STEUBENVILLE, Ohio (AP) — Two Ohio high school football players who were found guilty of raping a drunken 16-year-old girl have been sentenced to at least one year in juvenile jail.
Steubenville High School students Trent Mays and Ma'Lik Richmond were found guilty Sunday of attacking the girl after an alcohol-fueled party last August. The case roiled the small city and stirred reaction from activists online.
The judge sentenced them both to at least one year in juvenile jail and said both can be held until they're 21. Mays, who's 17, was sentenced to an additional year in jail on a charge of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material, to be served after his rape sentence is completed.
Both Mays and the 16-year-old Richmond have been ordered to avoid contact with the victim until they're 21.
Not sure what's more shocking. That so many people knew about what was happening at the time and found nothing weird about it, or that they might be out in a year? Anyone know what the chances of that are? Will they definitely be out at 21? Five years still seems kind of lenient for rape.
One year? That is a slap on the wrist.
Oh well, they will never get a job bcause of this. It is all over the internet and a quick google search from their employers will find some nice stuff.
They should have been tried as adults. One year is an insult to the victim and her family.
Having seen such things in the past, they have a shot or two of getting out before the completion of sentence.
I hope if it's worth it, the victim's family sues the parents of the rapists for everything they have or pursues some other legal option against them.
Right now I'm so pissed I can barely type or think straight, so apologies if what I just put down is illogical.
Relapse wrote: They should have been tried as adults. One year is an insult to the victim and her family.
Having seen such things in the past, they have a shot or two of getting out before the completion of sentence.
I hope if it's worth it, the victim's family sues the parents of the rapists for everything they have or pursues some other legal option against them.
Right now I'm so pissed I can barely type or think straight, so apologies if what I just put down is illogical.
I certainly hope they pursue it in civil court. Mays and Richmond should be paying for this the rest of their lives.
I have to say I'm a little appalled they weren't tried as adults. I've heard of scores of kids who get prosecuted in adult court for stuff that's relatively small change in comparison to this. But maybe I shouldn't be. Privilege buys a lot.
I concur it's down right offensive they weren't tried as adults for this crime, and the sentence handed down certainly sounds like they got off easy. They still have a felony rap sheet now though and that will follow them for the rest of their lives.
Im just going to say it ... "Some girls rape easy." The fact that she was intoxicated and therefore incapable of legally offering consent just furthers that point. Ive known one or two "rapists" who really did nothing wrong other than sleep with a rather willing drunk teenage girl who changed her mind about things the next morning.
Edited to point out, so we can avoid more flaming, that this poster has since read about the case, and retracted these comments. -Mannahnin
chaos0xomega wrote: Im just going to say it ... "Some girls rape easy." The fact that she was intoxicated and therefore incapable of legally offering consent just furthers that point. Ive known one or two "rapists" who really did nothing wrong other than sleep with a rather willing drunk teenage girl who changed her mind about things the next morning.
And that is no excuse. The man should have used better judgement then. If, legally, she cannot give consent, then don't go forward.
One year is unacceptable. Although they will never get a job, one year in prison is a joke.
chaos0xomega wrote: Im just going to say it ... "Some girls rape easy." The fact that she was intoxicated and therefore incapable of legally offering consent just furthers that point. Ive known one or two "rapists" who really did nothing wrong other than sleep with a rather willing drunk teenage girl who changed her mind about things the next morning.
There's saying a girl was foolish in her behavior when she made some poor choices that had an unfortunate outcome... And then there's this...
LordofHats wrote: Not sure what's more shocking. That so many people knew about what was happening at the time and found nothing weird about it, or that they might be out in a year? Anyone know what the chances of that are? Will they definitely be out at 21? Five years still seems kind of lenient for rape.
Look at what happened with Sandusky at Penn State. There is truth to the saying that all it takes for evil to succeed is for a few good men to do nothing. Is the reason that their sentence is so low because they were tried as juveniles? I do think that a year is too lenient, especially as their records might be sealed after their sentence is served.
chaos0xomega wrote: Im just going to say it ... "Some girls rape easy." The fact that she was intoxicated and therefore incapable of legally offering consent just furthers that point. Ive known one or two "rapists" who really did nothing wrong other than sleep with a rather willing drunk teenage girl who changed her mind about things the next morning.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I concur it's down right offensive they weren't tried as adults for this crime, and the sentence handed down certainly sounds like they got off easy. They still have a felony rap sheet now though and that will follow them for the rest of their lives.
Juvinile records get sealed once they get past 18, so there probably won't be a felony rap sheet on this.
LordofHats wrote: Not sure what's more shocking. That so many people knew about what was happening at the time and found nothing weird about it, or that they might be out in a year? Anyone know what the chances of that are? Will they definitely be out at 21? Five years still seems kind of lenient for rape.
Look at what happened with Sandusky at Penn State. There is truth to the saying that all it takes for evil to succeed is for a few good men to do nothing. Is the reason that their sentence is so low because they were tried as juveniles? I do think that a year is too lenient, especially as their records might be sealed after their sentence is served.
Sandusky at Penn State was not simply a case of "a few good men doing nothing". It was a case of a systemic cover-up of a scandal.
The "reason their sentence is so low" very likely would not be because they were tried as juveniles, since sexual assaults very rarely get tried as anything except adults. Without knowing every single detail of the case I could not speculate.
chaos0xomega wrote: Im just going to say it ... "Some girls rape easy." The fact that she was intoxicated and therefore incapable of legally offering consent just furthers that point. Ive known one or two "rapists" who really did nothing wrong other than sleep with a rather willing drunk teenage girl who changed her mind about things the next morning.
That is a pretty vile perspective.
It might sound vile, but it is not unheard of for "the rape card" to be used. The Duke Lacrosse case is a very prolific example of this. Mike Nifong was scum and used the case as a stepstone for political gains. Thankfully he is now disbarred.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I concur it's down right offensive they weren't tried as adults for this crime
If they aren't adults then why try them as adults?
Certain crimes are primarily tried as adults unless the accused are really underage (or in some cases, lacking in mental faculties).
Sexual assaults are one of those crimes.
chaos0xomega wrote: Im just going to say it ... "Some girls rape easy." The fact that she was intoxicated and therefore incapable of legally offering consent just furthers that point. Ive known one or two "rapists" who really did nothing wrong other than sleep with a rather willing drunk teenage girl who changed her mind about things the next morning.
I know what you're getting at here, but when a person, such as your friends, puts themselves in an enviornment party, date, etc. with that kind of potential, they need to get themselves to hell out of there before things go that far or at least make sure they have a minder or two if they plan on getting drunk and finding themselves doing something stupid.
If the friends you talk of don't at least have the excuse of being drunk then they have my contempt as if they were talking about legtimate rape.
It sounds as if they have been sentenced to between one and five years.
They've been convicted, but not sentenced yet as far as I can tell.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote: Im just going to say it ... "Some girls rape easy." The fact that she was intoxicated and therefore incapable of legally offering consent just furthers that point. Ive known one or two "rapists" who really did nothing wrong other than sleep with a rather willing drunk teenage girl who changed her mind about things the next morning.
He said she said cases are usually not successful. Your friends probably denied contact with the girl and/or lied to investigators, meaning they screwed themselves.
Sandusky at Penn State was not simply a case of "a few good men doing nothing". It was a case of a systemic cover-up of a scandal.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to link what happened to Penn States with the saying. I should have made that clearer to avoid confusion.
It might sound vile, but it is not unheard of for "the rape card" to be used.
And its not unheard of for some men to act in a predatory manner towards woman who are clearly intoxicated past the point were they could reasonably give consent because they know of the difficulty in prosecuting the case. The question is, which is more common?
chaos0xomega wrote: Im just going to say it ... "Some girls rape easy." The fact that she was intoxicated and therefore incapable of legally offering consent just furthers that point. Ive known one or two "rapists" who really did nothing wrong other than sleep with a rather willing drunk teenage girl who changed her mind about things the next morning.
I thought your ramblings in the Falklands thread were pretty ignorant but here it's clear you are actually a grade A gakker.
chaos0xomega wrote: Im just going to say it ... "Some girls rape easy." The fact that she was intoxicated and therefore incapable of legally offering consent just furthers that point.
Not really. If she was unable to offer consent, then anyone who was not similarly impaired should be aware that taking advantage of such a state is bad.
Ive known one or two "rapists" who really did nothing wrong other than sleep with a rather willing drunk teenage girl who changed her mind about things the next morning.
And I've known people that refrained from criticizing the behavior of their friends.
chaos0xomega wrote: Im just going to say it ... "Some girls rape easy." The fact that she was intoxicated and therefore incapable of legally offering consent just furthers that point. Ive known one or two "rapists" who really did nothing wrong other than sleep with a rather willing drunk teenage girl who changed her mind about things the next morning.
I know what you're getting at here, but when a person, such as your friends, puts themselves in an enviornment party, date, etc. with that kind of potential, they need to get themselves to hell out of there before things go that far or at least make sure they have a minder or two if they plan on getting drunk and finding themselves doing something stupid.
If the friends you talk of don't at least have the excuse of being drunk then they have my contempt as if they were talking about legtimate rape.
hotsauceman1 wrote: One year? That is a slap on the wrist.
Oh well, they will never get a job bcause of this. It is all over the internet and a quick google search from their employers will find some nice stuff.
I disagree I think one year is enough that's 365 days or 8765.81 hours that's a really long time to be living in such a restrictive environment and think about your mistakes.
Cheesecat wrote: I disagree I think one year is enough that's 365 days or 8765.81 hours that's a really long time to be living in such a restrictive environment and think about your mistakes.
And how long will the victim have to deal with what was inflicted upon her and how long might that impact upon her ability to interact with others?
chaos0xomega wrote: Im just going to say it ... "Some girls rape easy." The fact that she was intoxicated and therefore incapable of legally offering consent just furthers that point. Ive known one or two "rapists" who really did nothing wrong other than sleep with a rather willing drunk teenage girl who changed her mind about things the next morning.
No, women have exactly the same right to go out to a party, enjoy it, drink too much, party too much and wake up the next morning with a headache as a man.
You're touting the same horse gak as 'she wore a short skirt so she deserves it'. No means fething no. You do not sanctions the attack, humiliation and abuse of a young woman because she had the audacity to go out and drink beer, we aren't in fething Saudi Arabia.
You comment is juvenile, misogynistic and repugnant. I hope you might one day leave the 15th century but until that time, welcome to ignore.If this upsets you, go have a beer or two with your 'rapist' buddies, just be careful they don't bugger you and remember if they do, you brought it on yourself by consuming alcohol.
Cheesecat wrote: I disagree I think one year is enough that's 365 days or 8765.81 hours that's a really long time to be living in such a restrictive environment and think about your mistakes.
And how long will the victim have to deal with what was inflicted upon her and how long might that impact upon her ability to interact with others?
I have no fething idea I'm not going to pretend that I have in depth knowledge or understanding of how rape victims cope with life, beside what does that have anything to do with this I'm talking about the criminal's punishment not about the victim and ideally I would rather see a more
Scandinavian inspired system that empathizes rehabilitation but one year imprisonment works for me too.
chaos0xomega wrote: Im just going to say it ... "Some girls rape easy." The fact that she was intoxicated and therefore incapable of legally offering consent just furthers that point. Ive known one or two "rapists" who really did nothing wrong other than sleep with a rather willing drunk teenage girl who changed her mind about things the next morning.
EDIT: Posts containing no original content, just a gif or other image, are considered spam on Dakka. If we allow folks to just communicate with them it has a bad tendency to go back and forth like that, in place of a real discussion with words. Thanks for your attention. -Mannahnin
MrDwhitey wrote: It is such a terrible shame that these young stars have had such promising careers ruined.
EDIT: Posts containing no original content, just a gif or other image, are considered spam on Dakka. If we allow folks to just communicate with them it has a bad tendency to go back and forth like that, in place of a real discussion with words. Thanks for your attention. -Mannahnin
hotsauceman1 wrote: One year? That is a slap on the wrist.
Oh well, they will never get a job bcause of this. It is all over the internet and a quick google search from their employers will find some nice stuff.
I disagree I think one year is enough that's 365 days or 8765.81 hours that's a really long time to be living in such a restrictive environment and think about your mistakes.
I 've sat in on such a case where the assailant was interrupted and didn't get beyond removing the panties of his intended victim. He was convicted and sentenced, but being a juvenile, didn't get a cut and dried sentence. He would come back to court every 90 days with an evaluation report to see if he could be released or go back for another 90 days. I was sitting in the waiting area when he came in with his psycologist, who sat down not 8 feet from me and started talking to the boy's mother, informing her that her son was headbutting people at the place where he was being held. In the courtroom, the psycologist mentioned none of this to the judge, but was giving a glowing report of the great progress made by the boy. I felt compelled to let the judge know of the conversation I heard outside, because it seemed like she was ready to set the boy loose. That put the hooks on his early release right there.
It does make me wonder if these boys are going to get the same soft sell treatment when their evaluations come up. I can tell you that a year for what they did is a pretty short time to reverse the ideas they have been 16 years or so developing.
Their career's were ruined when they commited the crime. just being accused of rape carries a heavy stigma as well. The Guilty verdict is really just icing on crapcake.
The only shame is that they ruined the victim's life, and at the same time their careers.
I used to have a lot of time for CNN, over the course of the last election's ridiculous hyping, the holo-guests, the cutting of the foreign reporting, the firing of Soledad O and now this (oh Candy... really?) I think they are a manure peddling crapfest these days, little better than Fox.
hotsauceman1 wrote: One year? That is a slap on the wrist.
Oh well, they will never get a job bcause of this. It is all over the internet and a quick google search from their employers will find some nice stuff.
I disagree I think one year is enough that's 365 days or 8765.81 hours that's a really long time to be living in such a restrictive environment and think about your mistakes.
