Teen Rapists found Guilty

[dgs49]

I have to wonder why you two are reading into my post something that I never wrote.

I have not said that what they did was OK, merely that it did not constitute "rape" in the common understanding of that term. The Ohio legislature (and many other legislatures) has combined a large variety of acts under the banner of "rape" or "sexual assault" that most people simply do not consider to be "rape." If an assailant sticks a broomstick up some guy's ass, very few people would say that the victim had been "raped," although in the view of many statutes that act would be classified in exactly the same way as a back-alley forcible rape of a woman by a man.

These boys, when questioned, claimed that they did not "rape" the girl. They were not lying when they made those statements, they were assuming the common understanding of the term, not the statutory definition.

All I can say in response to your point is that if the example cited above (broomstick up a guy's ass) is consistent with your personal understanding of "rape," then maybe living in San Francisco has affected your thinking. Outside that tiny little enclave, I assure you, not many people would call that "rape."

[dgs49]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/14/n ... l-contact/

NOTE: Under this revised statute, a high school boy who slips his hand under the shorts of his date is potentially guilty of the felony of, "rape."

Brave new world.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Might we substitute the word "violated" for the word "raped"?
Either way, she was penetrated and the appropriate response is for those who did it to be "penetrated" (bullet, arrow, knife, dull spoon, whatever).

[Lord Jim]

NOTE: Under this revised statute, a high school boy who slips his hand under the shorts of his date is potentially guilty of the felony of, "rape."

Was she passed out at the time?

Look, I have some issues about the contemporary "no means no" three part criteria...(I posted about this back at the CSB)

Rule #1. "If she says 'no' it means 'no'...(okay, that one's fairly straight forward; no argument there)

Rule# 2."If she says 'yes' but somewhere along the line she says 'no' it means 'no'...(no problem "getting" that; any guy who's ever been stopped at a "base" knows that drill...)

It's "Rule #3" that I have problems with:

"If she's drunk and she says "yes" it means "no"...

As I pointed out when I discussed this before, using that criteria, in its broadest sense, nearly every single guy in my high school, ( at least the ones with a social life; including your humble corespondent) and every guy I knew in College, (and for some considerable time after that) would qualify as a "rapist"....(I most definitely had sexual relations with young women who were legally intoxicated at the time; I admit that freely)

In those days, (and I suspect I'm not the only one on this board who recalls those days, male or female) it was expected, by both parties, that alcohol, (and occasionally other controlled substances) would be a part of "the dating ritual"...to grease the wheels of camaraderie, as it were...(I don't imagine those protocols have changed much since then... )

But that is a far cry from what happened here; where a girl who was stone cold passed out was abused by a couple of thugs for their own amusement...

Even in the hedonistic, "What's a DUI? Just pour out the beer and go home" days of the late 70's, nobody I knew would ever have done what these two did...

(BTW, there's now a "rule # 4: If it's my daughter, the answer is "NO" period, not under any circumstances.... )

ETA:

Tati and I have an agreement....

She's allowed to have sex when she turns 30, or when I drop dead, which ever comes first....

[Joe Guy]

I have to wonder why you two are reading into my post something that I never wrote.

I understand what you wrote. You seem to not understand what I and others have written.

I have not said that what they did was OK, merely that it did not constitute "rape" in the common understanding of that term. The Ohio legislature (and many other legislatures) has combined a large variety of acts under the banner of "rape" or "sexual assault" that most people simply do not consider to be "rape."

You're the only one here and in my "real" life that doesn't consider anything that those kids did to that girl to be rape.

What part of stripping an unconscious girl naked and sticking your finger into her vagina doesn't sound like rape to you? If you watched the video at the beginning of this thread you would have heard reference to the girl being raped.

If an assailant sticks a broomstick up some guy's ass, very few people would say that the victim had been "raped," although in the view of many statutes that act would be classified in exactly the same way as a back-alley forcible rape of a woman by a man.

Did you ever see the movie Deliverance? I was very young when I saw that movie and it was difficult to watch the scene showing a man being raped. Of course, you probably thought it was no big deal because the victim had no vagina.

