if this had happened in the US, odds are they wouldn't even be charged w a first degree felony.
they were too young and she wasn't badly hurt. and most old school judges would also accept that she was there voluntarily in a social setting.
ive spent enough time in prisons to know that rapists, especially ones that rape minors -dont get treated to kindly by other inmates
what did you serve time for?
Assuming they are guilty, they should fry.
what did you serve time for?impersonating a corrections officer :D
She was unconscious, and had no memory of the event.
Speculation is there might have been "date rape drugs" involved.
In any event, they gang raped her, taped the gang rape, and passed the tape around.
Hard to conclude otherwise when it's on tape. :-\
{giggle} He's a law enforcement officer.
If he actually SERVED time, ...I doubt he would have survived to write about it. ;)
what did you serve time for?
No way is he a cop.
He looks at the obvious holes in the 911 story and questions nothing.
No cop is that naive and stupid. Sorry.
Maybe. The 18-year-old would be charged as an adult. Probably the 17-year-old too.
Where you been mang? :)
innocent untill proven guilty my friend. speculation isnt evidence
She was unconscious, and had no memory of the event.
Speculation is there might have been "date rape drugs" involved.
In any event, they gang raped her, taped the gang rape, and passed the tape around.
Is speculation cause for a full investigation?don't do it kh300, it's a trap!!! >:(
Is speculation cause for a full investigation?
innocent untill proven guilty my friend. speculation isnt evidence
there was, but of course it was also apart of the coverup ::). plus there were plenty of independant investigations, but that doesnt stop an edited youtube clip from stoping your imagination.
I think most statutes take the age difference into account. 16 and 18 isn't near as bad as 16 and 38.
If she was unconscious, that what's going to look worst b/c of the non-consensual aspect. but the fact that she didn't even realize it had happened, and that she was there voluntarily gives a defense atty a lot of room.
I've been trying to be more productive . . . chasing jag around the fora can be so distracting. ;D
I think most statutes take the age difference into account. 16 and 18 isn't near as bad as 16 and 38.
If she was unconscious, that what's going to look worst b/c of the non-consensual aspect. but the fact that she didn't even realize it had happened, and that she was there voluntarily gives a defense atty a lot of room.
I've been trying to be more productive . . . chasing jag around the fora can be so distracting. ;D
Age differences have nothing to do with anything. The age of consent in the province of Ontario is 14, so this isn't a "statutory rape" situation, ...it is RAPE. PERIOD! In order for sex to be consentual, it has to be consented to. A person who is unconconscious is incapable of giving consent. SHE WAS GANG RAPED!!! Because of the heinous nature of the crime, I do hope they choose to charge them as adults.
A defense attorney will have no room whatsoever. She was unconscious and did not give consent. Furthermore, the fact that she has no memory of the incident could indicate the degree of trauma she experienced. Being gang raped can produce significant enough trauma to a victim to cause them to compartamentalize and lock away all memory of the incident because it is so traumatic. We see it all the time in cases of MPD. And as for her being at the location voluntarily... HELLO! Are you DAFT?!?! :o If I'm at the bank to make a deposit, and a bank robber comes in to rob the place and shoots me in the process, does that give him latitude because I was at the bank voluntarily? I'm sorry Al-Gebra, you're usually a pretty smart guy, ...but that has got to be one of the stupidest things you've ever written on these boards.
I'm sure there are far more interesting things you can do with your time.
Just for clarification, I was referring to whether the accused could be tried as adults, not whether the alleged victim was of the proper age of consent.
Also, what if she consented to participate in group sex and then passed out during sex? I'm not sure what the law does with a situation like that.
I think most statutes take the age difference into account. 16 and 18 isn't near as bad as 16 and 38.
If she was unconscious, that what's going to look worst b/c of the non-consensual aspect. but the fact that she didn't even realize it had happened, and that she was there voluntarily gives a defense atty a lot of room.
I've been trying to be more productive . . . chasing jag around the fora can be so distracting. ;D
That's horse shit and you know it! ::) It is guilty until proven innocent...If it were not then they would not be allowed to put accused criminals pics in papers and on tv.Once you have your face in the newspaper as an "alleged" child molestor ...in the eyes of everyone who sees it,you ARE a child molestor even if you are found not guilty.You are ruined from that point on. This is a fact and you know it.