I 've sat in on such a case where the assailant was interrupted and didn't get beyond removing the panties of his intended victim. He was convicted and sentenced, but being a juvenile, didn't get a cut and dried sentence. He would come back to court every 90 days with an evaluation report to see if he could be released or go back for another 90 days. I was sitting in the waiting area when he came in with his psycologist, who sat down not 8 feet from me and started talking to the boy's mother, informing her that her son was headbutting people at the place where he was being held. In the courtroom, the psycologist mentioned none of this to the judge, but was giving a glowing report of the great progress made by the boy. I felt compelled to let the judge know of the conversation I heard outside, because it seemed like she was ready to set the boy loose. That put the hooks on his early release right there.
It does make me wonder if these boys are going to get the same soft sell treatment when their evaluations come up. I can tell you that a year for what they did is a pretty short time to reverse the ideas they have been 16 years or so developing.
I disagree I think a whole year of feeling powerless has profound psychological impacts on people and is definitely not soft treatment.
I wouldn't conflate someone feeling a slight pang of regret over these guy's lost careers with approving of their actions. Or seeing them in any way blameless.
It may not be that person's intentions, but when your first post is sympathetic to the perpetrators for the consequences that their actions have on "these young stars", and not the victim, it doesn't read well.
You mean this whole thing that I read and replied too?
MrDwhitey wrote: It is such a terrible shame that these young stars have had such promising careers ruined.
I didn't get to post it straight away because something else in real life needed attention, and didn't feel the need to have to re-read the thread just before I post every comment in case something has changed.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: You mean this whole thing that I read and replied too?
MrDwhitey wrote: It is such a terrible shame that these young stars have had such promising careers ruined.
I didn't get to post it straight away because something else in real life needed attention, and didn't feel the need to have to re-read the thread just before I post every comment in case something has changed.
There was a gap of 45mins between the source post you missed and your first post.
If you miss something that was posted 5mins before you did, then fair enough, you could've still been writing it, but if you come back and expect nothing more to have been said after at least 45mins on a fairly fast-moving thread in the OT then it's your own fault.
Uttered by one of the guilty, which accurately reflects exactly how many rape victims feel after being violated. Bit of a change from those videos when they were laughing and joking about taking advantage of her.
Uttered by one of the guilty, which accurately reflects exactly how many rape victims feel after being violated. Bit of a change from those videos when they were laughing and joking about taking advantage of her.
Indeed, the change being they got caught.
Because if this had not come to pass, they would still be sending video of the abuse to each other and likely plotting their next crime.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:You mean this whole thing that I read and replied too?
MrDwhitey wrote: It is such a terrible shame that these young stars have had such promising careers ruined.
I didn't get to post it straight away because something else in real life needed attention, and didn't feel the need to have to re-read the thread just before I post every comment in case something has changed.
It's ok Dreadclaw, we all make mistakes, and it can be hard to admit it. Normally what people do is say "Feth, my bad " and we can all be happy. Go on, try it!
chaos0xomega wrote: Im just going to say it ... "Some girls rape easy." The fact that she was intoxicated and therefore incapable of legally offering consent just furthers that point. Ive known one or two "rapists" who really did nothing wrong other than sleep with a rather willing drunk teenage girl who changed her mind about things the next morning.
No, women have exactly the same right to go out to a party, enjoy it, drink too much, party too much and wake up the next morning with a headache as a man.
You're touting the same horse gak as 'she wore a short skirt so she deserves it'. No means fething no. You do not sanctions the attack, humiliation and abuse of a young woman because she had the audacity to go out and drink beer, we aren't in fething Saudi Arabia.
You comment is juvenile, misogynistic and repugnant. I hope you might one day leave the 15th century but until that time, welcome to ignore.If this upsets you, go have a beer or two with your 'rapist' buddies, just be careful they don't bugger you and remember if they do, you brought it on yourself by consuming alcohol.
1. Nowhere did I state that they Were my friends.
2. Nowhere did I state the word "No" was used.
In fact, in one case I witnessed one said drunk girl quite willingly make out and put her hands down said male "rapists " pants at a party before taking him by the hand and leading him upstairs. While sober the girl usually thought said guy repugnant (not that I blame her), apparently she changed her mind after a few beers. A couple weeks later she was claiming he raped her to her friends, and did a number on his reputation (he was actually a fairly nice guy) and almost had him dismissed from service until one of HER friends came forward and told the truth.
I also dated a girl who claimed she was raped by a fellow student several times over several consecutive days. As it turns out she confessed to me during our breakup that she was in fact a liar and a cheat and just wanted to sleep around without suffering any consequences.
So, kindly go gak yourself.
To be clear, I have no knowledge of this particular case and know nothing of it other than "drunk girl claims rape by high school football players)", my original post was intended to put different perspective on the discussion, just because a trial finds someone guilty of a crime doesn't mean they actually were, yet the assumption has been made that this is the case. You say I'm blaming the victim (which Im not by the way), how can you be so sure that you arent blaming the real victims?
Well in this case Chaos there's video of these knuckle draggers tossing this girl around like a rag doll, mocking her clearly passed out form, etc. So I think we can safely say these two gentlemen are not on the wrong side of an evil and manipulative woman here.
Interesting when coming to a discussion and not knowing any of the facts, someone's first response is skepticism over the verdict because 'some girls rape easy'. 'Put different perspective on the discussion', my ass, it's obvious where your default position lies on these sorts of cases.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Well in this case Chaos there's video of these knuckle draggers tossing this girl around like a rag doll, mocking her clearly passed out form, etc. So I think we can safely say these two gentlemen are not on the wrong side of an evil and manipulative woman here.
Yeahhh..... so after bothering to look the case up and educate myself about its particukars, all I can say is "open mouth, insert foot". My bad, argument retracted.... *awkward*
@Howard, get off your horse please, you dont know me or anything about me. Unless youre implying my default position is to assume that everyone else is overreacting and giving into mass hysteria, youre wrong.
chaos0xomega wrote: Im just going to say it ... "Some girls rape easy." The fact that she was intoxicated and therefore incapable of legally offering consent just furthers that point. Ive known one or two "rapists" who really did nothing wrong other than sleep with a rather willing drunk teenage girl who changed her mind about things the next morning.
No, women have exactly the same right to go out to a party, enjoy it, drink too much, party too much and wake up the next morning with a headache as a man.
You're touting the same horse gak as 'she wore a short skirt so she deserves it'. No means fething no. You do not sanctions the attack, humiliation and abuse of a young woman because she had the audacity to go out and drink beer, we aren't in fething Saudi Arabia.
You comment is juvenile, misogynistic and repugnant. I hope you might one day leave the 15th century but until that time, welcome to ignore.If this upsets you, go have a beer or two with your 'rapist' buddies, just be careful they don't bugger you and remember if they do, you brought it on yourself by consuming alcohol.
Grey Templar wrote: Well, this case has kinda been plastered all over the media. Its odd you wouldn't have heard anything about it.
Errr was it? Honestly I havent heard a thing about it, I only really pay attention to the media regarding national/international affairs, dont really care much to hear about the latest sensationalized criminal case
*sigh* glad this thread got off to a good start...
What happened is a shame, a young girl has to live with this for the rest of her life, two young men completely ruined their lives because they committed a horrible act of stupidity...
MGS, while I'm not arguing your point that a woman has just as much right to go out and get drunk as a guy and wake up with just a headache, these were kids, and these kids shouldn't have been drinking to begin with :-\. But I'm sure I'll be called a callous donkey-cave for saying that.
Alf, the point is that there is never any excuse for a sexual assault, and while it is certainly unwise to drink to excess and put yourself in a vulnerable position, the proper reaction to hearing about a sexual assault, if you don't want to look like an donkey-cave, is not to point out things the victim did wrong. At least not without some serious disclaimers.
There's a fair amount of data indicating that cultures which start teens drinking in limited quanties, in controlled family settings, don't have as many problems with teen and college-age binge drinking and alcohol abuse as we do.
Yeah, so maybe the answer would be something similar to how driving works with permits before getting a full license.
People between the age of, say, 14 and 21 could drink limited quantities while being supervised by their legal guardian. So they still couldn't purchase it and unsupervised use would still land you in trouble. And of course you couldn't drive with any detectable BAC at all.
Mannahnin wrote: Alf, the point is that there is never any excuse for a sexual assault, and while it is certainly unwise to drink to excess and put yourself in a vulnerable position, the proper reaction to hearing about a sexual assault, if you don't want to look like an donkey-cave, is not to point out things the victim did wrong. At least not without some serious disclaimers.
This is exactly how I thought my post would be interpreted. When the poor girl was asked, 'hey want to go to an end of the summer party, get your drink on." Or how ever it was presented to her, she should have said, "Nah, I think I'll pass, not too into drinking." BAM! NONE of the horrible acts that happened to her would have happened.
I'm well aware that we are pretty pretty repressed when it comes to drinking, but at the same time that law exists for some reason... but hey, I guess I'm coming off as blaming the victim...
What happened is a shame, a young girl has to live with this for the rest of her life, two young men completely ruined their lives because they committed a horrible act of stupidity...
Stupidity is getting into a car drunk, thinking you can drive yourself home, stupidity would have been climbing onto a ledge drunk and falling. Dragging an unconscious young woman around and using her body without her consent is abusive, bullying, sadistic and brutal. You do not say 'oh, that was stupid, raping that girl multiple times, then posting it about and laughing about it and then filming yourselves laughing about it, that was malevolent and marked them as arrogant little monsters who believed their 'status' in the local community empowered them to commit the act of rape upon another human being.
MGS, while I'm not arguing your point that a woman has just as much right to go out and get drunk as a guy and wake up with just a headache, these were kids, and these kids shouldn't have been drinking to begin with :-\. But I'm sure I'll be called a callous donkey-cave for saying that.
No, you're not callous for saying it, it's just pointless to say it, the fact they were drinking is a pointless issue, it neither condemns the girl for being raped nor does it alleviate or condone the assailants for raping her. I have been drunk many many times, I've managed to do it without raping anyone and I would not have deserved rape for the action of drinking. Also, kids can and will go out and drink, the vast majority of them here and in the UK, none of them should be raped for that and no rape should have been 'explained away' with 'well, she'd been drinking.
It does. In part because people don't say that teenage guys need to avoid going to parties and engaging in otherwise normal social behavior.
While our general culture and the prevalence of binge drinking could use some work, that shouldn't be a reason that teen girls need to hide at home in fear of rape if they happen to act like a normal teenager and be a little bit irresponsible and dumb. Responsibility needs to be on the guys to know that if they rape someone, they are evil scumbags, and will be treated as such.
Mannahnin wrote: Alf, the point is that there is never any excuse for a sexual assault, and while it is certainly unwise to drink to excess and put yourself in a vulnerable position, the proper reaction to hearing about a sexual assault, if you don't want to look like an donkey-cave, is not to point out things the victim did wrong. At least not without some serious disclaimers.
This is exactly how I thought my post would be interpreted. When the poor girl was asked, 'hey want to go to an end of the summer party, get your drink on." Or how ever it was presented to her, she should have said, "Nah, I think I'll pass, not too into drinking." BAM! NONE of the horrible acts that happened to her would have happened.
I'm well aware that we are pretty pretty repressed when it comes to drinking, but at the same time that law exists for some reason... but hey, I guess I'm coming off as blaming the victim...
OK, see now I'm going to be blunt, because this is not acceptable.
According to that logic, she should have just not left the house, she should have worn longer clothes so as not to draw men's eyes.
BAM! indeed...
Young women have every damned right to go out without the fear of rape, to live and experiment with alcohol without the fear of rape, do you understand that you have transferred the onus of responsibility to the girl when it is the man's duty to not rape the woman...?
You have suggested she is at fault for going drinking. I do not walk into the pub and down some pints with the thought I might be taken round the back and raped and neither should any woman, it is not their duty to live in fear of being raped, it is a man's duty not to rape a woman.
Did the girl put herself at risk. Yes. Just as anyone puts themselves at risk for all sorts of bad things to happen when they drink (or take narcotics) to excess. Does this mean that this partly excuses the conduct of the individuals found guilty, absolutely not. They had a choice. They could have chosen not to get involved in a party where people would be doing stupid things. They could have chosen to not interact with the person (when conscious or unconscious). They could have chosen , like anyone else at the party, to not drink or otherwise engage in behavior that would put their freedom, in fact their life, in jeopardy.
Bottom line is everyone involved made some very bad choices, the consequences of which they all will have to live with the rest of their lives, if it be only their conscience that continues to convict them in the years and decades to come.
That said, within this thread is basically a debate about punishment. Do the individuals deserve a 2nd chance or should they be taken out and shot because they are beyond redemption and have no chance make a positive contribution to their families and loved ones, and society at large? Do they deserve to be made permanently destitute? What about their families? Do they deserve to have all that they own taken away from them? If they have siblings, should those siblings be exposed to the consequences of their brother's actions? When do we cross the line from seeking justice to seeking revenge?
That said, within this thread is basically a debate about punishment. Do the individuals deserve a 2nd chance or should they be taken out and shot because they are beyond redemption and have no chance make a positive contribution to their families and loved ones, and society at large? Do they deserve to be made permanently destitute? What about their families? Do they deserve to have all that they own taken away from them? If they have siblings, should those siblings be exposed to the consequences of their brother's actions? When do we cross the line from seeking justice to seeking revenge?
What happened is a shame, a young girl has to live with this for the rest of her life, two young men completely ruined their lives because they committed a horrible act of stupidity...
Stupidity is getting into a car drunk, thinking you can drive yourself home, stupidity would have been climbing onto a ledge drunk and falling. Dragging an unconscious young woman around and using her body without her consent is abusive, bullying, sadistic and brutal. You do not say 'oh, that was stupid, raping that girl multiple times, then posting it about and laughing about it and then filming yourselves laughing about it, that was malevolent and marked them as arrogant little monsters who believed their 'status' in the local community empowered them to commit the act of rape upon another human being.
