Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Little girls that cry rape are badFollow

#102 Aug 19 2005 at 9:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm not so much arguing that. In fact, I would have a hard time calling the "I'm going to leave you on Lookout Point unless you put out" scenario rape. My issue is with Gbaji disregarding things such as intoxication, drugging, real threat of physical harm, etc because they don't meet his definition of violent assault. Or his insulting definition of date rape as merely "*** where she changed her mind later". Add to that his insistance that "date rape laws" have dramatically changed the legal battleground when few, if any, bona fide "date rape" laws exist. He fails to make any case that the rise of the term has done anything to change existing laws, much less -- God forbid -- provide a cite that shows this.

****, even the original story doesn't show this. In the original story it says: the officer admitted that initially Sarah had said that she was crying and pushing Jamie away from her when the incident happened. We don't know if she claims that Jamie threatened to beat the sh[/i]it out of her, if he grabbed her hair, or what she claimed. From the sound of it, her claim [i]wasn't that he threatened to abandon her in the playground (which would be a pretty silly threat). She gave a story in which she was compelled, obviously against her will, to give Jamie oral ***. Any other details are anyone's guess unless someone can find a copy of her police reports. There is no evidence here that the law would support "was going to leave her" as a case for rape nor that the arrest in her situation was due to some "slippery slope" of rape law reform.

Really, Gbaji has an axe to grind and is making up definitions that no credible source would agree with, creating illusions of laws that don't exist and speaking from a position of false authority in his desire to grind that axe. Even when called on it, you can see him trying to weasel out.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#103 Aug 19 2005 at 10:18 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,863 posts
AngryUndead wrote:

He wants different deffinitions for the words. This is basically the same reasoning that lead to the creation of PC and the term Date Rape in the first place I'll wager.

This tactic is fairly weak minded.

Imagine a biiiiig circle. This big circle is Rape. This circle has many circles inside it. They are labeled:
Forced - Physically holding the victim in place
Under Duress - Psychological/situational stress
By Aquaintance
By Stranger
Violent - Physical/Physiological stress, punishment by application for non-compliance.

These are not mutually exclusive, except Stranger/Aquaintance. Well I guess afterwords you know the person, in a particular sense... but thats more there than here. Also every one of the inner circles must actually be a part of the Aquaintance or Stranger circle. I'm sure most of you in a Stats or Math Modeling class have seen the graph I'm talking about. Even a Discreat Math course. Someone could probably whip it up in a program real quick. Of course we can't use the stats from before except loosely. They didn't give us a quite complete picture... which gbaji tried to capitalize on earlier.

I think what you want to do is remove the "Under Duress" outside of the circle and into a "Bad Sexual Descision" circle... except for the parts where it intersects with Violent or Forced as those would fit your definition of "Rape".


More or less correct. However, what you have to remember is that prior to somewhere in the mid 90s, that was how it was defined already. Ambrya's earlier link included a definition called "grey rape". I'd honestly never heard that definition used before, but that's basically what I'm talking about. It's my contention that what we today call "date rape" is an almalomation of "rape by an acquiantance" and "grey rape" as described in that link.


My argument isn't that we should remove something, but that it should not have been added in the first place. The relevance to what that link calls "grey rape" is high IMO. Basically, no one used the term "date rape" until they added "grey rape" into the mix. That's why I have a problem with the term as a whole. It's a classification that exists largely *because* some bright folks wanted to add non-physical coersion into the catagory of "rape", and realized it was easier to do that by leveraging the existing concept of "rape by an acquaintance", rolling the whole thing together and calling it "date rape".


Quote:
I think that what you fail to address though is the most critical element of most rape cases. Consent. Consent must be given and if it comes down to a case where it must be implied... you're fuc[u][/u]ked.


No. I'm not failing to address that. It's my key point. You have to remember that we're talking about legal changes and legal charges for a crime. So the issue of proving consent is critical. If you can't prove a crime has been commited, can you charge someone with that crime, arrest them, set a trial date, etc? Prior to the 90s, when the whole date rape thing became a big political issue, the criteria I mentioned earlier was pretty much the rule. If you could not show evidence of physical force being used, you couldn't charge someone with a crime. In exactly the same way I can't charge you with battery if I don't have any bruises on me or any witnesses to an assault of some kind.