I was referring to Al-Gebra's comment on the age difference.
This is not what happened. This was NOT group sex, this was a GANG RAPE of an unconscious girl.
there was, but of course it was also apart of the coverup ::). plus there were plenty of independant investigations, but that doesnt stop an edited youtube clip from stoping your imagination.
Maybe it is Jag. But I was asking about the possibility of whether she consented before she passed out. I have no idea if that's what happened. Maybe the video shows she never consented. I'm just not sure what happens with the consent issue if a woman passes out after consenting (hypothetically speaking).
When it comes to the war in Iraq or 9/11, you refuse to answer hypotheticals.
yet when it's all about underage gangrape, you can't stop bringing them up.
Hmmmmmmm
Age differences have nothing to do with anything. The age of consent in the province of Ontario is 14, so this isn't a "statutory rape" situation, ...it is RAPE. PERIOD! In order for sex to be consentual, it has to be consented to. A person who is unconconscious is incapable of giving consent. SHE WAS GANG RAPED!!! Because of the heinous nature of the crime, I do hope they choose to charge them as adults.
A defense attorney will have no room whatsoever. She was unconscious and did not give consent. Furthermore, the fact that she has no memory of the incident could indicate the degree of trauma she experienced. Being gang raped can produce significant enough trauma to a victim to cause them to compartamentalize and lock away all memory of the incident because it is so traumatic. We see it all the time in cases of MPD. And as for her being at the location voluntarily... HELLO! Are you DAFT?!?! :o If I'm at the bank to make a deposit, and a bank robber comes in to rob the place and shoots me in the process, does that give him latitude because I was at the bank voluntarily? I'm sorry Al-Gebra, you're usually a pretty smart guy, ...but that has got to be one of the stupidest things you've ever written on these boards.
I'm sure there are far more interesting things you can do with your time.
Maybe it is Jag. But I was asking about the possibility of whether she consented before she passed out. I have no idea if that's what happened. Maybe the video shows she never consented. I'm just not sure what happens with the consent issue if a woman passes out after consenting (hypothetically speaking).
excuse me. its innocent untill proven guilty in the court of law. its the media thats the other way around
It's actually just me refusing to answer hypothetical questions from you, because you're insincere and incapable of discussing/debating topics without insulting people. Maybe you'll grow out of it, but unfortunately I know some old people with this problem too. :)
I agree the media does the worst of it...but once the police think you are guilty you're guilty until proven innocent in their eyes and the publics.
theoretically, only wives can consent to unconscious sex ;D . . . and only if you're still living together. Unconsciousness/drugs pretty much negate consent these days. as they should
What happens if the woman passes out during consensual sex?
I don't blame you from running from my questions. They are designed to make you clearly map out your position so that I can dissect it to show a flaw.
Thank you for admitting this. This is precisely why I don't answer the majority of your dumb questions. You're not smart enough to "dissect" positions. And you're not smart enough to realize you're not smart enough to "dissect" positions. This is a problem for you 240. :)
most cts hold that once a guy is in (to put it crudely), consent cannot be withdrawn. that would probably hold true for passing out during a consented-to act.
might get a different decision in CA.
you're the only "university professor" in history who keeps telling people they're "not smart".
In the grown up world, we see it as areas of specialization and not "who's smarter".
You sure about that? Once a woman says stop, doesn't the guy have to stop?
Yup. Most jurisds are pretty unequivocal that she needs to say No before he penetrates her. Until very recently, in most jurisdictions even saying No wasn't enough. Thankfully that has changed.
A lot of our law regarding rape is pretty old school . . . the feminists have a cow about it, but there's too many problems implementing a stricter rule. It all inevitably goes back to what kind of force was used/threatened and what kind of resistance was put up.
Hey 240 check this out. So I'm flipping through the channels last night and there I see one of my former undergrad students playing softball for the University. She hit a double and scored the go ahead run late in the game. Small world. :)
LOL... I checked out the university. I totally understand your perspective now. You must go crazy surrounded by that many liberals all day long.
so you can start having sex... and 10 seconds in, the girl can say stop...
and legally, you can keep pounding her for an hour straight til you're finished?