MGS, while I'm not arguing your point that a woman has just as much right to go out and get drunk as a guy and wake up with just a headache, these were kids, and these kids shouldn't have been drinking to begin with :-\. But I'm sure I'll be called a callous donkey-cave for saying that.
No, you're not callous for saying it, it's just pointless to say it, the fact they were drinking is a pointless issue, it neither condemns the girl for being raped nor does it alleviate or condone the assailants for raping her. I have been drunk many many times, I've managed to do it without raping anyone and I would not have deserved rape for the action of drinking. Also, kids can and will go out and drink, the vast majority of them here and in the UK, none of them should be raped for that and no rape should have been 'explained away' with 'well, she'd been drinking.
MGS has the way of it.
My Wife's sole commentary (evidently she's been following this) is that they are hyper guilty.
OK, see now I'm going to be blunt, because this is not acceptable.
According to that logic, she should have just not left the house, she should have worn longer clothes so as not to draw men's eyes.
BAM! indeed...
Young women have every damned right to go out without the fear of rape, to live and experiment with alcohol without the fear of rape, do you understand that you have transferred the onus of responsibility to the girl when it is the man's duty to not rape the woman...?
You have suggested she is at fault for going drinking. I do not walk into the pub and down some pints with the thought I might be taken round the back and raped and neither should any woman, it is not their duty to live in fear of being raped, it is a man's duty not to rape a woman.
Well, I'd still argue there's a difference between how a person dresses and what parties they go to, and drinking to the point of unconsciousness. Not to the law, or the moral cuplability of the rapists.
But lets be honest, men or women, how much more trouble do we get into after drinking way too much?
Passing out in public is pretty ill advised, regardless of gender.
The harm done to this girl was done by a huge chunk of the community. They were the actors, and deserve what they got, but let's not pretend that her victimization began and ended with their actions.
Polonius wrote: The harm done to this girl was done by a huge chunk of the community. They were the actors, and deserve what they got, but let's not pretend that her victimization began and ended with their actions.
Yeah. Go read some of the witness testimony. Some people walked in on the rape and didn't do anything. Didn't even seem to find anything odd about it.
Polonius wrote: The harm done to this girl was done by a huge chunk of the community. They were the actors, and deserve what they got, but let's not pretend that her victimization began and ended with their actions.
That sounds good but its not, because the community didn't commit the rape.
But I'm euqal opportunity. Beat hell out of them too.
Polonius wrote: The harm done to this girl was done by a huge chunk of the community. They were the actors, and deserve what they got, but let's not pretend that her victimization began and ended with their actions.
Yeah. Go read some of the witness testimony. Some people walked in on the rape and didn't do anything. Didn't even seem to find anything odd about it.
You're right. They should be punished too. Beat them with rocks on public tv as a warning to others.
chaos0xomega wrote: Im just going to say it ... "Some girls rape easy." The fact that she was intoxicated and therefore incapable of legally offering consent just furthers that point.
Let's say you go to a party, get drunk. There happens to be a gay guy, at the party, who then subsequently rapes you. Would you feel ok with the excuse "Well, you -were- drunk? I mean, jeez, c'mon, if you diddn't drink so much, that wouldn't have happened." I don't beleive the girl was even -conscious-, surely that's an indication enough to say "Nope" I think a year is just far too little for a case like this, and age is no excuse, because it's not like they diddn't understand their actions, it wasn't an accident.
1) What these guys did was reprehensible, no matter what.
2) If they had woken up sober the next day full of shame for their actions and tried to make amends, they'd need a punishment, and support to try and put their own lives back together.
3) If they had woken up sober and panicked and tried to hide what they did, they'd need punishment, education to make them realise the full enormity of their crime, and support to try and put their own lives back together.
4) As they actually woke up and bragged about it, what they need is punishment as a deterrent to others. Their own morals are clearly too loose to be able to refrain from such behaviour from the goodness of their own hearts in future, so what they need is such a serious punishment that they'll be afraid to ever do it again, and that will act as a deterrent to other similarly minded young men.
Now, away from that specific case and back towards more general issues...
A) I knew a girl who was abused as a child and then gang-raped as a teenager. It feths up people's lives. I don't know the details of the various incidents, but I saw up close and personal how upsetting it is. The girl twice begged me to rape her. Literally begged, and she used the word rape. Prior to this she had always frozen up at varying points through us becoming intimate. We never actually had sex, but it was scary to be in that position. Whatever people think about the lost potential of those guy's lives, her potential for intimacy will have at least been harmed, possibly destroyed. I hope it would not be that bad for the girl in this case but it may be.
B) I knew a guy who falsely accused of rape by a girl I had cut out of my life because I had decided long before that she was dangerous and would do that or something similar eventually. It messed things up for him pretty badly, though not as badly as it could have done. The girl claimed to be a lesbian but had slept with at least four other guys from our course. I had also witnessed the same girl attempt to repeatedly molest a straight girl, so drunk she could not stand, who had rejected her advances numerous times in the past and tried to take her home with her. Another very drunk guy and I actually protected the drunk girl and got her mother to come collect her. We were all early to mid-twenties at the time. It is not just kids this happens to, it is not just men who do it, and it can be very very drunk men who do the right thing. The straight girl had been coming on to me whilst sober, and I backed off once she was too drunk. The lesbian did the opposite.
There are two sides to the coin. Women do seduce men, then make false accusations. Sometimes the women were drunk at the time. Being drunk is no excuse for raping, but it is also no excuse for giving consent. Now, a sober, decent man will know that the woman would regret it, and not sleep with her, but a drunk, desperate or unpleasant man might take the opportunity. If a woman is drunk and says "no" or is drunk and incapable of giving an answer, or incapable or even knowing what is happening, it is rape. But if a woman gets a bit tipsy and seduces someone she wouldn't normally, it is no more rape than if a guy gets drunk and shags the fat ugly girl. It is a mistake, but it is her mistake, not the guy's.
Basically, this is an emotive issue which stirs up strong feelings on both sides of the argument. Each case is different. Getting drunk does not mean you have given up your right to safety and decent treatment from others. Drinking does excuse doing something stupid, embarrassing or silly, such as sleeping with someone you wouldn't normally, but it does not excuse doing something vile, depraved or sadistic, such as forcing yourself on someone or accusing someone else of doing that later. Sadly, there are arseholes in the world who will do bad stuff, sober or drunk. There is no excuse.
That study only covers prosecutions. I would suspect a great many false accusations of just about any crime can be found to be false rather quickly and never proceed to court. Even the majority of actual cases of rape and domestic violence never proceed to court. Actually figuring out how common(or uncommon) false accusations are has been a huge cluster feth for everyone.
How can anyone feel sorrry for these guys. They are 16-17. By that age you should bloody know whether or not it is rape. Thy chose to take advantage of a young girl and post on it. They deserve atleast 5 years in state prison.
Heck for extra, send them the Cali for punishment.
LordofHats wrote: That study only covers prosecutions. I would suspect a great many false accusations of just about any crime can be found to be false rather quickly and never proceed to court. Even the majority of actual cases of rape and domestic violence never proceed to court. Actually figuring out how common(or uncommon) false accusations are has been a huge cluster feth for everyone.
Should people care about a false accusation that is so weak it has no effect?
LordofHats wrote: That study only covers prosecutions. I would suspect a great many false accusations of just about any crime can be found to be false rather quickly and never proceed to court. Even the majority of actual cases of rape and domestic violence never proceed to court. Actually figuring out how common(or uncommon) false accusations are has been a huge cluster feth for everyone.
Should people care about a false accusation that is so weak it has no effect?
yes actually, but thats a big side topic methinks.
LordofHats wrote: That study only covers prosecutions. I would suspect a great many false accusations of just about any crime can be found to be false rather quickly and never proceed to court. Even the majority of actual cases of rape and domestic violence never proceed to court. Actually figuring out how common(or uncommon) false accusations are has been a huge cluster feth for everyone.
Should people care about a false accusation that is so weak it has no effect?
Good point but I guess that'll depend on how one gauges effect. Is false accusation only damaging if it leads to a prosecution? Just because a cop says "there's nothing to investigate here" doesn't mean that anyone will believe them. And given the seriousness of rape allegations I doubt a cop would just wave it off without some kind of investigation at which point everyone you may know has seen cops walking around asking if you're a rapist. Even if it is later found to be false, you're stuck with everyone you know remember that cops were walking around asking if you're a rapist.
I don't believe that people get so drunk they can't tell the difference between right and wrong. It might have taken away some inhibitions, but the issue is that some of these 'sport stars' appear to enjoy a very privileged position where they feel entitled to have certain things and get what they want. The reaction of some seems to suggest for example that the loss of their sporting careers deserves more mention than the victim. I've met people like these men, not rapists, but nasty in other ways because of the enormous entitlement they have because they are constantly told how wonderful they are, they think their have a right to have what they want.
They didn't rape her because they were drunk, they did it because they are part of a culture where they are told they are better than everyone else and get what they want. She was just an object to be used by them and mocked afterwards.
LordofHats wrote: That study only covers prosecutions. I would suspect a great many false accusations of just about any crime can be found to be false rather quickly and never proceed to court. Even the majority of actual cases of rape and domestic violence never proceed to court. Actually figuring out how common(or uncommon) false accusations are has been a huge cluster feth for everyone.
Should people care about a false accusation that is so weak it has no effect?
Good point but I guess that'll depend on how one gauges effect. Is false accusation only damaging if it leads to a prosecution? Just because a cop says "there's nothing to investigate here" doesn't mean that anyone will believe them. And given the seriousness of rape allegations I doubt a cop would just wave it off without some kind of investigation at which point everyone you may know has seen cops walking around asking if you're a rapist. Even if it is later found to be false, you're stuck with everyone you know remember that cops were walking around asking if you're a rapist.
Since there isn't any evidence for that being a problem I think we shall have to leave it in the realm of things that can safely be ignored.
In an act of serious journalistic negligence, Fox News this morning ran tape of the Steubenville rape trial in which one of the rapists named the victim.
Typically in sexual assault cases, the major news media’s policy is not to name a victim. This is doubly true in the Steubenville case, where the victim is also a minor. But Fox News, in what seems to be an editing mistake, ran a clip from the court room where Mays said the victim’s name:
I would truly like to apologize to [redacted], her family, my family and the community. No picture should have been sent around, let alone even taken.
Out of respect for the victim, ThinkProgress will not publish the name, or the video.
In an earlier piece on Fox’s news website, the organization did manage to censor out the names of the two rapists, Trent Mays and Ma’lik Richmond. Their names, however, have been published by news outlets because the boys’ lawyers have openly identified them in court. The victim’s has not, until this point.
Media have clearly struggled with how to represent the case, and earlier coverage from Fox actually bucked a trend of victim-blaming that was prevalent in other news outlets. Still, the negligence in failing to redact the girl’s name is a serious journalistic failure.
Fox News did not immediately return a request for comment.
I would truly like to apologize to [redacted], her family, my family and the community. No picture should have been sent around, let alone even taken.
Questionable? I certainly hope he apologized for certain other acts that may have been committed. Perhaps of a grossly detestable nature. The crime for which the case was named, perhaps?
Al jazeera has a clip of the CNN insanity. Just because you can't publish the victim's name, doesn't mean you should try and change public perception of who the victim or victims are. I'm a pragmatic guy, I'm pretty liberal when it comes to crime and punishment and I certainly don’t think these kids should receive life imprisonment or a death sentence but god damn at least discuss the victim's future and ability to move on and thrive before you start talking about the criminals that victimized her as if they’re victims of anything other than their own actions.
hotsauceman1 wrote: How can anyone feel sorrry for these guys. They are 16-17. By that age you should bloody know whether or not it is rape. Thy chose to take advantage of a young girl and post on it. They deserve atleast 5 years in state prison.
Heck for extra, send them the Cali for punishment.
Why 5 years instead of 1? What do you think the extra 4 years will do to improve the situation?
That is UK, obviously, the situation in the USA may be different.
I don't find 3/months to be that low, to be honest, even at a national level. On top of things, these are only the ones where there was enough proof of wrongdoing to enable a suit against the accusator. For those three, there might be dozens that are simply dropped.
I personnally know one girl who prefered to let accusations of incestuous rape hang over her dad's head then reveal she was having an affair with her PE teacher.
LordofHats wrote: That study only covers prosecutions. I would suspect a great many false accusations of just about any crime can be found to be false rather quickly and never proceed to court. Even the majority of actual cases of rape and domestic violence never proceed to court. Actually figuring out how common(or uncommon) false accusations are has been a huge cluster feth for everyone.
Should people care about a false accusation that is so weak it has no effect?
Speaking as a teacher, I can tell you that for teachers, there is no false accusation that has no effect. That probably extends to many walks of life.
I've never been accused of behaving in appropriately towards a pupil, but several of my colleagues have been accused of hitting and/or shoving pupils. Once, I was there when it "happened" and it was nonsense, and on others there have been several witnesses and each time it went nowhere. On each of those occasions, a kid has basically accused the teacher of something to get themself out of trouble. For each of those teachers, it was pretty harrowing. Sadly, it is a fairly effective tactic for kids to use to get themselves out of trouble, and in one of the cases, the family were still trying to use "teacher violence" as an excuse in every meeting we had about their git of a son months after the so-called event. I can only imagine how much worse a rape accusation would be. I know that I would find it awful if it ever happened to me, and I know I would never ever do such a thing.
That makes me sick to my stomach, how you can defend rapists by saying she wanted it or saying it was what most guys would do shows a complete lack of understanding what happened
LordofHats wrote: That study only covers prosecutions. I would suspect a great many false accusations of just about any crime can be found to be false rather quickly and never proceed to court. Even the majority of actual cases of rape and domestic violence never proceed to court. Actually figuring out how common(or uncommon) false accusations are has been a huge cluster feth for everyone.