My whole point is that what you can claim and what you can prove are two very very different things. In a sane legal system, there must be some minimum level of proof before a charge should even be leveled. What happened during the 90s was that we lowered the bar of proof needed to bring a charge against someone. In many cases (like that of the OP) lowered it to the point where any woman could charge someone with rape, with no evidence other then her own claim, and that charge would be taken seriously. The male would be charged, booked, bail set, etc...

That's my problem. It clearly was a problem in the OP. And it very definately was a legal change that came out of the "cause" to fight against date rape. I'm still confused how anyone can deny this. They happened at the same time. Date rape, while perhaps broadly defined as any rape by someone you know, changed only in that the "grey rape" idea was added. Since that focuses on non-physical sexual coersion and labels it "rape", that requires a much more lenient allegation process in order to ever hope to bring one to trial. I honestly didn't think I was trying to express a concept that was that complicated or difficult to understand. Clearly, the laws changed over time. Clearly those changes make it easier for women to charge a man with rape. Clearly, those changes occured at the same time that "date rape" was a big politcal issue, and many changes were made. The obvious conclusion is well... obvious.

Quote:
If you're with your wife, you both get wasted, go home, and have *** you're okay if she wanted to. But if she never said "yes" or otherwise gave verbal consent... then even she, your loving wife, could have a case. ***** could: does.

This is the problem I have with current Rape law. I'd discuss it with anyone who has the time or the compunction.

If none of that is what you're thinking gbaji then I guess you're a moron.


That's part of what I'm saying. It's a whole body of changes in our legal thinking about rape. Certainly the idea that a woman must give explicit consent is part of it. I remember a college town changing their laws a number of years ago, basically requiring that every act of *** or change of sexual "level" must be accompanied by an explicit and verbal request and approval. So basically, if the man does not ask the woman "can I take off your panties", regardless of body language or anything else, he could be charged with rape.

That's the change in thinking that drive situations like the OP. IMO, that does not empower women at all. As I've said a few times now, I believe it reinforces negative stereotypes about women. The assumption for the verbal permission thing is that if a woman is to drunk or otherwise incapacitated to verbalize consent, then she can't give consent is ludicrous and biased. So I guess a drunk man is always in control, but a drunk woman is just a victim? And that's what passes for womens rights these days?


There are just so many aspects of the entire issue that disgust me that it's hard to focus on just one. They promote negative stereotypes about women. They don't help the victims of violence at all, but just add to the "numbers" so it seems like they've got more company I guess. And the create situations like the OP that should never happen under any sane legal system.


Again. Ignore the semantics and look at what has changed. Call it date rape, grey rape, or stupid rape if you want. The fact is that sometime in the last 15 years, we've changed the laws as regards charges of rape. We've done so specifically to try to target men who take advantage of women. But in the process, we've created a set of rules that can easily be taken advantage of by any women with a mind to do so and a beef against a man. What you call it doesn't matter. The fact is that this is why soemthing like the OP can and does happen all the time.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#104 Aug 19 2005 at 10:37 PM Rating: Good
To be honest, every singly arguement we have in here is sexist. The women's argument, the men's argument; what's the point? All that matters is that none of us are rapists, that none of us falsely accuse others of rape, and that we all be mindfull of the differences each gender has.

So fu[/b]cking what, Gbaji has his own opinion and definition for the grey areas of what is rape and what falls through the rape filter. If you don't like his explaination or opinion, okay, make some self-righteous post, pointing out how wrong he is and how right you are. Try to "fix" the view/opinion/concern of someone; thinking you aren't just as bad, in that you're guilty of the exact same crime: having your own explainations, opinions, morals, and incentive to post against another's.

[b]OR!
, you can accept that it's simply something you don't agree with, and move the fu[b][/b]ck on. I'm well aware that if we all did this, anything of interest when it comes to discussion would be lost, but when it comes to something like this, where so many people have varied opinions, and you literally have one gender's view on something over another's, it's logically pointless.

For those of you with the attention span of a goldfish, I'll shorten all I'm trying to say into one sentence: GFY, cry rape, go to jail, see both ends of the schtick, and then come back here and you can justifiably say you aren't sexist in voicing your opinion or view on rape.

