4 charged in Gang Rape of 16 year old girl

[24KT]

I think most statutes take the age difference into account.  16 and 18 isn't near as bad as 16 and 38. 

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.

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.

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?!?!    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've been trying to be more productive . . . chasing jag around the fora can be so distracting. 

I'm sure there are far more interesting things you can do with your time.

[Dos Equis]

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?!?!    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. 

[24KT]

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.

I was referring to Al-Gebra's comment on the age difference.

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. 

This is not what happened. This was NOT group sex, this was a GANG RAPE of an unconscious girl.

[kh300]

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. 

its second degree rape no matter what

[kh300]

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.

excuse me. its innocent untill proven guilty in the court of law. its the media thats the other way around

[Dos Equis]

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.

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). 

[240 is Back]

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.

Actually, 4 of the 10 9/11 commissioners believe their investigation was incomplete and another one is required.

Do you believe you know more about the 911 commission than 4 of their 10 members?

[240 is Back]

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

[Dos Equis]

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

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.   

[chaos]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA the title to the thread is "4 charged in gang rape of 16 year old girl" and 240 still turns it into a fucking 9/11 thread!! HAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHA obsessed


240 is Back
Getbig V

Posts: 4821


NEW Phil Heath DVD -Save $4 www.PhilHeathDvd.com

 
     Re: 4 charged in Gang Rape of 16 year old girl
« Reply #13 on: Today at 05:11:08 PM » Quote 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: jaguarenterprises on Today at 05:05:47 PM
{giggle} He's a law enforcement officer.
If he actually SERVED time, ...I doubt he would have survived to write about it. 


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.

[Al-Gebra]

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?!?!    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.

Read my posts before you start lecturing, thou old bat.  You and your batty pals love taking things out of context and using them to build bases on the moon. 

Someone said "i hope they throw the book at them." and i said IN THE US it wouldn't even be first degree felony . . . and the only cop in the thread agreed w me.

Here's the MPC (dated, but it's what most states still hew to). KYSO (Knock Yourself Out):

Rape is a felony of the second degree unless (i) in the course thereof the actor inflicts serious bodily injury upon anyone, or (ii) the victim was not a voluntary social companion of the actor upon the occasion of the crime and had not previously permitted him sexual liberties, in which cases the offense is a felony of the first degree.

P.S. Your posts have a higher comedic value than almost anything on tv . . . so if I don't feel like going out . . .

[Al-Gebra]

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). 

theoretically, only wives can consent to unconscious sex  . . . and only if you're still living together.  Unconsciousness/drugs pretty much negate consent these days.  as they should

[gtbro1]

excuse me. its innocent untill proven guilty in the court of law. its the media thats the other way around

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.

[240 is Back]

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 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.

I think most people here will agree I do being evidence, I do bring decently defined arguments, and I deliver pics and diagrams whenever it helps the argument.  Whether or not they agree with me, is another story.  But I do bring supports.

you bring eye rolls, and immediately run from evidence.

[kh300]

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.

police have nothing to do with it. we put on the cuffs and let the court decide what to do with them

[Al-Gebra]

A perpetual buzzing from the malarial swamps of Florida

[Dos Equis]

theoretically, only wives can consent to unconscious sex  . . . 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? 

[Al-Gebra]

What happens if the woman passes out during consensual sex? 

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.  

This is the same man who believes the state of Virginia's apology for slavery will now permit the descendants of slaves to file civil lawsuits.  

 

[240 is Back]

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.  

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".

[Dos Equis]

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 sure about that?  Once a woman says stop, doesn't the guy have to stop?  

I see a potential issue with these date rape drug cases if the woman has consented to sex before she passes out.  I doubt that happened with the boys in this story, but it's a potential issue.  

[Dos Equis]

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".

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.   

[Al-Gebra]

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. 

[240 is Back]

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. 

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?

[Al-Gebra]

Drugs/Intoxication are a no-no in all jurisds, so date rape drugs aren't really a problem if the woman can prove that they were used.  Definitely get a 2d degree felony charge out of it.  And if the guy hurts her, you could bump that up to 1st degree.  long time in the big house then.