Should people care about a false accusation that is so weak it has no effect?
Good point but I guess that'll depend on how one gauges effect. Is false accusation only damaging if it leads to a prosecution? Just because a cop says "there's nothing to investigate here" doesn't mean that anyone will believe them. And given the seriousness of rape allegations I doubt a cop would just wave it off without some kind of investigation at which point everyone you may know has seen cops walking around asking if you're a rapist. Even if it is later found to be false, you're stuck with everyone you know remember that cops were walking around asking if you're a rapist.
Since there isn't any evidence for that being a problem I think we shall have to leave it in the realm of things that can safely be ignored.
I don't know how it is in the States of in the UK, but usually here, the decision to prosecute is taken in common by the chief of police and the crown attorney, based on the possibility of obtaining a condemnation. By then, the damage of a false accusation to a person's reputation can already be done.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Because, It is longer and they need to learn their lesson. It will also serve as a major deterant to others thinking rape is a good idea.
1 year in the cell is a really long time that seems like a fine determent and also people learn at different paces and the time spent needs to be adjusted according to that, if you start getting excessive with the punishment you can run the risk of making the prisoner feel bitterness and
hopeless when he/she goes back into society which is not a helpful mentality to have and could increase the likelihood of reoccurring criminal behaviour, plus having 5 years removed from society during your teens could damage important developmental stages into adulthood.
LordofHats wrote: Assuming they get out in 1 year. It says a 1 year minimum and no one has said if they're likely to be out that soon. Unless I missed it.
That's a good point, as some people need more time than others to be reeducated.
The whole situation is sickening and not only shame on the boys, but society for all the STUPIDITY generated by the observers of this case from social media commentators to major news organizations.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I don't believe that people get so drunk they can't tell the difference between right and wrong. It might have taken away some inhibitions, but the issue is that some of these 'sport stars' appear to enjoy a very privileged position where they feel entitled to have certain things and get what they want. The reaction of some seems to suggest for example that the loss of their sporting careers deserves more mention than the victim. I've met people like these men, not rapists, but nasty in other ways because of the enormous entitlement they have because they are constantly told how wonderful they are, they think their have a right to have what they want.
They didn't rape her because they were drunk, they did it because they are part of a culture where they are told they are better than everyone else and get what they want. She was just an object to be used by them and mocked afterwards.
The whole case makes me sick or anytime someone gets treated the way that girl did. The crowning item to this whole deal is the fact that everyone at the party who knew about it was laughing up a storm. Worthless feths, the lot.
Hot blonde reporter : "It was an incredibly emotional, incredibly tragic moment, as these two young men learned that their lives were over, in part as a result of the crimes they committed, but mostly due to my employer's decision to spam their names all over the media. Really, these kids had such a bright future, but now that they have rightfully been convicted, and that we've burned their names into your memory forever, they will never be able to live a normal life. ''
That makes me sick to my stomach, how you can defend rapists by saying she wanted it or saying it was what most guys would do shows a complete lack of understanding what happened
Not to single you out, as this is addressed to everyone across the board who responds like this to outrageous babblings on twitter or wherever: how do people in this day and age not understand what trolls are? When someone makes such egregious statements as we see in this image, they're either children who don't know any better or raving lunatics, and in neither case should be acknowledged, or else they're just being outrageous because they think it's funny, and so shouldn't be engaged. The gibberings of trolls aren't indicative of society, nor any widespread problem therein, just fringe outliers and people being facetious.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fifty wrote: 1) What these guys did was reprehensible, no matter what.
2) If they had woken up sober the next day full of shame for their actions and tried to make amends, they'd need a punishment, and support to try and put their own lives back together.
3) If they had woken up sober and panicked and tried to hide what they did, they'd need punishment, education to make them realise the full enormity of their crime, and support to try and put their own lives back together.
4) As they actually woke up and bragged about it, what they need is punishment as a deterrent to others. Their own morals are clearly too loose to be able to refrain from such behaviour from the goodness of their own hearts in future, so what they need is such a serious punishment that they'll be afraid to ever do it again, and that will act as a deterrent to other similarly minded young men.
...
There are two sides to the coin. Women do seduce men, then make false accusations. Sometimes the women were drunk at the time. Being drunk is no excuse for raping, but it is also no excuse for giving consent. Now, a sober, decent man will know that the woman would regret it, and not sleep with her, but a drunk, desperate or unpleasant man might take the opportunity. If a woman is drunk and says "no" or is drunk and incapable of giving an answer, or incapable or even knowing what is happening, it is rape. But if a woman gets a bit tipsy and seduces someone she wouldn't normally, it is no more rape than if a guy gets drunk and shags the fat ugly girl. It is a mistake, but it is her mistake, not the guy's.
Basically, this is an emotive issue which stirs up strong feelings on both sides of the argument. Each case is different. Getting drunk does not mean you have given up your right to safety and decent treatment from others. Drinking does excuse doing something stupid, embarrassing or silly, such as sleeping with someone you wouldn't normally, but it does not excuse doing something vile, depraved or sadistic, such as forcing yourself on someone or accusing someone else of doing that later. Sadly, there are arseholes in the world who will do bad stuff, sober or drunk. There is no excuse.
Exalted.
While in general accusations of "rape," especially when alcohol is involved, need to be taken with a grain of salt, and when the events are murky and evidence lacking doubt and caution should rule over emotional impulses, but when the degenerate animals film themselves raping an unconscious girl, and proceed to go on to brag and laugh about it, then they should be put down like the rabid animals they are. Giving them a trivial prison sentence and permanently ruining their lives with the conviction and the media storm does nothing but produce a wretched, marginalized animal that's no less defective and dangerous than it was to begin with.
That makes me sick to my stomach, how you can defend rapists by saying she wanted it or saying it was what most guys would do shows a complete lack of understanding what happened
Not to single you out, as this is addressed to everyone across the board who responds like this to outrageous babblings on twitter or wherever: how do people in this day and age not understand what trolls are? When someone makes such egregious statements as we see in this image, they're either children who don't know any better or raving lunatics, and in neither case should be acknowledged, or else they're just being outrageous because they think it's funny, and so shouldn't be engaged. The gibberings of trolls aren't indicative of society, nor any widespread problem therein, just fringe outliers and people being facetious.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fifty wrote: 1) What these guys did was reprehensible, no matter what.
2) If they had woken up sober the next day full of shame for their actions and tried to make amends, they'd need a punishment, and support to try and put their own lives back together.
3) If they had woken up sober and panicked and tried to hide what they did, they'd need punishment, education to make them realise the full enormity of their crime, and support to try and put their own lives back together.
4) As they actually woke up and bragged about it, what they need is punishment as a deterrent to others. Their own morals are clearly too loose to be able to refrain from such behaviour from the goodness of their own hearts in future, so what they need is such a serious punishment that they'll be afraid to ever do it again, and that will act as a deterrent to other similarly minded young men.
...
There are two sides to the coin. Women do seduce men, then make false accusations. Sometimes the women were drunk at the time. Being drunk is no excuse for raping, but it is also no excuse for giving consent. Now, a sober, decent man will know that the woman would regret it, and not sleep with her, but a drunk, desperate or unpleasant man might take the opportunity. If a woman is drunk and says "no" or is drunk and incapable of giving an answer, or incapable or even knowing what is happening, it is rape. But if a woman gets a bit tipsy and seduces someone she wouldn't normally, it is no more rape than if a guy gets drunk and shags the fat ugly girl. It is a mistake, but it is her mistake, not the guy's.
Basically, this is an emotive issue which stirs up strong feelings on both sides of the argument. Each case is different. Getting drunk does not mean you have given up your right to safety and decent treatment from others. Drinking does excuse doing something stupid, embarrassing or silly, such as sleeping with someone you wouldn't normally, but it does not excuse doing something vile, depraved or sadistic, such as forcing yourself on someone or accusing someone else of doing that later. Sadly, there are arseholes in the world who will do bad stuff, sober or drunk. There is no excuse.
Exalted.
While in general accusations of "rape," especially when alcohol is involved, need to be taken with a grain of salt, and when the events are murky and evidence lacking doubt and caution should rule over emotional impulses, but when the degenerate animals film themselves raping an unconscious girl, and proceed to go on to brag and laugh about it, then they should be put down like the rabid animals they are. Giving them a trivial prison sentence and permanently ruining their lives with the conviction and the media storm does nothing but produce a wretched, marginalized animal that's no less defective and dangerous than it was to begin with.
Well, thankfully we've entered an age where criminals of all stripe are so stupid and hooked on facebook that they will document their own crimes for laughs later. I mean, 20 years ago this wouldn't have been a case - just he say/she says with everyone in town on the athletes sides.
They may only get one year, but this will follow them for the rest of their lives. They'll have to put sex offender on every job application they ever fill out. As a hiring manager, let me tell you how "happy" things like that make me to see on an application. They'll have to register with every state they move to. These guys are boned, and deservedly so.
kronk wrote: They'll have to put sex offender on every job application they ever fill out. As a hiring manager, let me tell you how "happy" things like that make me to see on an application.
Because it means one less application to consider?
kronk wrote: They may only get one year, but this will follow them for the rest of their lives. They'll have to put sex offender on every job application they ever fill out. As a hiring manager, let me tell you how "happy" things like that make me to see on an application. They'll have to register with every state they move to. These guys are boned, and deservedly so.
If you followed Frazzled's advice and shoot them in the head, they would be spared this suffering.
kronk wrote: They'll have to put sex offender on every job application they ever fill out. As a hiring manager, let me tell you how "happy" things like that make me to see on an application.
Because it means one less application to consider?
kronk wrote: They may only get one year, but this will follow them for the rest of their lives. They'll have to put sex offender on every job application they ever fill out. As a hiring manager, let me tell you how "happy" things like that make me to see on an application. They'll have to register with every state they move to. These guys are boned, and deservedly so.
One can hope.
To my knowledge of similar cases, though, since they were convicted as juveniles their records get sealed and they pretty much can carry on as though nothing happened as far as the law is concerned. Of course two such sterling characters will immediatly become pillars of the community and won't ever get into legal trouble again...not.
To my knowledge of similar cases, though, since they were convicted as juveniles their records get sealed and they pretty much can carry on as though nothing happened as far as the law is concerned.
Mays and Richmond will be credited for the time they had served before the trial. Their status as registered sex offenders will be determined by the court after their sentences are served, the judge said.
So they are getting basically a year off of the possibility of their sentence for time served, but they still have the chance of being in prison till 21/24 (depending on the person).
Still, Dont most employers do a google search for applicants? To make sure they dont do stupid stuff? Heck, isnt there software that does that? That searches their information?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Still, Dont most employers do a google search for applicants? To make sure they dont do stupid stuff? Heck, isnt there software that does that? That searches their information?
IDK about google, but a lot of applications I fill out ask if I give permission to see my Facebook (I don't have one though unfortunately there is a fat guy with poor hygine with my same name on Facebook). I see lot's of 'I give permission for a background check' questions too.
These two are screwed forever most likely. Their names have been plastered everywhere so there is no escaping it. Yep. They're doomed to mediocrity. Probably.
LordofHats wrote: These two are screwed forever most likely. Their names have been plastered everywhere so there is no escaping it. Yep. They're doomed to mediocrity. Probably.
While not tactfully done in the CNN report, that's the "promising life" those two idiots ruined for themselves in addition to the life of a girl they damaged (hard to say if her life is ruined since she still has life to live, but it's certainly in shambles atm)
Alfndrate wrote: While not tactfully done in the CNN report, that's the "promising life" those two idiots ruined for themselves in addition to the life of a girl they damaged (hard to say if her life is ruined since she still has life to live, but it's certainly in shambles atm)
CNN without tact? My god, it's like no one has watched CNN before
Her life probably isn't ruined (at least not in the same sense their lives are). They'll get out eventually and probably find some mediocre jobs as janitors or something. Mediocre yes, but a sense of normalcy will probably find them again. The victim might not find normalcy ever again. Not without some serious help from friends, family, and maybe a therapist or two. So she has a different kind of ruined to deal with.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Still, Dont most employers do a google search for applicants? To make sure they dont do stupid stuff? Heck, isnt there software that does that? That searches their information?
IDK about google, but a lot of applications I fill out ask if I give permission to see my Facebook (I don't have one though unfortunately there is a fat guy with poor hygine with my same name on Facebook). I see lot's of 'I give permission for a background check' questions too.
These two are screwed forever most likely. Their names have been plastered everywhere so there is no escaping it. Yep. They're doomed to mediocrity. Probably.
Employer: do you have a facebook account?
Frazzled: no but one of my dogs does.
E: can I see it?
F: depends
E:?
F: do you have cats?
E: ?
F: he hates cats.
E:?
F: they will be extinguished in the new order.
E:...
F: he told me.
E:er...
F: he is the harbinger of the coming of the Great Wienie
E: security
F: I am his herald.
E..SECURITY!
F: would you like a pamphlet?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Still, Dont most employers do a google search for applicants? To make sure they dont do stupid stuff? Heck, isnt there software that does that? That searches their information?
No. Surprisingly little would show up that wouldn't come up on their background check.
Relapse wrote: The whole case makes me sick or anytime someone gets treated the way that girl did. The crowning item to this whole deal is the fact that everyone at the party who knew about it was laughing up a storm. Worthless feths, the lot.
The lot of them should ALL be tried for conspiracy to commit a felony.
Fortunately, the DA involved has said that the case is not over and more charges may be filed against others for their parts in this disgrace. Along with the arrests recently made when local girls threatened to do bodily harm to the victim.
kronk wrote: They may only get one year, but this will follow them for the rest of their lives. They'll have to put sex offender on every job application they ever fill out. As a hiring manager, let me tell you how "happy" things like that make me to see on an application. They'll have to register with every state they move to. These guys are boned, and deservedly so.