Cheers Smiley: boozing
____________________________
~Chand/KindOfLost

#105 Aug 19 2005 at 10:41 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Quote:
So ******* what, Gbaji has his own opinion and definition for the grey areas of what is rape and what falls through the rape filter. If you don't like his explaination or opinion, okay, make some self-righteous post, pointing out how wrong he is and how right you are. Try to "fix" the view/opinion/concern of someone; thinking you aren't just as bad, in that you're guilty of the exact same crime: having your own explainations, opinions, morals, and incentive to post against another's.

OR!, you can accept that it's simply something you don't agree with, and move the **** on. I'm well aware that if we all did this, anything of interest when it comes to discussion would be lost, but when it comes to something like this, where so many people have varied opinions, and you literally have one gender's view on something over another's, it's logically pointless.

There's a difference between stating your opinion, and attempting to make a persuasive argument without the use of such fancy notions as logic or truth.





Edited, Fri Aug 19 23:39:30 2005 by trickybeck
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#106 Aug 19 2005 at 10:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji wrote:
My whole point is that what you can claim and what you can prove are two very very different things. In a sane legal system, there must be some minimum level of proof before a charge should even be leveled. What happened during the 90s was that we lowered the bar of proof needed to bring a charge against someone. In many cases (like that of the OP) lowered it to the point where any woman could charge someone with rape, with no evidence other then her own claim, and that charge would be taken seriously. The male would be charged, booked, bail set, etc...
Or so you'd have us believe if it helps your story. Seriously, can you show a change in law? Do you have a cite? A single cite to show that in 1985 the police wouldn't have investigated a rape claim in the same manner? The OP says that the major point was that the rape law was changed to include non-consentual oral ***, not that it was changed to alter how the police investigated alleged violations of the law.

Quote:
That's my problem. It clearly was a problem in the OP.
Per the OP: The police also stressed that all allegations of sexual assault and rape are taken very seriously. This investigation was dealt with expeditiously with the named suspect arrested at an early stage and a decision made to halt proceedings as soon as the new evidence came to light.

We have no argument with this: all of it is absolutely as it should be for victims of rape.


Quote:
And it very definately was a legal change that came out of the "cause" to fight against date rape. I'm still confused how anyone can deny this. They happened at the same time.
Smiley: lol Well, if that doesn't prove cause and effect, nothing does.
Quote:
Date rape, while perhaps broadly defined as any rape by someone you know, changed only in that the "grey rape" idea was added.
You've already more than adequately shown you don't have a clue what date rape is. You already admitted you'd never even heard the term grey rape and suddenly it's always been the turning point of date rape. Find me a single source that defines date rape as you do. Really, a single one. You're using your imaginary definition od date rape as the basis for your entire arguement and you prove time and again that you don't even have a single clue how anyone defines the very thing you say in changing all these laws.
Quote:
Since that focuses on non-physical sexual coersion and labels it "rape", that requires a much more lenient allegation process in order to ever hope to bring one to trial.
Again, you have yet to provide a single point of evidence that these changes occured or that they occured as a result of people using the term "date rape". In fact, almost every instance in which I've heard the term used in the past decade has been in conjunction with date rape drugs or else violent coercion.
Quote:
Clearly, the laws changed over time. Clearly those changes make it easier for women to charge a man with rape. Clearly, those changes occured at the same time that "date rape" was a big politcal issue, and many changes were made. The obvious conclusion is well... obvious.
Thanks for that, Captain Conjecture. Too bad you can't put forth even the slimmest bit of actual evidence to your guesses.

Edited, Sat Aug 20 10:48:05 2005 by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#107 Aug 19 2005 at 11:01 PM Rating: Good
The Thundercat Drinking the Smug Coffee wrote:
There's a difference between stating your opinion, and attempting to make a persuasive argument without the use of such fancy notions as logic or truth.


You just keep drinking that smug coffee of yours. Smiley: lol


Maybe I need to go back and re-read everything gbaji posted, because I honestly just see a guy basing explaination/observations and views upon his own classification of the types of 'rape' and how they should be dealt with. Is his arguement consistent and well planned? Not from what Joph and others are pointing out; however, it appears that he made a mistake in the beginning, and unfortunately the snowball just keeps going down the hill.