At some point, doesn't it become holding her against her will?
I'm thinking about using Power Point this fall. I've used it for seminars, but never in the classroom. I'm afraid it will stifle discussion. What do you think? :)
Yup. Most jurisds are pretty unequivocal that she needs to say No before he penetrates her. Until very recently, in most jurisdictions even saying No wasn't enough. Thankfully that has changed.
A lot of our law regarding rape is pretty old school . . . the feminists have a cow about it, but there's too many problems implementing a stricter rule. It all inevitably goes back to what kind of force was used/threatened and what kind of resistance was put up.
The cold hard truth is if it gets to that that point the guy is pretty much going to have charges against him dismissed, unless there was some really strong corroborative evidence (for instance, her room-mate walks in after hearing her scream No, and sees that the dude has her pinned).
powerpoint can be a good tool for having resources handy - if you have a 5 slide presentation with 20 links on those 3 pages, you can lecture from it (making your main points with the few slides), then click to the pages whenever the conversation facilitates it.
I faced many 40-page powerpoint presentations in grad school, and I remember them least. Conversation with a visual engages both the visual and auditory learners, and taking notes or using the occasional manipulative can get the kinesthetic learner involved.
I'm thinking about using Power Point this fall. I've used it for seminars, but never in the classroom. I'm afraid it will stifle discussion. What do you think? :)
So the fewer slides the better. That's what I'll do.
Based on my course evaluations, students really like real world problem discussions.
If this is the case, then your original argument (consent cannot be revoked after penetration) is false.
i use power point all the time in class room like settings.
Just ask questions to get them taking. PPT just adds a nice visual.
Old habits die hard, eh 240? Still like putting words in people's mouths I see.
It's not my original argmt, it's a rule that most cts apply. CA overruled in 2003-2004 . . . I don't know of any others that have followed
HTH.
i use power point all the time in class room like settings.
Just ask questions to get them taking. PPT just adds a nice visual.
wait, you're a teacher too?
Yeah. I need to get out of the stone age. Even though I haven't gotten any complaints in over three years, it sort of feels like I'm behind the times. I think I'll go with the "few slides" option. I don't like rigid outlines and like to be able to let the discussion go where the students lead (within certain parameters).
I'm a consultant for a company. I put on 1 to 5 day sales training/management seminars around the country.
I'm a consultant for a company. I put on 1 to 5 day sales training/management seminars around the country.
When you get in the grove of using PPT, you can put in links to pics/web sites, video etc that you can pull up anytime. I'm not sure what you teach, but if it's something that breeds discussion that's important for the class, fewer slides is better or at least be willing to navigate to different points based on where the discussion leads.
Your slides also could have questions that incite discussion and you could put relevant facts on the slides that you can pull up when needed with a click.
Liar! :D
I just sat through about 8 hours of a seminar last week over two days. If not for the food, I would have had a hard time staying awake. :)
Interesting. Lots of flying?
Was it your experiences that someone referenced regarding 9/11? I only ask because they say flight attendants/stewardesses are some of the most educated, aware, and smart people when it comes to 9/11 information, sky security, etc. Very opinionated group.
(Not trying to derail thread. As you were!)
I put on great seminars!
If any of the participants stay awake the entire time they get $20 at the end! ;D
Sorry you didn't get your $20! ;)
lol. Good incentive. I'll have you know I have fallen asleep on some very important people. :)
Mine was an in-house seminar that I technically funded (at least in part). We brought in some writing expert. SNORE! :)
Ah so. Date rape cases are often very problematic anyway. I tend to give the guy the benefit of the doubt when date rape allegations are made.
IMO, either the law says it's legal, or it doesn't.
If a video of her changing her mind and being pinned/nailed for 60 minutes would get him convincted, then it's illegal, right?
If this is the case, then your original argument (consent cannot be revoked after penetration) is false.
How about when the rape is imortalized on film? What say you then? :-\
Consent once granted can most definately be withdrawn.
Trust me guys, ...this is something you don't want to test. :o