If you followed Frazzled's advice and shoot them in the head, they would be spared this suffering.
We may not agree on much, Frazz, but on this one I'm right there with you.
If you act like an animal and attack a human being, we put you down like an animal that attacked a human being. Simple as that.
A lot of the witness' refused to testify until they were given immunity. That said, I'm not sure their utter stupidity qualifies as criminal. A moral failing yes, but under the law I'm unsure anything can be done.
LordofHats wrote: A lot of the witness' refused to testify until they were given immunity. That said, I'm not sure their utter stupidity qualifies as criminal. A moral failing yes, but under the law I'm unsure anything can be done.
Accessory to Rape? If they got the photo or video, or spread the same around they could be hit with the second charge one of the two rapists got as well potentially....
kronk wrote:Do they still have to register as Sex Offenders?
I believe so, yes. I seem to recall reading about a strange case where a 16 year old kid was arrested and charged with the statutory rape of his 15 year old girlfriend, and was placed on a sex offender registry. I don't remember how it turned out or what state it was in, though.
LordofHats wrote: A lot of the witness' refused to testify until they were given immunity. That said, I'm not sure their utter stupidity qualifies as criminal. A moral failing yes, but under the law I'm unsure anything can be done.
Is it a moral failure to refuse to place yourself in jeopardy?
LordofHats wrote: A lot of the witness' refused to testify until they were given immunity. That said, I'm not sure their utter stupidity qualifies as criminal. A moral failing yes, but under the law I'm unsure anything can be done.
Accessory to Rape? If they got the photo or video, or spread the same around they could be hit with the second charge one of the two rapists got as well potentially....
I think to be an accessory you actually have to help. They didn't really help they just didn't stop it. Maybe someone else knows more but I'm not sure that's a crime.
LordofHats wrote: A lot of the witness' refused to testify until they were given immunity. That said, I'm not sure their utter stupidity qualifies as criminal. A moral failing yes, but under the law I'm unsure anything can be done.
Is it a moral failure to refuse to place yourself in jeopardy?
I mean a moral failure that they either ignored the rape when they saw it, or were too stupid to realize what was happening.
LordofHats wrote: A lot of the witness' refused to testify until they were given immunity. That said, I'm not sure their utter stupidity qualifies as criminal. A moral failing yes, but under the law I'm unsure anything can be done.
Accessory to Rape? If they got the photo or video, or spread the same around they could be hit with the second charge one of the two rapists got as well potentially....
I think to be an accessory you actually have to help. They didn't really help they just didn't stop it. Maybe someone else knows more but I'm not sure that's a crime.
.
I seem to recall people being charged as an accessory to murder for knowing about it and not reporting it at the very least.
kronk wrote:Do they still have to register as Sex Offenders?
I believe so, yes. I seem to recall reading about a strange case where a 16 year old kid was arrested and charged with the statutory rape of his 15 year old girlfriend, and was placed on a sex offender registry. I don't remember how it turned out or what state it was in, though.
It hasn't been decided if they're going to have to register as sex offenders, but signs are pointing to yes.
I think to be an accessory you actually have to help. They didn't really help they just didn't stop it. Maybe someone else knows more but I'm not sure that's a crime.
It would be fairly easy to argue that the myriad party-goers aided and abetted the actual crime, and were therefore accessories.
I mean a moral failure that they either ignored the rape when they saw it, or were too stupid to realize what was happening.
I know, but what was any individual going to do in order to stop it from happening? Fight the two rapists, who are supposedly football standouts? If anything the choice to intercede would be supererogative.
There have been other criminal and more successful civil cases in this area. its a very very grey area that you really need an expert in this type of criminal/civil situaiton to know about. But since I stayed at a Holiday Inn I'd preface unless they aid and abet the crime there's nothing on them. They have no duty to help or report (unless there is a statute of some sort). WHoever gave her the booze is screwed though.
LordofHats wrote: A lot of the witness' refused to testify until they were given immunity. That said, I'm not sure their utter stupidity qualifies as criminal. A moral failing yes, but under the law I'm unsure anything can be done.
If the two convicted took pictures, put them on Twitter and then others re-Tweeted them than that could open the door for prosecution (especially if she was under age at the time)
Some of the comments posted on Twitter could also lead to charges or witness intimidation, harassment or impeding a police investigation.
If the two convicted took pictures, put them on Twitter and then others re-Tweeted them than that could open the door for prosecution (especially if she was under age at the time)
What if they appended "This is evidence of a horrible crime."?
Hypothetically its still child pornography, the reproduction of which still places the reproducer (re-Tweeter) at risk.
Hell, one could argue that an original image taken of the act, even for the sake of evidence, is CP.
I know, but what was any individual going to do in order to stop it from happening? Fight the two rapists, who are supposedly football standouts? If anything the choice to intercede would be supererogative.
Well, in group I don't think it should be too hard to take on two men in the middle of getting it on. ''Hey, those fethers x and y are raping a girl in the backyard, let's feth them up'' should be a good rallying cry.
Failing to get a posse together, I'd go with really sharp and pointy object applied gently to the lower back. Hoping that would sober them really fast.
dogma wrote: What if they appended "This is evidence of a horrible crime."?
Hypothetically its still child pornography, the reproduction of which still places the reproducer (re-Tweeter) at risk.
Hell, one could argue that an original image taken of the act, even for the sake of evidence, is CP.
Then in that case context might matter, if the victim was not a child when the offence took place. Also who in their right mind thinks that it is better to re-Tweet that instead of going to the police with it?
I don't know what the age of consent is in Ohio but yes, if she was underage when that video was taken then anyone who re-Tweeted it is at risk of prosecution for both possession, and distribution of child pornography.
I know, but what was any individual going to do in order to stop it from happening? Fight the two rapists, who are supposedly football standouts? If anything the choice to intercede would be supererogative.
Well, in group I don't think it should be too hard to take on two men in the middle of getting it on. ''Hey, those fethers x and y are raping a girl in the backyard, let's feth them up'' should be a good rallying cry.
Failing to get a posse together, I'd go with really sharp and pointy object applied gently to the lower back. Hoping that would sober them really fast.
Even making a scene would have been preferable and might have stopped the events before they escalated.
I know, but what was any individual going to do in order to stop it from happening? Fight the two rapists, who are supposedly football standouts? If anything the choice to intercede would be supererogative.
Well, in group I don't think it should be too hard to take on two men in the middle of getting it on. ''Hey, those fethers x and y are raping a girl in the backyard, let's feth them up'' should be a good rallying cry.
Failing to get a posse together, I'd go with really sharp and pointy object applied gently to the lower back. Hoping that would sober them really fast.
Not hard to call 911. Hitting them with a brick would be more fun though.
Well, in group I don't think it should be too hard to take on two men in the middle of getting it on. ''Hey, those fethers x and y are raping a girl in the backyard, let's feth them up'' should be a good rallying cry.
But there is no way it was going to be as a group, and the admonishment of the victim shows that.
Failing to get a posse together, I'd go with really sharp and pointy object applied gently to the lower back. Hoping that would sober them really fast.
While that is an admirable sentiment it still places you at risk of prosecution, and "attempted murder" tends to see you tried as an adult.
I don't know what the age of consent is in Ohio but yes, if she was underage when that video was taken then anyone who re-Tweeted it is at risk of prosecution for both possession, and distribution of child pornography.
Prosecution regarding CP does not rely upon the age of consent in a given state.
dogma wrote: But there is no way it was going to be as a group, and the admonishment of the victim shows that.
I guess. Which is really fethed up. You'd think at least one of the partygoers wouldn't be completely out of their mind. Maybe just one person saying that this is a rape could've made obvious to the onlookers that this was what was happening?
While that is an admirable sentiment it still places you at risk of prosecution, and "attempted murder" tends to see you tried as an adult.
Well, any act of violence outside organized sports puts us at risk of prosecution nowadays, even in the best of circumstances. I guess I would just have to hope for a decent lawyer & judge, with a sympathetic jury. I've always told myself that, if put in such a situation, I'd hope such concern would not stop me.
If the two convicted took pictures, put them on Twitter and then others re-Tweeted them than that could open the door for prosecution (especially if she was under age at the time)
What if they appended "This is evidence of a horrible crime."?
Hypothetically its still child pornography, the reproduction of which still places the reproducer (re-Tweeter) at risk.
Hell, one could argue that an original image taken of the act, even for the sake of evidence, is CP.
Sexting between consenting juniors has been judged child pornography, but if you took the photo for the purpose of evidence it would not be judged child pornography. Otherwise the police who investigate child porn are screwed. You would need actually to present the evidence to the police rather than keep it for private use.
I know, but what was any individual going to do in order to stop it from happening? Fight the two rapists, who are supposedly football standouts? If anything the choice to intercede would be supererogative.
Well, in group I don't think it should be too hard to take on two men in the middle of getting it on. ''Hey, those fethers x and y are raping a girl in the backyard, let's feth them up'' should be a good rallying cry.
Failing to get a posse together, I'd go with really sharp and pointy object applied gently to the lower back. Hoping that would sober them really fast.
There is no way I could stand by while that was going on and do nothing. Even if I got the living crap beaten out of me I wouldn't be spending the rest of my life thinking I could have done something that might have prevented what happened to that girl.
There is no way I could stand by while that was going on and do nothing. Even if I got the living crap beaten out of me I wouldn't be spending the rest of my life thinking I could have done something that might have prevented what happened to that girl.
I think that's a healthy thing to tell yourself. I don't know if I'd be able to act on it. Self-preservation is a strong drive, but it's easy to set aside when we imagine how we would act. The other big element is if we would've easily discerned it was a rape. Depending on where you were went it began, you might have heard ''Hey, a threesome is happening in the backyard!'' If you don't go upclose, you might not see that the chick was passed out. She might have even seemed willing, but so far out that she couldn't give consent, and it would still be rape. The fact that everyone else is viewing it positively might influence you enough that you wouldn't even conceive that this was a rape.
I mean, there's a lot to know about to figure how you'd really react. But I think the intent to do so when you imagine the scene is the probably the best one possible.
There is no way I could stand by while that was going on and do nothing. Even if I got the living crap beaten out of me I wouldn't be spending the rest of my life thinking I could have done something that might have prevented what happened to that girl.
It's easy to claim what you would have done after the fact when you won't be tested.
To my knowledge of similar cases, though, since they were convicted as juveniles their records get sealed and they pretty much can carry on as though nothing happened as far as the law is concerned.
Hadn't thought of that, Relapse.
Do they still have to register as Sex Offenders?
In the cases I know of the juveniles didn't have to register. Just to show how screwy things can get in these cases, my cousin works with troubled youth and told me of a case he was in on where he was arguing with every one in the court a 14 year old had to be put away. Apparently everyone else wanted to let this kid go until pictures of the year and a half old neighbor boy he raped bloody were produced.
There is no way I could stand by while that was going on and do nothing. Even if I got the living crap beaten out of me I wouldn't be spending the rest of my life thinking I could have done something that might have prevented what happened to that girl.
It's easy to claim what you would have done after the fact when you won't be tested.
I've been in more than a few situations where I could have been killed or seriously hurt helping people and never held back, so yes, I have been tested and know how I react in these instances.
There is no way I could stand by while that was going on and do nothing. Even if I got the living crap beaten out of me I wouldn't be spending the rest of my life thinking I could have done something that might have prevented what happened to that girl.
I think that's a healthy thing to tell yourself. I don't know if I'd be able to act on it. Self-preservation is a strong drive, but it's easy to set aside when we imagine how we would act. The other big element is if we would've easily discerned it was a rape. Depending on where you were went it began, you might have heard ''Hey, a threesome is happening in the backyard!'' If you don't go upclose, you might not see that the chick was passed out. She might have even seemed willing, but so far out that she couldn't give consent, and it would still be rape. The fact that everyone else is viewing it positively might influence you enough that you wouldn't even conceive that this was a rape.
I mean, there's a lot to know about to figure how you'd really react. But I think the intent to do so when you imagine the scene is the probably the best one possible.
You might surprise yourself if you ever get in a situation like that. The adrenaline kicks in and people can do things that they think about with total amazent after the crisis.
There is no way I could stand by while that was going on and do nothing. Even if I got the living crap beaten out of me I wouldn't be spending the rest of my life thinking I could have done something that might have prevented what happened to that girl.
I think that's a healthy thing to tell yourself. I don't know if I'd be able to act on it. Self-preservation is a strong drive, but it's easy to set aside when we imagine how we would act. The other big element is if we would've easily discerned it was a rape. Depending on where you were went it began, you might have heard ''Hey, a threesome is happening in the backyard!'' If you don't go upclose, you might not see that the chick was passed out. She might have even seemed willing, but so far out that she couldn't give consent, and it would still be rape. The fact that everyone else is viewing it positively might influence you enough that you wouldn't even conceive that this was a rape.
I mean, there's a lot to know about to figure how you'd really react. But I think the intent to do so when you imagine the scene is the probably the best one possible.
There is no way I could stand by while that was going on and do nothing. Even if I got the living crap beaten out of me I wouldn't be spending the rest of my life thinking I could have done something that might have prevented what happened to that girl.
I think that's a healthy thing to tell yourself. I don't know if I'd be able to act on it. Self-preservation is a strong drive, but it's easy to set aside when we imagine how we would act. The other big element is if we would've easily discerned it was a rape. Depending on where you were went it began, you might have heard ''Hey, a threesome is happening in the backyard!'' If you don't go upclose, you might not see that the chick was passed out. She might have even seemed willing, but so far out that she couldn't give consent, and it would still be rape. The fact that everyone else is viewing it positively might influence you enough that you wouldn't even conceive that this was a rape.
