Only Six Months For Rape?

[Sho-No-Luv]

http://nypost.com/2016/06/06/stanford-swimmer-gets-jailed-only-6-months-for-raping-unconscious-coed/

 

[Sho-No-Luv]

Hmm, this dude sounds sick. He stuffed pine needles in her vag??

 

[Sho-No-Luv]

Slimeball raped her behind a dumpster. He should rot in prison. SMH...

 

[LiveFreeX]

Hmm, this dude sounds sick. He stuffed pine needles in her vag??

Where in the article does it say this?

Troll post. With Troll like.

Drunk Sex is now rape. Regretted Sex is now rape. Feminists contend ALL straight sex is now rape. Instead of teaching men not to rape, teach women not to drink.

2 drunks having sex behind a dumpster... he did not drag her there. You don't think the young woman has any responsibility in this? No of course not, women have no responsibility for their own safety today. Who the hell teaches these young women its ok to walk around drunk at night in a dark alley?

How many maidens?

 

[Serenity]

Where in the article does it say this?

Troll post. With Troll like.

Drunk Sex is now rape. Regretted Sex is now rape. Feminists contend ALL straight sex is now rape. Instead of teaching men not to rape, teach women not to drink.

2 drunks having sex behind a dumpster... he did not drag her there. You don't think the young woman has any responsibility in this? No of course not, women have no responsibility for their own safety today. Who the hell teaches these young women its ok to walk around drunk at night in a dark alley?

How many maidens?

Are you fvcking serious? That's rapist logic. It's always the one with the greatest power to prevent it who is to blame. You don't fvck a woman whether she's drunk or not without consent, that's the definition of rape. It's not a woman's fault she's getting raped, she does not deserve rape for having a few drinks. They shouldn't have to fear walking around in the dark drunk.

This is rape no matter how you twist and turn it. You have no right at all to put your d!ck in their pvssy without their explicit consent. They have absolutely no responsibility for some fvcked up man forcing them down and brutally crossing their boundaries.

 

[LiveFreeX]

Are you fvcking serious? That's rapist logic. It's always the one with the greatest power to prevent it who is to blame. You don't fvck a woman whether she's drunk or not without consent, that's the definition of rape. It's not a woman's fault she's getting raped, she does not deserve rape for having a few drinks. They shouldn't have to fear walking around in the dark drunk.

This is rape no matter how you twist and turn it. You have no right at all to put your d!ck in their pvssy without their explicit consent. They have absolutely no responsibility for some fvcked up man forcing them down and brutally crossing their boundaries.

The left will eat you first.

 

[Serenity]

Grewd,

So if a drunk couple consents to having sex, and the next day the woman regrets it, does that mean he raped her in your opinion?

If she is too drunk to know what she was doing, then yes. If she isn't too drunk and can reasonably suspected of being aware of what she's doing and capable enough of saying no if she didn't want to, then no it's not rape.

Regretting it implies she actually wanted it at the moment it happened, which is not a valid reason to claim rape. The critical issue is if she didn't want it at the time it occurred or was too intoxicated to resist or even be aware of what happened.

It seemed @LiveFreeX thought that if a woman is incapable of conscious consent you can just fvck her, but that's not how it works and for good reason.

 

[Asmodeus]

Ok, is it sexual assault or is it rape? Rape is a sexual assault, but not all sexual assaults are rape. Up until a few years ago rape was defined as forcible penetration. However, reformers changed the definition to make it more broad. Now you can forcibly kiss someone and they can possibly call it rape.
However there are still graded categories and levels of punishment for different cases...

Here are the questions that I have to ask...
Did he penetrate her? Or did he just fondle and grope her? What actually happened and what was done?
Rape in most places still requires sexual intercourse, implying penetration, without consent.

EDIT: Not a SINGLE article says she was penetrated... A couple articles say she was still clothed when he was discovered with her. SO THEREFORE, I will assume that it he may just have been groping her. IN WHICH CASE that is not rape.
If you can PROVE to me that he did more than just grope her, show me an article that says he did more then I will say that he deserves to get a charge of rape.

 

[Asmodeus]

Waiting from evidence... It sounds like he just groped her. She also never recollects anything, so there is no evidence of her saying NO, and the burden of proof lies with the accuser not the accused.