These boys, when questioned, claimed that they did not "rape" the girl. They were not lying when they made those statements, they were assuming the common understanding of the term, not the statutory definition.

Now you know what those kids were thinking? They probably said they weren't drunk either because they didn't understand the term, right?

All I can say in response to your point is that if the example cited above (broomstick up a guy's ass) is consistent with your personal understanding of "rape," then maybe living in San Francisco has affected your thinking. Outside that tiny little enclave, I assure you, not many people would call that "rape."

That's not 'all you can say'. You've made it clear in this thread many times that you have no understanding of what it means to rape someone. Your reference to how people think when 'living in San Francisco' certainly supports the fact that you don't understand a lot of things.

[Joe Guy]

[oldr_n_wsr]

ETA:

Tati and I have an agreement....

She's allowed to have sex when she turns 30, or when I drop dead, which ever comes first last....

Fixed that for you.

[Lord Jim]

You've made it clear in this thread many times that you have no understanding of what it means to rape someone.

That's really the crux of it...

Dave, the problem here is that your understanding of "what is commonly believed to be rape" is by no means that which is in fact, "commonly believed to be rape"...

It is in fact a fairly singular and unique view, which bears no meaningful relationship to the "common" view...

( And my status as a Virginian temporarily residing in TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF, really has no bearing on that...)

Despite being as jaded and corrupted as I am, I suspect that even folks in "fly over country" places like Cleveland and Indianapolis, do not share the definition of "rape" that you believe to be "common"....

I'm prepared to be proven wrong about that, but I don't expect it to happen...

[Lord Jim]

ETA:

Tati and I have an agreement....

She's allowed to have sex when she turns 30, or when I drop dead, which ever comes first last....

Fixed that for you.

[Long Run]

Wasn't the "news" story in this case the outrageous focus that the impact of the verdict will have on the perpetrators rather than sympathy for the victim or noting the less than just punishment visited on these criminals? Here is an example.

CNN's coverage of the Steubenville rape trial verdict was met with an onslaught of criticism this week after network reporters stressed the impact the decision will have on the rapists, not on the victim. According to sources who spoke exclusively with The Wrap, the criticism is taking its toll on reporter Poppy Harlow.

Steubenville High School football players Trent Mays, 17, and Ma'lik Richmond, 16, were found guilty of raping an intoxicated 16-year-old West Virginia girl in August. The case garnered national attention because of the way social media exchanges and text messages provided evidence for the case. On Sunday, the verdict was handed down during Candy Crowley's CNN show. She tossed to reporter Poppy Harlow who had been covering the trial live from Steubenville.

"These two young men who had such promising futures -- star football players, very good students -- literally watched as they believed their life fell apart," Harlow said. Crowley asked a CNN legal analyst, “What’s the lasting effect though on two young men being found guilty juvenile court of rape essentially?”

[Joe Guy]

When I heard about the sympathy being expressed for the rapists I realized that there are more people who think like dgs49 then there ought to be.

I guess we as a society have a long way to go...

[oldr_n_wsr]

"

These two young men who had such promising futures -- star football players, very good students -- literally watched as they believed their life fell apart," Harlow said. Crowley asked a CNN legal analyst, “What’s the lasting effect though on two young men being found guilty juvenile court of rape essentially?”

Every action has a reaction. There are consequences to everything we, you, I , they, do. They are lucky they are juveniles and will be out in a year or two. This young lady gets to live with what happened to her for the rest of her life. Granted she was drunk, but being drunk does not give anyone else the right to take off her clothes and do as they did with her. Then to take pictures and videos. I can only shake my head and say, "if it were my daughter, there would be blood spilled".

ETA
and those that are supporting these two scumbags need to take a good look in the mirror and find their own values as human beings.
Yes, I understand that they are young and stupid and did something they wish they hadn't. But THEY DID DO IT. and consequnces are a bitch. Would there be the same "sympathy" for them if the drank and drove and killed someone?