You've got a guy who'll write a pragraph to say hello, and a male feminist arguing about an incredibly tricky subject. It's like Bush and a bycicle, you just can't win either way.
____________________________
~Chand/KindOfLost

#108 Aug 20 2005 at 6:43 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,299 posts
While I understand why the term "date rape" came about, I don't like it. I don't think we should distiguish between types of rape. Rape is rape. Just because one girl may know her attacker and another girl is getting jumped at night on her way to her car doesn't make the end result any different.

labels, labels, I fu[/b]ucking hate labels
#109 Aug 20 2005 at 9:27 AM Rating: Good
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,463 posts
Chand the Furtive wrote:
Maybe I need to go back and re-read everything gbaji posted, because I honestly just see a guy basing explaination/observations and views upon his own classification of the types of 'rape' and how they should be dealt with. Is his arguement consistent and well planned? Not from what Joph and others are pointing out; however, it appears that he made a mistake in the beginning, and unfortunately the snowball just keeps going down the hill.

So, summary: You're cranky and irritated because Gbaji-wise, you've only just discovered fire and are upset that others are making s'mores? Got it. If you don't see the fun in a good 'ol circular argument/flame fest, you're in the wrong forum. Cry me a river.

Mistress Nadenu wrote:
While I understand why the term "date rape" came about, I don't like it. I don't think we should distiguish between types of rape. Rape is rape. Just because one girl may know her attacker and another girl is getting jumped at night on her way to her car doesn't make the end result any different.

labels, labels, I fu[/b]ucking hate labels

A culture that relies so heavily upon language can't help but use labels. I assume the term evolved more for psychological than legal reasons. There is a difference when your trust and body have been violated by someone you trusted vs. someone you never met. I disagree about the end result. Being raped by your father vs. nameless hoodlum makes Annie a much more screwy individual, who requires different care if she is to move past it. Of course neither option is "better", but you can't deny that statutory, drugged, prison, gang rape, male rape and grey rape all have their specific issues.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#110 Aug 20 2005 at 11:03 AM Rating: Good
****
5,311 posts
Weren't the terms date rape and acquaintance rape coined to raise everyone's (including the police's) awareness that most rapes are committed by people who are known to the victim. A rape committed by a boyfriend is no less rape than one committed by a stranger, though it was often treated differently by law enforcement?

That's my recollection, anyway.
____________________________
"God created man from a handful of dust, and he created woman from that man's rib. And these two together were so stupid that they weren't on the planet five minutes when they managed to get a curse put on all future generations. Nice work." Pat Condell
#111 Aug 20 2005 at 11:41 AM Rating: Good
Quote:

So, summary: You're cranky and irritated because Gbaji-wise, you've only just discovered fire and are upset that others are making s'mores? Got it. If you don't see the fun in a good 'ol circular argument/flame fest, you're in the wrong forum. Cry me a river


Would the line "Get raped" be too risky for this thread?




Smiley: crySmiley: crySmiley: crySmiley: crySmiley: cry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ( v o)
____________________________
~Chand/KindOfLost

#112 Aug 20 2005 at 12:34 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,299 posts
Yanari the Puissant wrote:
Weren't the terms date rape and acquaintance rape coined to raise everyone's (including the police's) awareness that most rapes are committed by people who are known to the victim. A rape committed by a boyfriend is no less rape than one committed by a stranger, though it was often treated differently by law enforcement?

That's my recollection, anyway.


Yeah, this is kind of what I was getting at. (My other post was made while I was on the first cup 'o joe, so I wasn't quite clear, heh)

True, I'd be much more devastated if it was my husband or a relative that did the raping. But my main point was that no matter who does the raping, the way you feel (mentally and emotionally, mostly) will always be a bit altered.
#113 Aug 20 2005 at 12:54 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,518 posts
Chand wrote:
none of us are rapists
speak for yourself, ****.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#114 Aug 20 2005 at 2:27 PM Rating: Good
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,463 posts
Mistress Nadenu wrote:
Yanari the Puissant wrote:
Weren't the terms date rape and acquaintance rape coined to raise everyone's (including the police's) awareness that most rapes are committed by people who are known to the victim. A rape committed by a boyfriend is no less rape than one committed by a stranger, though it was often treated differently by law enforcement?

That's my recollection, anyway.