I think we need to be cautious about this... There seems to be a willingness for people to throw due process out of the window in sexual assault cases. Certianly we want to stop sexual violence... HOWEVER, we cannot have our safeguards in the criminal justice system unravel for it, and we do not want to threaten judicial independence.

 

[Skyline]

I heard about this and this is my opinion on the matter, it's one if those situations where you have to physically be there and hear the case to decide and here is why:

There are pieces that are black and white in the article. Because remember, in cases like these, Jury's do decide what happens to the offender.

The main thing that sticks out to me is that her AGE is not identified. It also states that she is not a student which means she was most likely not of the legal age to drink in the first place. I am no way condoning that kids actions of rape, if he actually did rape her, but in the eyes of the Law, Rape MUST be proven in order for it to be rape. It also mever states that she was raped but rather 'sexual assault' which itself is very broad.

Innocent until proven guilty.

She stated that:

The woman, who was not a student, told investigators she drank about four shot glasses of whisky before going to the fraternity party, and then drank vodka there. The next thing she said she remembered was waking up at a hospital in San Jose, where a deputy told her she might have been a victim of sexual assault.

She did not remember what had happened. So at that point, the case becomes more of proving(somehow, and I say somehow because how the hell is an attorney going to prove a rape occured if she did not remember anything and there were only 2 witnesses that saw the end result not knowing if she gave consent or not) if a Rape was actually committed.

The whole 'running away when they got him' was the part that landed him the 6 months sentence. They could not convict him of a longer rape/sexual assault sentence because of the victims negligence in being just too damn drunk to provide sufficient details.

"Emotional damage" did not work here as I'm assuming his attorney brought up her never legally allowed being there in the first place.

Morale of the story, if you're caught fvcking a girl, or in the process, then don't run away.

No but really, the main source of evidence, which would be her, can't remember if she gave consent or not. So technically he is being convicted for twice the legal limit of alcohol consumption and the assumed accusation of rape since he ran away from those 2 witnesses.

 

[Asmodeus]

I heard about this and this is my opinion on the matter, it's one if those situations where you have to physically be there and hear the case to decide and here is why:

There are pieces that are black and white in the article. Because remember, in cases like these, Jury's do decide what happens to the offender.

The main thing that sticks out to me is that her AGE is not identified. It also states that she is not a student which means she was most likely not of the legal age to drink in the first place. I am no way condoning that kids actions of rape, if he actually did rape her, but in the eyes of the Law, Rape MUST be proven in order for it to be rape.

Innocent until proven guilty.

She stated that:

The woman, who was not a student, told investigators she drank about four shot glasses of whisky before going to the fraternity party, and then drank vodka there. The next thing she said she remembered was waking up at a hospital in San Jose, where a deputy told her she might have been a victim of sexual assault.

She did not remember what had happened. So at that point, the case becomes more of proving(somehow, and I say somehow because how the hell is an attorney going to prove a rape occured if she did not remember anything and there were only 2 witnesses that saw the end result not knowing if she gave consent or not) if a Rape was actually committed.

The whole 'running away when they got him' was the part that landed him the 6 months sentence. They could not convict him of a longer rape sentence because of the victims negligence in being just too damn drunk to provde sufficient details.

"Emotional damage" did not work here as I'm assuming his attorney brought up her never legally allowed being there in the first place.

Morale of the story, if you're caught fvcking a girl then don't run away.

No but really, the main source of evidence, which would be her, can't remember if she gave consent or not. So technically he is being convicted for twice the legal limit of alcohol consumption and the assumed accusation of rape since he ran away from those 2 witnesses.

She was also clothed when she was discovered... I am sure they ran a rape kit test when she was in the hospital for semen and such, if that came out positive for his semen or DNA being in or near her anus or vagina then I bet this would have been different. I truly want to know the results of that rape kit test... If the media heard that there was a positive rape test, and evidence of penetration I BET THEY WOULD HAVE REPORTED IT. But no such evidence has come to light...

 

[EyeBRollin]

At the very least, he's an idiot for ending up in that situation.

 

[Skyline]

She was also clothed when she was discovered... I am sure they ran a rape kit test when she was in the hospital for semen and such, if that came out positive for his semen or DNA being in or near her anus or vagina then I bet this would have been different. I truly want to know the results of that rape kit test... If the media heard that there was a positive rape test, and evidence of penetration I BET THEY WOULD HAVE REPORTED IT. But no such evidence has come to light...