I mean, there's a lot to know about to figure how you'd really react. But I think the intent to do so when you imagine the scene is the probably the best one possible.
Some of us HAVE acted, actually.
It'd be fun to be on your side in a situation. Seeing the Weiner wrath unleashed is a sight, I have been told, to make gods tremble.
I hate rapists. But rapes usually happen in public and people do choose to do nothing. There are very few people that actually act and come to the rescue of someone because they are afraid.
Asherian Command wrote: I hate rapists. But rapes usually happen in public and people do choose to do nothing. There are very few people that actually act and come to the rescue of someone because they are afraid.
I honestly don't think I know anyone who would just stand there and let something like that happen, and I think the better part of people here on Dakka wouldn't just stand there either.
Asherian Command wrote: I hate rapists. But rapes usually happen in public and people do choose to do nothing. There are very few people that actually act and come to the rescue of someone because they are afraid.
I honestly don't think I know anyone who would just stand there and let something like that happen, and I think the better part of people here on Dakka wouldn't just stand there either.
dogma wrote: Prosecution regarding CP does not rely upon the age of consent in a given state.
Ah, I see. I thought that the victim would have to be of consenting age for sex for it not to be CP. What age is it based off then?
I was unclear. Age on consent is relevant to determining whether or not a person is a child, but the age of consent varies from state to state. As such, what would be child pornography in one state is not necessarily child pornography in another.
Speaking only to this case, the girl in question was 16 and therefore of consenting age in Ohio, but it could be argued that anyone viewing the hypothetical images in Arizona (where the age of consent is 18) was guilty of receiving child pornography under the laws of that state, and the federal government. Of course, you probably wouldn't be prosecuted if it was clearly not your intention to receive or disseminate CP, but the risk remains.
There is no way I could stand by while that was going on and do nothing. Even if I got the living crap beaten out of me I wouldn't be spending the rest of my life thinking I could have done something that might have prevented what happened to that girl.
I think that's a healthy thing to tell yourself. I don't know if I'd be able to act on it. Self-preservation is a strong drive, but it's easy to set aside when we imagine how we would act. The other big element is if we would've easily discerned it was a rape. Depending on where you were went it began, you might have heard ''Hey, a threesome is happening in the backyard!'' If you don't go upclose, you might not see that the chick was passed out. She might have even seemed willing, but so far out that she couldn't give consent, and it would still be rape. The fact that everyone else is viewing it positively might influence you enough that you wouldn't even conceive that this was a rape.
I mean, there's a lot to know about to figure how you'd really react. But I think the intent to do so when you imagine the scene is the probably the best one possible.
Some of us HAVE acted, actually.
It'd be fun to be on your side in a situation. Seeing the Weiner wrath unleashed is a sight, I have been told, to make gods tremble.
Indeed. Rodney alone is a tiny EXTREMELY LOUD killing machine. Tbone, well, you kind of have to point him in the right direction. If he starts barking at a wall, he's either confused or is seeing things again. You have to watch, sometimes he ends up in a corner and is too stubborn to turn around.
dogma wrote: I was unclear. Age on consent is relevant to determining whether or not a person is a child, but the age of consent varies from state to state. As such, what would be child pornography in one state is not necessarily child pornography in another.
Speaking only to this case, the girl in question was 16 and therefore of consenting age in Ohio, but it could be argued that anyone viewing the hypothetical images in Arizona (where the age of consent is 18) was guilty of receiving child pornography under the laws of that state, and the federal government. Of course, you probably wouldn't be prosecuted if it was clearly not your intention to receive or disseminate CP, but the risk remains.
Thank you, I wasn't sure what the law was in Ohio and I know it varies a lot from State to State (I was told that the age of consent is 14 in Alabama).
Another thought that's just occurred to me but I wonder if the party goers phones were confiscated later to check photos and video. That way if the rapists had help (like someone outside the room to dissuade any curious person) then they too could be prosecuted.
dogma wrote: Prosecution regarding CP does not rely upon the age of consent in a given state.
Ah, I see. I thought that the victim would have to be of consenting age for sex for it not to be CP. What age is it based off then?
I was unclear. Age on consent is relevant to determining whether or not a person is a child, but the age of consent varies from state to state. As such, what would be child pornography in one state is not necessarily child pornography in another.
Speaking only to this case, the girl in question was 16 and therefore of consenting age in Ohio, but it could be argued that anyone viewing the hypothetical images in Arizona (where the age of consent is 18) was guilty of receiving child pornography under the laws of that state, and the federal government. Of course, you probably wouldn't be prosecuted if it was clearly not your intention to receive or disseminate CP, but the risk remains.
Strange, I've always been told age of consent in my backwards state was 16 with approval of the parents. Which seemed odd... Also you can have sex with a person that is 13 years old or younger, as long as you're married to them in my state... >_> wtf
dogma wrote: I know, but what was any individual going to do in order to stop it from happening? Fight the two rapists, who are supposedly football standouts? If anything the choice to intercede would be supererogative.
I would have, even at the cost of my life. (Yes, I am serious. I am THAT commited to hating rape.) At the very least it would have raised a big enough stink to get the cops called.
But even if you don't want to risk fighting... how hard would it have been for ANY ONE of those witnesses to step outside and call the police themselves?
Two high school football players are accused of sexual assault. Their fellow students take to social media to defend the pair, taunting and blaming the victims. An athletic director brushes aside the allegations—along with separate hazing, felony robbery and assault charges against the school's athletes—as "not any different than any other community." Administrators are reluctant to immediately address the accusations and make it appear like a cover-up. The online hacktivist group Anonymous pledges to expose the truth and publicly shame those who engage in cyberbullying and victim-blaming.
Except this isn't Steubenville, Ohio—it's Torrington, Conn., where two 18-year-olds, Edgar Gonzalez and Joan Toribio, stand accused of second-degree sexual assault of two 13-year-old girls. The investigation has led to the arrest of a 17-year-old male for an alleged assault on one of the 13-year-old girls last fall, police say, and more arrests could be forthcoming.
Gonzalez and Toribio, who live in the same Torrington apartment complex, were arrested last month on the sexual assault charges stemming from separate incidents that occurred around the same time period in February, a Torrington police official said on Wednesday. Both pleaded not guilty.
The investigation is ongoing, Torrington police say, and more arrests could be forthcoming.
"It's very involved," Torrington Police Lt. Mike Emanuel told reporters on Wednesday. "It's very difficult to follow, even for us."
Joan Toribio and Edgar Gonzalez (Torrington Police)
The victims and their alleged attackers knew one another, Emanuel said. "The reason that this is a sexual assault is that there is more than a three-year age difference. That's what we have to keep in mind."
When asked if the sexual contact was consensual, Emanuel said, "Statutorily it is not consensual."
Gonzalez, who had already been facing felony robbery charges related to a March 2012 incident, is being held at a New Haven correction center. Toribio, who was charged with two counts of second-degree sexual assault, was released on $100,000 bond and is being electronically monitored.
Sealed by a Litchfield court, the case had been kept under wraps by school officials until this week, when the Register Citizen reported that "dozens of athletes and Torrington High School students, male and female," taunted the victims on Twitter:
Students flocked to social media in the days surrounding the arrests of Gonzalez and Toribio, with several students offering support for the two football players and others blaming the victims for causing the incident. References included calling a 13-year-old who hangs around with 18-year-olds a “whore,” and claiming the victims “destroyed” the lives of the players.
"Even if it was all his fault," Mary J. Ramirez, whose Twitter handle is @LoryyRamirez, wrote, "what was a 13 year old girl doing hanging around 18 year old guys[?]"
“I wanna know why there’s no punishment for young hoes,” Twitter user @asmedick wrote, according to the paper.
Torrington school officials said on Wednesday that they would investigate the apparent cyberbullying.
"We’re doing everything we can to provide the safety [the alleged victims] need in schools,” Kenneth Traub, Torrington's Board of Education chairman, said on Wednesday.
Toribio and Gonzalez on the field last fall (Torrington High School/Facebook)
As was the case in Steubenville, Anonymous has gotten involved, launching "Operation Raider," a reference to the nickname of the Torrington High School football team.
“#OpRaider is the new #OpRollRedRoll," the group tweeted late Wednesday. "Torrington better take note of #Steubenville because they’re about to go on blast. #endrapeculture"
High school football takes on elevated importance in Torrington, a small town in northwest Connecticut. "Like Steubenville," Doug Barry wrote on Jezebel.com, the case in Connecticut "hinges in large part on the seemingly disproportionate influence a school’s football program has on the surrounding community."
Despite the felony robbery charges, Gonzalez was allowed to play football last fall.
“I reeled the kid in after that, and he walked the line," Dan Dunaj, Torrington's former head football coach, told the Register Citizen. "As a coach I was doing something right.”
Dunaj resigned in December amid an ongoing investigation into a hazing incident involving four football players last fall.
"If you think there's some wild band of athletes that are wandering around, then I think you're mistaken," Torrington High School Athletic Director Mike McKenna told the Register Citizen. "If you look at crime statistics, these things happen everywhere and we're not any different than any other community."
In an editorial published on Thursday, the Register Citizen blasted "the posture of denial and defensiveness" Torrington school officials have taken in response to the case:
The first step in recovering from this is admitting you have a problem. And after reading the social media accounts of average, "good" students at Torrington High School, it's clear that Torrington students need an urgent education about blaming the victim, bullying and harassment, what "consent" means, why statutory rape is rape, period, and where football should stand in relation to their education and the rest of life. Let's hope that starts today.
I've been thinking for a while: what if we stopped sentencing people to X months/years in prison and used days instead? 1826-1827 days (depending on leap years) sounds a bit longer than 5 years IMO.
Also, what's up with so many high school athletes being smug pricks anyway? Too much testosterone or just the "athlete culture" (note: from my experience, most high school athletes in Sweden are just as dumb and stuck-up as those in the US appear to be)?
Also, what's up with so many high school athletes being smug pricks anyway? Too much testosterone or just the "athlete culture" (note: from my experience, most high school athletes in Sweden are just as dumb and stuck-up as those in the US appear to be)?
I guess it's got to be the latter fueling the former, along with the usual "invincible" feeling we all had when we were teens. Sad thing.
But yep. The media frenzy has spread. Wonder how many other cases like this are floating around right now.
I was talking to my cousin, who just retired from working 30 years in social services, about this case the other night. He started relating some of the things he had to deal with and there is way worse than I imagined floating out there. I asked him jow he could stand that kind of thing, and he let me know of the toll it has taken on him physically and the fact that he has to take post traumatic stress therapy. Along the way, he's salvaged countless troubled youth in nightmare situations.
He's smaller than I am, but he's a hell of a lot more man than I'll ever be.
The best shot with a pistol I have ever met was in a similar position to Mrs. Frazzled. On work or any where really the kindest, gentlest lady I have ever met... but on the range... she had a quick draw that would make Wyatt Earp gak his pants and could put a five shot group in a dime at 25 yards the same way any of us breath. She explained to me that her range therapy was pretty much the only way she could deal with some of the horror that exists in the worlds she glimpses into every day.
I suppose I can understand that, it's a natural response for moral human beings when confronted with evil isn't it? I'd say most cops have a similar inkling deep down, the chance to dispense justice personally against utter scum, utter evil, to be God's own avenging sword for the innocents that evil's wronged....
I've never worked in a capacity like that for people, but I volunteered with a county animal control unit in Arizona... some of the animals we brought in, especially from dog fighting rings.... I put in a lot of range time.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it."
- Col. Jeff Cooper
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it."
- Col. Jeff Cooper
Utter bollocks. Mr. Tiananmen Square didn't have an anti-tank cannon or something last time I looke, and Gandhi didn't have ancient Hindu doomsday weapons (or did he?). The most valiant action is, in my opinion, to put yourself in harm's way for your fellow human beings despite having no conceivable way of winning. It takes courage of a type I'm sad to say I'll probably never possess.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper
Utter bollocks. Mr. Tiananmen Square didn't have an anti-tank cannon or something last time I looke, and Gandhi didn't have ancient Hindu doomsday weapons (or did he?). The most valiant action is, in my opinion, to put yourself in harm's way for your fellow human beings despite having no conceivable way of winning. It takes courage of a type I'm sad to say I'll probably never possess.
Suicide's your own choice, but no one vanquished evil by giving it a hug any time recently. Least not in this reality. China's still a police state, and Mr. Tinanmen Square is probably dead or in a dark hole somewhere, and even Ghandi acknowledged that you have to fight sometimes.
Only if you have the right pen. Usually at the helm of newspapers or nation states, and that's because those pens control those with swords, or guns as it happens. otherwise I'd suggest investing in some steel.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I've been thinking for a while: what if we stopped sentencing people to X months/years in prison and used days instead? 1826-1827 days (depending on leap years) sounds a bit longer than 5 years IMO.
Also, what's up with so many high school athletes being smug pricks anyway? Too much testosterone or just the "athlete culture" (note: from my experience, most high school athletes in Sweden are just as dumb and stuck-up as those in the US appear to be)?
In the UK you get the figure in days from your NOMS reporting. It does seem a lot longer. Sentencing guidelines are usually months, saves the judge and courts having to figure it out themselves.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The best shot with a pistol I have ever met was in a similar position to Mrs. Frazzled. On work or any where really the kindest, gentlest lady I have ever met... but on the range... she had a quick draw that would make Wyatt Earp gak his pants and could put a five shot group in a dime at 25 yards the same way any of us breath. She explained to me that her range therapy was pretty much the only way she could deal with some of the horror that exists in the worlds she glimpses into every day.
I suppose I can understand that, it's a natural response for moral human beings when confronted with evil isn't it? I'd say most cops have a similar inkling deep down, the chance to dispense justice personally against utter scum, utter evil, to be God's own avenging sword for the innocents that evil's wronged....