Yeah, this is kind of what I was getting at. (My other post was made while I was on the first cup 'o joe, so I wasn't quite clear, heh)

True, I'd be much more devastated if it was my husband or a relative that did the raping. But my main point was that no matter who does the raping, the way you feel (mentally and emotionally, mostly) will always be a bit altered.

I either wasn't around when the term was coined or possibly busy playing with my Barbies, so I can't say for sure. Of course both victims will feel horrible and there is no difference to a victim, but health care providers, family, and law enforcement all play roles in recovery that can be aided by a distinction in the manner in which events occurred.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#115 Aug 20 2005 at 6:36 PM Rating: Good
****
5,311 posts
It was more like "wait, he's your boyfriend, and you've had *** before, so how can it be rape now?". Victims were having trouble being heard and believed that a bona fide rape occurred in the first place.

Whippersnapper.
____________________________
"God created man from a handful of dust, and he created woman from that man's rib. And these two together were so stupid that they weren't on the planet five minutes when they managed to get a curse put on all future generations. Nice work." Pat Condell
#116 Aug 22 2005 at 6:21 AM Rating: Default
*
97 posts
I hate the peaple in that story, Their son was acused of a crime for 4 friggin days and they act like victums.
#117 Aug 22 2005 at 7:15 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
I hate the peaple in that story, Their son was acused of a crime for 4 friggin days and they act like victums

You ****, how would you feel if you were accused of rape and no woman would go near you for the rest of your life EVEN though she dropped the case. And if you even remotely want to write something serious I'd suggest you use this tool herebefore you get flamed on spelling.

How can you spell people wrong...

Ok, all TRUE rapes leave marks or at least thats what my dad the Forensic Scientist told me. See, they have a UV camera that can see far far better than the human eye. If you run into a cabinet there is a bruise you just can't see it because it's under the surface level. So this UV camera can pick up a bruise the size of a needle showing there was some struggle.

Quote:
And it very definately was a legal change that came out of the "cause" to fight against date rape.


Gbaji is right. The laws did change it was only in the mid 90's that the grey rape clause was added.
If nobody checked this link
then I suggest you do it.

In Illnois a woman can charge you with rape AFTER consesual *** started if she realizes she made a bad choice and says no AFTER CONSENSUAL *** STARTED.

This may not prove gbaji's 80's-90's claim but it sure proves the laws are changing so a woman can send a man to jail just because she made a bad decision. As Gbaji said. Jophiel's claims are insanly biased ,go ahead flame me,he/she never looks at it from a male's point of few.

I'm about 6'2" 200 pounds quite a big guy but I'm more or less a nerd/geek. The only muscle I have is on my calf's and thigh's. I was falsely accused of rape at the age of 15. She said I forced her down and put all my weight on her shoulders and held her like that till I was done. She was my girlfriend at the time around 2 years, and well just between the forum and I she could kick my *** ten ways to sunday if she felt like it she was 5' 11" around the time 175 pounds of rock muscle. So, with that being said HOW could I have forced her down with 200+ pounds of force and not have even left the slightest mark, she does bruise easily you could poke her and she'd bruise, bruise or anything. Well, to any effect it went to trial and was thrown out because she had little proof just her word and trace DNA. Thank god the judge believed me probly because he saw she could beat my ***. Anyway the reason she accused me I think, I haven't talked to her since the trial, was because we had a HUGE fight and we just ended it, f.y.i. she broke up w/ me just so you know I'm not a royal ***.

So, Thus with nothing but her word against mine I was in jail for a little over a day before I got bail. Went to trial over a false claim, And lastly my whole life was **** from there until I moved.

You know the look people give you that sick digusted look and the shifty eyes. Yeah, get that thrown in your face every day and **** from the of every girl in the whole school,this school has 7-12 grades approx. 3k kids, and parents for 3 years of your life and not say that these laws are ****** the **** up. Where your Ex-G/f or even just a good friend in the case of the OP can royally **** your life just because they got ****** at you or made a bad decision so Jophiel I give you my two finger salute and say **** you.
____________________________
Kao wrote:
I thought I banned you like six times?

The asylumites wrote:
Dammit why are you still posting here?