Very much true, the hospital would have done such test. 'Sexual assault' could have him groping her, we really don't know unless we were there hearing the witnesses stand trial. Rape is a huge crime against humanity and I doubt a swimmer could do it to a RANDOM, which is extremely rare most rapes are by someone you know, underrage girl at a party.

But maybe he is the 0.0001%, not sure.

Like I said, he's being sentenced for twice the legal blood alcohol limit and sexual assault. Obviously rape, via penetration, could not be proven to either ever happen and if it was, they could not prove it wasn't consensual.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Like I said, he's being sentenced for twice the legal blood alcohol limit and sexual assault. Obviously rape, via penetration, could not be proven to either ever happen and if it was, they could not prove it wasn't consensual.

There is no way to ever prove any sexual intercourse isn't consensual. It's word vs. word.

 

[Skyline]

Another thing I just realized, the article never stated that she was unconscious when the 2 guys stopped the swimmer. She was in fact conscious.

Another thing, she said she had drinken heavily beforehand and during the party and said she did not remember anything up until she woke up at the hospital.

So how did she know she was actually raped if she doesn't remember if she gave consent, or if it actually happened, or not?

 

[Asmodeus]

At the very least, he's an idiot for ending up in that situation.

Yes, finally the one and only time I agree with you EyesBRollin...

Men should understand that rape is now being applied to many cases of sexual assault, and that the burden of proof is more on the accused in most trials (sexual assault cases are the only cases which allow propensity evidence in them). Juries are supposed to be impartial jury of peers, but in cases of sexual assault where victim impact statements cause huge emotional reactions it kind of breaks down. Due process often gets thrown out of the window in these cases sometimes in the trial itself , but almost always the court of public opinion cares little about due process. You could have done NOTHING wrong and end up getting thrown in lockup for years due to a misunderstanding, not to mention that a sexual offender is likely to never get a job or have any prospects as that stays on your record.

Even if a woman consents or appears to consent if she is intoxicated just stay away because you are playing with fire.

 

[Asmodeus]

Hmm, this dude sounds sick. He stuffed pine needles in her vag??

If you say it you must prove it... I have seen nothing of the sort and I spent the last hour reading multiple articles on this case.
You cannot say something online and expect it to be taken matter-of-fact. That creates misinformation and distorts the facts. In cases like this the facts are important, to distort them is to do something highly unethical.

Thus far I assume you are being a troll with that outlandish BS.

 

[Bible_Belt]

I think the system worked. It wasn't a rape. It was an assault.

 

[Sho-No-Luv]

If you say it you must prove it... I have seen nothing of the sort and I spent the last hour reading multiple articles on this case.
You cannot say something online and expect it to be taken matter-of-fact. That creates misinformation and distorts the facts. In cases like this the facts are important, to distort them is to do something highly unethical.

Thus far I assume you are being a troll with that outlandish BS.

Assume what you want to dipsh!t, you obviously didn't read far or long enough or lack reading skills. The evidence is all there.
Not going to do your work for you, keep reading.

 

[Serenity]

Ok, let's dive one layer deeper.

What is defined as "being aware of what you are doing"? Does that mean so drunk they are asleep? Or does it mean so drunk they can still say yes but shouldn't be driving? Or something else?

If they're so drunk they're asleep they're obviously incapable of giving consent. I would say it's when they're so drunk they can't remember what happened last night, which means they would have been visibly to others seriously impaired in taking care of themselves.

I agree a person can be pretty damn drunk and still know what sex means. If you've ever been blackout drunk you know you were in a state that you were incapable of making informed decisions knowing the consequences.

I want to point out though that what harm a person does to another while being very intoxicated they should be held responsible for. What harm a person who's drunk is subjected to by another they should not be held responsible for, they can't control what the other person does.

Bottom line is that if you are in doubt that whatever girl you want to fvck knows what she's doing, then it's a bad idea to fvck her. If you can be sure she knows what she's doing despite some intoxication, then go ahead.

There's no black and white line on this matter, it's practically impossible to draw one. So the circumstances of each case has to be evaluated because it's a grey area, but the line goes at consent given in a state when one would be capable of it while drunk. There's no hard number, limit or crystal clear definition, that's impossible to make but yet there has to be one.