I've never worked in a capacity like that for people, but I volunteered with a county animal control unit in Arizona... some of the animals we brought in, especially from dog fighting rings.... I put in a lot of range time.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it."
- Col. Jeff Cooper
Ayah mine was an exercise freak at the time - like ironman triathlons or whatever they are called. Now she shoots and attacks buildings with the side of her van.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it."
- Col. Jeff Cooper
Utter bollocks. Mr. Tiananmen Square didn't have an anti-tank cannon or something last time I looke, and Gandhi didn't have ancient Hindu doomsday weapons (or did he?). The most valiant action is, in my opinion, to put yourself in harm's way for your fellow human beings despite having no conceivable way of winning. It takes courage of a type I'm sad to say I'll probably never possess.
Mr. Tiananmen Square was executed after the picture was taken (no joke).
It takes courage. Courage alone generally doesn't do much though.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I've been thinking for a while: what if we stopped sentencing people to X months/years in prison and used days instead? 1826-1827 days (depending on leap years) sounds a bit longer than 5 years IMO.
Also, what's up with so many high school athletes being smug pricks anyway? Too much testosterone or just the "athlete culture" (note: from my experience, most high school athletes in Sweden are just as dumb and stuck-up as those in the US appear to be)?
Because of one thing.
They are idiots. They don't know their abilities, they are taught that violence in a game is necessary, when really its not, if you injure someone thats a good thing. Hence why I quit so many sports, I saw so much evil with the sports teams, So much rapid escalation of violence. Please note i am also a swordsmen and a martial artist, i tend to not want to fight because I know how bad violent combat can get.
Athlete culture in schools is usually students being dicks because they think they are better than other people, because they are competitive and are recognized because of this, they think they are important, when really. They are not. They think they are more important than a person like me, who is noncompetitive and wishes not to use violence unless deemed abosolutely necessary. Hence why abuse and physical abuse is so common in high schools because athletes are taught to attack a key player and hopefully hurt them and get that person out of the game. If it costs a player that caused the injury oh well, throw more people into the meat grinder that we call our sports system.
Fantastically bad idea in my honest opinion
How do i know this? My brother was a football player, I often listened to the coach, and i was horrified by what he told them to do. Athletes for school teams are not the best examples of human beings, there are exceptions though.
Though its mostly because of one reason why people who are key athletes do this. Because they think they can get away with it.
Suicide's your own choice, but no one vanquished evil by giving it a hug any time recently.
And there's more than one way to combat evil, the pen does indeed remain mightier than the sword... or the gun.
How'd that work out in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, and Nazi Germany?
To defeat evil you must crush evil utterly.
I don't know frazzled, ask those that signed into effect the airstrikes, invasions and blockades, or those that then signed in peace treaties and surrender terms.
Either you're being willfully obtuse or you don't understand the meaning of the quote and I'll indulge you on this occasion and explain it means that changing minds and winning hearts is a far more potent weapon than simply being armed or attempting to use force. Actually, the places you quoted above are great examples of this.
Suicide's your own choice, but no one vanquished evil by giving it a hug any time recently.
And there's more than one way to combat evil, the pen does indeed remain mightier than the sword... or the gun.
How'd that work out in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, and Nazi Germany? To defeat evil you must crush evil utterly.
I don't know frazzled, ask those that signed into effect the airstrikes, invasions and blockades, or those that then signed in peace treaties and surrender terms.
Either you're being willfully obtuse or you don't understand the meaning of the quote and I'll indulge you on this occasion and explain it means that changing minds and winning hearts is a far more potent weapon than simply being armed or attempting to use force. Actually, the places you quoted above are great examples of this.
Not really... seemed like the force was the decisive factor in most of those lovely hell holes, and still is, which is why most of them are still brutal dictatorships/police states, the government has a monopoly on force, and no outside force has bothered to remove the evil infestation. Some valiant efforts in Libya (mostly resolved), Syria (we'll see), and we're waiting on fumigation results in Iraq.... Vietnam's probably the only pleasant place to live out of all the places on that list still extant. (Germany of course being a lovely place to live and vacation once properly fumigated of Nazi fethheads)
Also, what's up with so many high school athletes being smug pricks anyway? Too much testosterone or just the "athlete culture" (note: from my experience, most high school athletes in Sweden are just as dumb and stuck-up as those in the US appear to be)?
I guess it's got to be the latter fueling the former, along with the usual "invincible" feeling we all had when we were teens. Sad thing.
Funny thing is, I never felt invincible i had the feeling of vulnerability, i know how fragile i am and easily injured i can get. It sucks knowing full well how fragile a human body is when it meets its death.
Man I feel like yoda in a school filled with irresponsible violence and name calling.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it."
- Col. Jeff Cooper
I like that quote, never heard it before.
Here's the full bit Dread:
"Weapons compound man's power to achieve; they amplify the capabilities of both the good man and the bad, and to exactly the same degree, having no will of their own. Thus we must regard them as servants, not masters - and good servants to good men. Without them, man is diminished, and his opportunities to fulfill his destiny are lessened. An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it."
— Col. Jeff Cooper
The Colonel is a legend in the firearms community, I strongly recommend any of his books.
This speech also has some excellent material in it.
Alfndrate wrote: I thought the Tiananmen Square guy was pulled out of the way before he was crushed...
OK I'm sure he's dead too but I'm talking about the guy standing in front of the column of tanks. After the pic he was grabbed and then executed.
Actually, no one knows what happened to him, or what the story behind his actions was. He was standing there for quite a while as the tanks rolled towards him (there's another, less dramatic photo from ground level where you can see him standing there with the tanks quite a distance away), the tanks stop and he talks to the crew of the lead tank, then leaves. No one knows who he was, why he did that, or what ultimately happened to him (though it being China, it's presumed he was later arrested and executed, as happened to basically all of the protestors).
"Weapons compound man's power to achieve; they amplify the capabilities of both the good man and the bad, and to exactly the same degree, having no will of their own. Thus we must regard them as servants, not masters - and good servants to good men. Without them, man is diminished, and his opportunities to fulfill his destiny are lessened. An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it."
— Col. Jeff Cooper
The Colonel is a legend in the firearms community, I strongly recommend any of his books.
This speech also has some excellent material in it.
Suicide's your own choice, but no one vanquished evil by giving it a hug any time recently.
And there's more than one way to combat evil, the pen does indeed remain mightier than the sword... or the gun.
How'd that work out in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, and Nazi Germany?
To defeat evil you must crush evil utterly.
I don't know frazzled, ask those that signed into effect the airstrikes, invasions and blockades, or those that then signed in peace treaties and surrender terms.
Either you're being willfully obtuse or you don't understand the meaning of the quote and I'll indulge you on this occasion and explain it means that changing minds and winning hearts is a far more potent weapon than simply being armed or attempting to use force. Actually, the places you quoted above are great examples of this.
Not really... seemed like the force was the decisive factor in most of those lovely hell holes, and still is, which is why most of them are still brutal dictatorships/police states, the government has a monopoly on force, and no outside force has bothered to remove the evil infestation. Some valiant efforts in Libya (mostly resolved), Syria (we'll see), and we're waiting on fumigation results in Iraq.... Vietnam's probably the only pleasant place to live out of all the places on that list still extant. (Germany of course being a lovely place to live and vacation once properly fumigated of Nazi fethheads)
You need to sway people to your side to enable the force.
Hitler's rhetoric and charisma and words caused a nation's insanity and created one of the worst regimes in history, his pen was mighty indeed, as was Pol Pot or Mao.
Frazzled wrote: None of the ones you mentioned ever controlled a majority of anything. They effectively took power.
Hitler was more machiavellian. Pol Pot and Mao took power much more simply at the shooty end of a gun. BWAP do not pass go. Do not collect $200
Yes or No. The above named monsters needed to gain loyalty and devotion from followers to achieve the positions they rose to?
And they and their small band took over a much larger group of people mostly by killing bushels of them. That doesn't support your argument, unless Colonel Kurtz is your idea of a living by the pen kind of guy.
First I will kill a whole lot of people and leave their bodies laying around. Then I will quote poetry on the radio. Later a miniature company will rip off my concept and then sue anyone else for trying it...
Frazzled wrote: None of the ones you mentioned ever controlled a majority of anything. They effectively took power.
Hitler was more machiavellian. Pol Pot and Mao took power much more simply at the shooty end of a gun.
BWAP do not pass go. Do not collect $200
Yes or No. The above named monsters needed to gain loyalty and devotion from followers to achieve the positions they rose to?
And they and their small band took over a much larger group of people mostly by killing bushels of them. That doesn't support your argument, unless Colonel Kurtz is your idea of a living by the pen kind of guy.
First I will kill a whole lot of people and leave their bodies laying around. Then I will quote poetry on the radio. Later a miniature company will rip off my concept and then sue anyone else for trying it...
You don't topple a nation by converting 20 people.
On football players and attitude. I think part of it is our gender biased culture. Men are taught from a young age that violence is acceptable. Look at the toys that young boys are given, guns swords and other implement of death and violence. TV doesnt help. While many grow out of this, many do not. Football(American) culture exemplifys it. They are taught they are better then them(I remember in weights class, while i did goof around, the football coach who taught it only punished me and none of the football player, but he was a jerk so maybe i shouldn't base all coaches on him) No other sport is like this, atleast at my school. Even the boxers where nice to eachother. Football is considered the bread and butter of schools, so they get special treatment.
hotsauceman1 wrote: On football players and attitude. I think part of it is our gender biased culture. Men are taught from a young age that violence is acceptable. Look at the toys that young boys are given, guns swords and other implement of death and violence.
And we go from this to sexual assault and rape how?
hotsauceman1 wrote: On football players and attitude. I think part of it is our gender biased culture. Men are taught from a young age that violence is acceptable. Look at the toys that young boys are given, guns swords and other implement of death and violence. TV doesnt help. While many grow out of this, many do not. Football(American) culture exemplifys it. They are taught they are better then them(I remember in weights class, while i did goof around, the football coach who taught it only punished me and none of the football player, but he was a jerk so maybe i shouldn't base all coaches on him) No other sport is like this, atleast at my school. Even the boxers where nice to eachother. Football is considered the bread and butter of schools, so they get special treatment.
At this juncture I think it needs to be pointed out that Britain fought more wars against more countries than anyone in history, with a national game of cricket which involves regular meal breaks and takes up to five days to complete.
hotsauceman1 wrote: On football players and attitude. I think part of it is our gender biased culture. Men are taught from a young age that violence is acceptable. Look at the toys that young boys are given, guns swords and other implement of death and violence.
And we go from this to sexual assault and rape how?
Im not talking specifically rape. Im talking about what gives that attitude in the world.
Boys are raised to be violent traditionally because they needed to be. Either for the good of the family or the good of the larger socio-economic sphere within which they reside. History has pretty much revolved around which societies have the highest output of controlled violence. To get that a society needs both aggression and discipline, both of which sports provide.
But our society no longer needs violence to be taught to kids, or that violence is alright.
And sports provide discipline? Im ny experiances those who play sports are the less disciplined there are.
hotsauceman1 wrote: But our society no longer needs violence to be taught to kids, or that violence is alright. And sports provide discipline? Im ny experiances those who play sports are the less disciplined there are.
It's not the violence that's important, but the mental toughness. And it does instill discipline. Don't let a few bad apples spoil the barrel, so to speak.
OT; Its up in the air right now. Im kinda going through what my parents are calling a "Quarter Life Crisis" where i decide what i want to do.
But i havent completly ruled that out.
hotsauceman1 wrote: But our society no longer needs violence to be taught to kids, or that violence is alright.
And sports provide discipline? Im ny experiances those who play sports are the less disciplined there are.
Woman love violence too, Sigmund Freud discussed this so if you bring your girlfriend to Django Unchained you're getting laid.
hotsauceman1 wrote: But our society no longer needs violence to be taught to kids, or that violence is alright.
And sports provide discipline? Im ny experiances those who play sports are the less disciplined there are.
Woman love violence too, Sigmund Freud discussed this so if you bring your girlfriend to Django Unchained you're getting laid.
hotsauceman1 wrote: But our society no longer needs violence to be taught to kids, or that violence is alright.
And sports provide discipline? Im ny experiances those who play sports are the less disciplined there are.
Truth there. Read what i said before. As for personal experience, i agree completely.
Those who follow certain paths or train themselves are more disciplined than those who been competitive sports all their lives.
You are never truly unarmed, though. Who's the most powerful; someone who can turn a country to ash or someone who can capture the hearts and minds of said country?
That is not to say that violence never solves anything; there are instances when controlled violence will be a great deal easier than the pacifist way out, but violence is never the only option.
hotsauceman1 wrote: On football players and attitude. I think part of it is our gender biased culture. Men are taught from a young age that violence is acceptable. Look at the toys that young boys are given, guns swords and other implement of death and violence. TV doesnt help. While many grow out of this, many do not. Football(American) culture exemplifys it. They are taught they are better then them(I remember in weights class, while i did goof around, the football coach who taught it only punished me and none of the football player, but he was a jerk so maybe i shouldn't base all coaches on him) No other sport is like this, atleast at my school. Even the boxers where nice to eachother. Football is considered the bread and butter of schools, so they get special treatment.
At this juncture I think it needs to be pointed out that Britain fought more wars against more countries than anyone in history, with a national game of cricket which involves regular meal breaks and takes up to five days to complete.
Gets them ready for days of monotonous marching with the occasional tea break when th CO is feeling particulary nice
Is there a decent, concise summary of this anywhere? I haven't followed it at all, and the one news report I read on it mentioned only unlawful digital penetration in a car, whereas you guys are talking as though there was a gangbang with the passed-out victim in front of partygoers, so clearly I'm missing a lot.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You are never truly unarmed, though. Who's the most powerful; someone who can turn a country to ash or someone who can capture the hearts and minds of said country?
