attacking a man, naming his name ... with an intend of ruining him. Makes the scenario, where she claims to have been a victim ... a questionable scenario.

I see your point and it might be a valid one if these boys had stood trial and proclaimed their innocence as they were found guilty over their claims. However, that isn't what happened here and they plead out by accepting guilty. Therefore, by their own words and deeds, they're guilty as charged and admittedly so. If they admitted to this under false pretenses, then doom on them and let them rot for that poor judgement. I;ll take them at their own apparent word by the plea bargain being made, and accept their guilt.

The facts don't seem to be in dispute on the broad outlines that a 16 year old girl got drunk, she passed out and was stripped of her bra and underwear, on a kitchen floor and at least photographed while unconscious and in that position. What more may have happened, the story tells us the boys haven't been entirely clear on or to the satisfaction of some, anyway.

I don't see the boy's own attorney's even disputing the base facts of the conviction though, just the fact that secrecy wasn't maintained afterward.

reply to post by EndlessFire

If she was too drunk to know better than to pass out at a party, then why weren't they too drunk to know better than to do what they did?
It is a double standard.

Let's switch this around a bit.

Two very drunk people. One is driving a car. One is walking home from a party. The drunk driver swerves and hits and kills the drunk pedestrian. The pedestrian being as drunk as they were had slow reaction times and was not able to get out of the way in time.

If she was too drunk to know better than to be drunk and walk home, then why wasn't the drunk driver not too drunk to know better?

Is that a double standard as well? Drunkenness is not an excuse for the driver or for the sexual assaulters.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


They weren't both in the car. If the girl got drunk by herself thinking she would be safe from others I would say it sure she did no wrong whatsoever, but she got drunk at a party with other teenagers. That's like getting into the car in your hypothetical situation.