Barack Hussien Obama wrote:
We are 5 days away from fundamentally changing the USA

I don't see such change, and honestly I don't think I want to. I like capitalism, I like it a lot.
#118 Aug 22 2005 at 7:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Illinois Senate Bill 406:
(a) It shall be a defense to any offense under Section 12-13 through 12-16 of this Code where force or threat of force is an element of the offense that the victim consented. "Consent" means a freely given agreement to the act of sexual penetration or sexual conduct in question. Lack of verbal or physical resistance or submission by the victim resulting from the use of force or threat of force by the accused shall not constitute consent. The manner of dress of the victim at the time of the offense shall not constitute consent.
(b) It shall be a defense under subsection (b) and subsection (c) of Section 12-15 and subsection (d) of Section 12-16 of this Code that the accused reasonably believed the person to be 17 years of age or over.
(c) A victim may not be deemed to have consented to an act of sexual penetration or sexual conduct if the victim initially consented to the sexual penetration or sexual conduct and later withdraws consent if the accused continues the act of sexual penetration or sexual conduct after the victim withdraws consent.


I'll actually give you this. The funny bit is that this was a bit of Republican legislation sponsored by S.Senator Dan Rutherford) and we all know how much Gbaji hates to admit the Pubbies were wrong on anything. Personally, it doesn't much bother me. It merely makes into law what most people would assume: if the female tells you to stop, the *** is no longer consentual. The law itself was placed after a California court case dragged out for a couple years only to decide the same thing. Anyway, the bill was signed into law a couple years ago (July 25, '03) and I've yet to hear it making any waves (in fact I had forgotten about it altogether after hearing people talk about it on the radio after it was introduced). While I'm all for stiffening criminal penalties for falsely claiming rape (certainly beyond just that of filing a false police report), I have a hard time saying we need to restrict the conditions under which a woman may claim to have been raped.

Even for the law in question, I'd have a hard time saying it suddenly made it easier to claim sexual assault. The option to claim threat of force has always been there and can easily justify not having bruises, tears, etc. Which is why the legal system puts the onus of proof on the accuser and not the accused.

And thanks for the salute!

Edited, Mon Aug 22 10:06:33 2005 by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#119 Aug 22 2005 at 8:24 AM Rating: Decent
**
608 posts
Quote:
You know the look people give you that sick digusted look and the shifty eyes. Yeah, get that thrown in your face every day and sh*t from the of every girl in the whole school,this school has 7-12 grades approx. 3k kids, and parents for 3 years of your life and not say that these laws are @#%^ed the **** up. Where your Ex-G/f or even just a good friend in the case of the OP can royally @#%^ your life just because they got ****** at you or made a bad decision so Jophiel I give you my two finger salute and say @#%^ you.


You know what, you're right. I think we should change some laws up so we can save some guys the trouble you went through... Who cares if a fair amount of actual rapists go free? No big deal right? At least you and some other guys wouldn't be inconvenienced.

Does it suck that stuff like what happened to you and the young man in the OP happens? Fuc[/b]king right it does! Deal with it you fuc[b]king pansy! Get a pair and realize that sh[/b]it fu[b]cking happens in life. 1 day in jail... cry me a fu[/b]cking river.

Some rules suck, some laws inconvenience innocent people (sometimes worse), but the ultimate purpose they serve almost always justifies their existence (especially in this case). Is this not common sense?

Its called the "Big Picture". If you and Gbaji could see past your own fu[b]
cking noses you just might be able to undersand that.

/rant off

Edited, Mon Aug 22 09:23:19 2005 by NaturalDisaster
____________________________
Only the mediocre are always at their best.


#120 Aug 22 2005 at 9:38 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
NaturalDisaster the Silent wrote:
Its called the "Big Picture". If you and Gbaji could see past your own fu[/b]cking cocks you just might be able to undersand that.

I think that's more approprite.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#121 Aug 22 2005 at 9:49 AM Rating: Good
**
707 posts
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
____________________________
Life is adventure...or nothing.
Entreri
Server: Seraph
COP 08/20/06 <3
75THF /75BRD - Rank:10 Windurst
~X's Knife 2/2~
#122 Aug 22 2005 at 10:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
EntreriSeraph wrote:
All the proof is in the OP. 13 year old boy was almost sent to jail because some ***** sucked him off and was left with a bad aftertaste in the morning. How is that justice? How are the "gray rape" or "date rape" (or whatever) laws fair, if it's that easy to get away with?
Almost sent to jail? The case never went to trial. Any guesses at what would have happened if the case had gone to trial are just that on either side -- guesses. And I don't even want to make a guess at how the British court system would have handled the case since I know nothing of British law in the regard aside from blindly assuming it's much like US law.