That is not to say that violence never solves anything; there are instances when controlled violence will be a great deal easier than the pacifist way out, but violence is never the only option.
Actually, I would say that sometimes violence is the only option. Violence isn't always the answer or the best option, but there are times when it becomes the only logical response. Unless you're counting getting killed as an option. If that's the case then I guess you always have at least two options.
Seaward wrote: Is there a decent, concise summary of this anywhere? I haven't followed it at all, and the one news report I read on it mentioned only unlawful digital penetration in a car, whereas you guys are talking as though there was a gangbang with the passed-out victim in front of partygoers, so clearly I'm missing a lot.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it."
- Col. Jeff Cooper
Utter bollocks. Mr. Tiananmen Square didn't have an anti-tank cannon or something last time I looke, and Gandhi didn't have ancient Hindu doomsday weapons (or did he?). The most valiant action is, in my opinion, to put yourself in harm's way for your fellow human beings despite having no conceivable way of winning. It takes courage of a type I'm sad to say I'll probably never possess.
The gentleman from Tiananmen Square was later arrested and executed. Fat lot of good his bravery did him, and his country hasn't changed all that much.
Gandhi had the advantage of facing the famed British sense of fair play. British soldiers of the time - on the average - would have been no more capable of shooting unarmed, non-violent demonstraters than they would have been capable of shooting the Queen. Gandhi knew this and took ruthless advantage of it. Had he been facing, say, Pol Pot, his tactics would have been VASTLY different out of necessity.
I agree, That in certain situations, such as civil rights. Non-violent confrontation can be used. But it depends on the situation. the police turning fire hoses and dogs on unarmed civilians looks bad. It wouldnt if they wherent unarmed.
Passive aggresivness can work, in context.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it."
- Col. Jeff Cooper
Utter bollocks. Mr. Tiananmen Square didn't have an anti-tank cannon or something last time I looke, and Gandhi didn't have ancient Hindu doomsday weapons (or did he?). The most valiant action is, in my opinion, to put yourself in harm's way for your fellow human beings despite having no conceivable way of winning. It takes courage of a type I'm sad to say I'll probably never possess.
The gentleman from Tiananmen Square was later arrested and executed. Fat lot of good his bravery did him, and his country hasn't changed all that much.
Can we stop pretending we know that he was executed when no one even knows who he is? It's getting kinda silly, especially seeing as that very argument has already been countered once.
On another track, I've been talking more with my cousin, seeing what I can do for kids around here in bad situations. It surprises me what can be done, by way of being a mentor or even just going to a home for kids that have been abused.
Currently, I'm doing some leg work for the company I work for to see what it can do to help the situation.
I was troubled as hell about what I heard from my cousin and decided I can't let this stuff slide without trying to help somehow.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I agree, That in certain situations, such as civil rights. Non-violent confrontation can be used. But it depends on the situation. the police turning fire hoses and dogs on unarmed civilians looks bad. It wouldnt if they wherent unarmed.
Passive aggresivness can work, in context.
But even the Civil Rights movement in America wasn't truly disarmed. groups like the Deacons, the original Black Panther party, Dr. King himself had weapons, the black community was armed and fighting back, non-violent Ghandi-esque protest is what won the day but they wouldn't have made it to the day without standing up for themselves, and illegally taking up arms. The laws of the day were designed to make sure that African Americans could not be armed, and could not be defend themselves.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Is it possible to hear about what you heard? Or do you not feel comfortable releasing it.
It was pretty grim and subhuman stuff he had to deal with for 35 years. I'll mention here a small part of what he told that involved a 9 year old
who was hung on the wall by his father and burned with cigarettes. The father also prostituted the boy to his friends at two dollars a go. It involved so many people in the community that the Prosecutor told him the case would fall apart in court.
That he worked and fought in such an arena for so many years dealing with that and far worse staggers me.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it."
- Col. Jeff Cooper
Utter bollocks. Mr. Tiananmen Square didn't have an anti-tank cannon or something last time I looke, and Gandhi didn't have ancient Hindu doomsday weapons (or did he?). The most valiant action is, in my opinion, to put yourself in harm's way for your fellow human beings despite having no conceivable way of winning. It takes courage of a type I'm sad to say I'll probably never possess.
The gentleman from Tiananmen Square was later arrested and executed. Fat lot of good his bravery did him, and his country hasn't changed all that much.
Can we stop pretending we know that he was executed when no one even knows who he is? It's getting kinda silly, especially seeing as that very argument has already been countered once.
Symbolically speaking they killed the idea of him. He is the most famous representation of those protests in which hundreds or thousands of like minded people were killed by the Chinese government. The fact that we don't know his name or specific fate is less important perhaps than the many others of similar thinking that were killed.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Is it possible to hear about what you heard? Or do you not feel comfortable releasing it.
It was pretty grim and subhuman stuff he had to deal with for 35 years. I'll mention here a small part of what he told that involved a 9 year old
who was hung on the wall by his father and burned with cigarettes. The father also prostituted the boy to his friends at two dollars a go. It involved so many people in the community that the Prosecutor told him the case would fall apart in court.
That he worked and fought in such an arena for so many years dealing with that and far worse staggers me.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Is it possible to hear about what you heard? Or do you not feel comfortable releasing it.
It was pretty grim and subhuman stuff he had to deal with for 35 years. I'll mention here a small part of what he told that involved a 9 year old
who was hung on the wall by his father and burned with cigarettes. The father also prostituted the boy to his friends at two dollars a go. It involved so many people in the community that the Prosecutor told him the case would fall apart in court.
That he worked and fought in such an arena for so many years dealing with that and far worse staggers me.
Damn, And he was a social worker? Props to him.
He has to go for therapy for post traumatic stress and has had a severe toll taken on his physical health due to the stress of the job. He has saved countless children and youth from hellish circumstances.
The gentleman from Tiananmen Square was later arrested and executed. Fat lot of good his bravery did him, and his country hasn't changed all that much.
To be fair, no one really seems to know who that guy was or what happened to him.
Can we stop pretending we know that he was executed when no one even knows who he is? It's getting kinda silly, especially seeing as that very argument has already been countered once.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Suicide's your own choice, but no one vanquished evil by giving it a hug any time recently. Least not in this reality. China's still a police state, and Mr. Tinanmen Square is probably dead or in a dark hole somewhere, and even Ghandi acknowledged that you have to fight sometimes.
And no-one vanquished the evils of social disfunction by shooting it.
I mean, fething hell, if you ever want an example of people taking up the power fantasy of the gun as a solution to the real and challenging issues of the world, your posts here are the perfect example.
There's a time and place for different responses. My cousin vanquished a lot of evil in 35 years without coming near a gun.
I really hope this doesn't turn into a pro gun - anti gun thread because, in my mind anyway, what is going on with these and other kids out there, way overshadows all of that debate.
Can we refrain from using the terms good and evil and just tell it like it is, because the real world isn't this black and white (and get's real complicated fast) and nobody thinks they're the bad guy. This isn't the movies.
Relapse wrote: There's a time and place for different responses. My cousin vanquished a lot of evil in 35 years without coming near a gun.
I really hope this doesn't turn into a pro gun - anti gun thread because, in my mind anyway, what is going on with these and other kids out there, way overshadows all of that debate.
Absolutely. There's as wide a variety of solutions to the problems of the world as there are problems in the world. Sometimes direct force and even outright violence is the way to go - the solution to Nazism was several thousand T34s.
But it is a big mistake to just clutch a gun and pretend the power that gun gives will solve a lot of the world's problems. That's just taking the easy, power fantasy way out.
I have a better idea. Schools should focus on teaching things like...math first. When they quit sucking so bad at that they can graduate to life lessons.
Life Lesson I: don't get faced drunk at a party unless you're with bro's (sis's???) who have your back.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I didnt need schools to teacher me not to hit a women. My family taught me that.
Ditto. Its an amazing concept, parents actually teaching their kids something.
I've taught same. Ok with GC its more straight line: "don't take no . Don't be stupid. And always, always remember, when you make it big, Daddy needs a Vought F4U Corsair with full auto paintball machine guns, and a BMW. "
I have a better idea. Schools should focus on teaching things like...math first. When they quit sucking so bad at that they can graduate to life lessons.
Life Lesson I: don't get faced drunk at a party unless you're with bro's (sis's???) who have your back.
I have exalted this post for sheer gloriousness and wondery.
Should one be able to trust that people around them won't violate them? Yes. Is this a perfect world? Sadly, it is not.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I didnt need schools to teacher me not to hit a women. My family taught me that.
Ditto. Its an amazing concept, parents actually teaching their kids something.
I've taught same. Ok with GC its more straight line: "don't take no . Don't be stupid. And always, always remember, when you make it big, Daddy needs a Vought F4U Corsair with full auto paintball machine guns, and a BMW. "
It is sad how few people give these kinda of lessons to their kids. As quite possibly the only good male influence to my nephews, i have to make sure they know how to act in regards of school and girls.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I didnt need schools to teacher me not to hit a women. My family taught me that.
Ditto. Its an amazing concept, parents actually teaching their kids something.
I've taught same. Ok with GC its more straight line: "don't take no . Don't be stupid. And always, always remember, when you make it big, Daddy needs a Vought F4U Corsair with full auto paintball machine guns, and a BMW. "
It is sad how few people give these kinda of lessons to their kids. As quite possibly the only good male influence to my nephews, i have to make sure they know how to act in regards of school and girls.
To the Boy like two weeks ago as he was off for Friday night. "Don't forget, I'm too young to be grandfather! Have fun!"
I always liked Staff Sergeant's advice to us during liberty briefs. He always ended with a very simple few words of advice "If you have to think about it, don't do it" caught myself using it more then a few times now. Both personally and sharing it.
Yes. All of those are good advice but do they work or are they given to the kind of boys that end up in Steubenville rape cases?
Surely the problem is that either these guys didn't think about it, or worse (and more likely) they thought about it and decided it was fine to go ahead.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes. All of those are good advice but do they work or are they given to the kind of boys that end up in Steubenville rape cases?
Surely the problem is that either these guys didn't think about it, or worse (and more likely) they thought about it and decided it was fine to go ahead.
Those boys weren't raised properly. The girl wasn't raised properly either. Thats my point.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I always liked Staff Sergeant's advice to us during liberty briefs. He always ended with a very simple few words of advice "If you have to think about it, don't do it" caught myself using it more then a few times now. Both personally and sharing it.
Words of wisdom If you have to engage in Olympian mental gymnastics its probably not a good idea
Parts of that were painfully stupid to read. I do think though that Mayo's relationship to one of the perpetrators should have been published at the top of the article;
Mayo acknowledged his ties to the Richmond family, saying he counseled Richmond when news of an alleged sexual assault began circulating in August. Before Richmond's arrest, Mayo spoke to him about the allegations.
**edit**
It just reeks of crass victim blaming by someone close to one of the attackers.
Mayo described the 16-year-old girl as the “alleged victim” and said she might have been having consensual sex. “She said her mother brought her to the party, at 3 o'clock, with a bottle of vodka,” Mayo said. “Where did you get it, young lady? You brought it from home? Where’d you get it? You came to the party with your mother.”
“They’re alleging she got raped; she’s acknowledging that she wanted to leave with Trent. Her friends say she pushed them away as she went and got into the car, twice telling them, ‘I know what I’m doing; I’m going with Trent,’” Mayo said.
“[The victim] has a strand of DNA inside her shorts that’s unidentified, and it’s nobody’s DNA that was at that party ... at that house where it allegedly happened; nobody else’s DNA that was there matched that DNA,” he says.
So because her mother dropped her off, because she wanted to go to another party with someone and because she may have had sex previously she isn't a victim? What world is he living in??
These two college football vermin could have avoided all this if they hadn't decided to molest an unconscious girl. feth them to hell. I've made it to 28 and not taken advantage of drunken girls of any age so my sympathy is absolutely zero. Why is the the amount of drink the girl had relevant when the decision to do what they did was entirely theirs. Why is the girl the one expected to take personal responsibility? What, boys can't control their urges now? The victim blamers are pathetic, at any time these boys could have stopped but instead they chose to drive around using her as a sex toy and object of humiliation. Hope they enjoy their stay in prison.
LordofHats wrote: This really blends in with my experiences with local NAACP chapters i.e. they are super hit and miss between good decent folk and complete idiots.
Spot the just off the boat Irish guy who had to Google NAACP He seems determined to make it a race issue too, maybe not the best battleground for him to have chosen.
Howard A Treesong wrote: These two college football vermin could have avoided all this if they hadn't decided to molest an unconscious girl. feth them to hell. I've made it to 28 and not taken advantage of drunken girls of any age so my sympathy is absolutely zero. Why is the the amount of drink the girl had relevant when the decision to do what they did was entirely theirs. Why is the girl the one expected to take personal responsibility? What, boys can't control their urges now? The victim blamers are pathetic, at any time these boys could have stopped but instead they chose to drive around using her as a sex toy and object of humiliation. Hope they enjoy their stay in prison.
I honestly don't understand how one CAN'T achieve the bolded above. It's really not that hard. Don't be a tool, don't rape or molest people. kthxbai.
That is why i do not like the Naacp or other similar parties.
They see any act of prosecuting, jailing or similar circumstances as racism or institutionalized racism.
And the correct term in "Donkey Nuggets" frazzled.
I always find it facinating how everyone can turn a tragedy into something that reflects their ideology. Its like with Elliot Rodgers, him being half Asian half white has caused his crime to be blamed on white privledge by some, and some skinheads in Ohio have said that the shootings were hate crimes against whites. Oh and fox news says that he was gay and thats what caused it.
" and we can all be happy. Go on, try it!
faced drunk at a party unless you're with bro's (sis's???) who have your back.