One of the OP's issues is that they claim the police should have acted more "perceptively" and delved into the teenage mind and decided this wasn't really a rape. I disgaree. That should be the task of the courts. If she came in with an accusation that fell under the legal guidelines for rape, the police should act upon it. Another of the OP's issues was how the police handled the initial arrest. I can sort of agree with that, not having been there. From their remarks it does seem to have been done a bit more harshly than it would require. Finally, they have issue with the lack of repercussions towards the accuser. That I fully agree with. The choice by the police not to pursue the matter was a poor one and that is what helps allow punitive false accusations, not the mere fact that a woman is allowed to claim rape without having been beaten to an inch of her life.

Edited, Mon Aug 22 11:20:21 2005 by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#123 Aug 22 2005 at 10:06 AM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Quote:
In Illnois a woman can charge you with rape AFTER consesual *** started if she realizes she made a bad choice and says no AFTER CONSENSUAL *** STARTED.

Only if you don't stop when she says no, dingleberry.


____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#124 Aug 22 2005 at 11:00 AM Rating: Decent
**
707 posts
Quote:
That should be the task of the courts.


What if the girl had gone with? What if there was no cold feet, and she decided to take this boy to court?

Based on what i've been reading in this thread, this boy would be in jail. Let's review.

No physical harm to the girl: that's cool, there doesn't need to be evidence of that. According to you all, women can be pressured mentally, or even threatened, to do a man's bidding. She doesn't need bruises to be raped.

DNA traces: She had her mouth around his lil' general. They can probably dig something up, as the exchange did take place.

She told him to stop:she made this up. luckily her whorish concience came to the surface. Otherwise, he'd be pinned.

They were in a remote area, away from others: Much like the 'lookout point' situation, he could have 'left her alone in the park if she didnt give him bo-bos.'

I could go on. The point is, folks, that no matter how much you want to argue that women are innocent victims in this world and men are out to get them....give your head a shake, and admit that there are two ways to look at things.

If this were left up to you, every girl and their mother would be accusing men of rape. Hey, we can get laid, get paid, and not have to see the guy in the morning, or ever again! All the benefits of being a prostitute, 50% less street corner!

____________________________
Life is adventure...or nothing.
Entreri
Server: Seraph
COP 08/20/06 <3
75THF /75BRD - Rank:10 Windurst
~X's Knife 2/2~
#125 Aug 22 2005 at 11:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
EntreriSeraph wrote:
According to you all, women can be pressured mentally, or even threatened, to do a man's bidding. She doesn't need bruises to be raped.
That's according to the law. And it's hardly a new thing that has to do with date rape. The Illinois bill added section (c) to sections (a) and (b) which were part of the 1960 law. In other words, "threat of force" has been on the books in Illinois since at least 1960, long before "date rape" was a term.
Quote:
DNA traces: She had her mouth around his lil' general. They can probably dig something up, as the exchange did take place.

She told him to stop:she made this up. luckily her whorish concience came to the surface. Otherwise, he'd be pinned.
This would be where the courts have the task of determing whether it was consentual or not. Neither proves guilt, they merely give cause to go to court. The onus is on the girl to prove it was non-consentual (at least in the US, I don't know UK law).
Quote:
They were in a remote area, away from others: Much like the 'lookout point' situation, he could have 'left her alone in the park if she didnt give him bo-bos.'
Given that the area was presumably residental, I'm just glad you're not my lawyer. Anyway, I doubt leaving someone alone anywhere constitutes a threat of force so this would be a moot point.
Quote:
If this were left up to you, every girl and their mother would be accusing men of rape.
Oh, absolutely Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Mon Aug 22 12:53:15 2005 by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#126 Aug 22 2005 at 11:58 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
"No? I thought she was saying 'Oh, Oh, OH!' "
"When she said 'Get off me' I thought she was saying 'Get me off' "

So what else would stand up in court?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 63 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (63)