Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Point 1...

aka_tizz wrote:and on the other hand, the girl had it coming.

Point 2...

Besides that, when i call a girl and invite her home we both know what's going to happen, so no surprise there

Point 3...

If i'm having a drink with a woman i'm not expecting to have sex with her, and if she wants it being dead drunk i may actually even refuse it if i have a little respect for her.

Point 4...

THE GIRL'S FAULT IS JUST FOR BEING PLAIN STUPID AND TAKING THE OFFER!!!

This is the basic idea that I got from your posts...

You contradicted yourself multiple times.
Point 1 and 4, are basically the same. Point 2 and 3 clearly contradict each other... If the difference is your home... I really don't understand what you are trying to say. If your home, actually means your bed... then say that.

If we agree, then I am having an awfully hard time understanding how that would be the case. You have said multiple times, that this girl 'should have seen it coming', while I have been saying that she MAY have made a mistake; that in no way hold her accountable for the crime committed.

There is a massive difference in meaning there. We are talking about a 16 year old girl, and I simply cannot begin to hold her responsible, in any way, for what happened to her. She MAY have made a mistake, but that has absolutely nothing to do with anything given the circumstances. If a full grown woman, well into her twenties, agreed to meet with a few people for drinks, it still wouldn't change much, besides the fact that the woman should probably be trying to make friends that can help her avoid situations like that.

My point still stands that on the whole, nothing about this seems to set off any alarms. A girl had some drinks with some guys, and I cannot assume that there is anything wrong about that, regardless of how stigmas may be involved in such an activity. I have had many drinks, with many different people, and the majority of that time, there was not an undertone of sexuality to it. The simple involvement of alcohol, does not assume that sex is involved as well.

I consider 16 years old, VERY young, not young as 14, but still very young, and by default not in full control of their social skills/understanding.

Wrexasaur wrote:Point 1...

aka_tizz wrote:and on the other hand, the girl had it coming.

Point 2...

Besides that, when i call a girl and invite her home we both know what's going to happen, so no surprise there

Point 3...

If i'm having a drink with a woman i'm not expecting to have sex with her, and if she wants it being dead drunk i may actually even refuse it if i have a little respect for her.

Point 4...

THE GIRL'S FAULT IS JUST FOR BEING PLAIN STUPID AND TAKING THE OFFER!!!

This is the basic idea that I got from your posts...

You contradicted yourself multiple times.
Point 1 and 4, are basically the same. Point 2 and 3 clearly contradict each other... If the difference is your home... I really don't understand what you are trying to say. If your home, actually means your bed... then say that.

If we agree, then I am having an awfully hard time understanding how that would be the case. You have said multiple times, that this girl 'should have seen it coming', while I have been saying that she MAY have made a mistake; that in no way hold her accountable for the crime committed.

There is a massive difference in meaning there. We are talking about a 16 year old girl, and I simply cannot begin to hold her responsible, in any way, for what happened to her. She MAY have made a mistake, but that has absolutely nothing to do with anything given the circumstances. If a full grown woman, well into her twenties, agreed to meet with a few people for drinks, it still wouldn't change much, besides the fact that the woman should probably be trying to make friends that can help her avoid situations like that.

My point still stands that on the whole, nothing about this seems to set off any alarms. A girl had some drinks with some guys, and I cannot assume that there is anything wrong about that, regardless of how stigmas may be involved in such an activity. I have had many drinks, with many different people, and the majority of that time, there was not an undertone of sexuality to it. The simple involvement of alcohol, does not assume that sex is involved as well.

I consider 16 years old, VERY young, not young as 14, but still very young, and by default not in full control of their social skills/understanding.

No, i only said in my first post that she had it coming.
The points 2 and 3 don't contradict each other, simply because they don't refer to the same thing.
In 2 you're right i should've been more specific, however it still doesn't contradict 3 because
3 was a reply to your "If you expect a woman to have sex with you, simply because you had a drink with her, that makes you a douche-bag." and had no connection with 2.

My point stands as well, and i'll refrain it AGAIN(i can't remember how many times i did this trying to make you understand what i'm trying to say)
It's the men's fault for raping her, but she shouldn't have been there.I'll keep the friggin' rest just for the sake of not arguing anymore. I'm tired of it and it's not gonna get us anywhere.
And i swear to God, if you ever call me stupid again i'll be willing to pay the whole back-and-forth flight to the U.S. just to give you a black eye

...but she shouldn't have been there.

This is exactly what I take issue with, and you are consistently ignoring what I am trying to say, by projecting your emotions onto me. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything, and I could put forth this poorly thought out argument, in any rape case, ever to grace the worlds courts. It lacks reason, and substance, and acts as little more than an excuse for the men who perpetrated the crime. I have not heard a single reason WHY she should not have been there, just the fact that you feel for some reason this group of young men, were prone to such activities.

There is no reason whatsoever, that one could assume wrongdoing before any of this happened, besides assumptions about young men and alcohol. You could have provided a good argument to this effect, but you chose not to, simply repeating the same exact point you had before.

And i swear to God, if you ever call me stupid again i'll be willing to pay the whole back-and-forth flight to the U.S. just to give you a black eye

Use the ignore button, Rambo... I called your reasoning stupid, AND I attacked your argument, not you. I will admit I came close in one part of my first post, but I felt it was clear enough from the context within that post, that I was not doing that at all. The fact that you feel acting like a tough guy on the internet, will stop me from taking apart your posts, changes absolutely nothing.

I can have stupid arguments as well... there, 'I called myself stupid', and now we can all be happy, and no one has to prove that he has a mean right hook.

Please note...

If you do choose to come all the way out here to prove your point... It is pistols at dawn... I will take no other offer as anything but an attempt to defame my character.

No, i won't use the ignore button. I'm here to listen to any opinion, even if i ike it, even if i don't.
Let's just put this behind. I'm tired,it's damn 6 in the morning here

It isn't a problem mate.

Remember though... Pistols at dawn...

@Aka_tizz. so your saying anytime a girl drinks with male friends shes inviting rape? Cause thats what it sounds like to me. Btw the guys to me deserve somewhere in the realm of 25 years.

It sounds to me like by "she had it coming" Tizz is merely noting that being taken advantage of in some manner was a fairly likely result of having went over to someone's house and drunk herself to a stupor. That doesn't mean she "deserves" it, any more than the guy who picks up the strange hitchhiker splattered with blood deserves to be cut into pieces and thrown in a river as retribution for the crime of helping out strangers; it's simply a predictable consequence.

This is getting a little heated. Let's agree to clarify: 'no-one deserves to get raped or warrants it based on their actions'. However, at a young age, I think we all learn, either through parents or through mistakes, not to put ourselves in dangerous situation whether that be through ignorance or stupidity. For example, I can wander onto some train tracks and while I may not 'deserve' to get hit by a train, my stupidity has placed me in a situation of extreme danger. Fortunately for most of us, we quickly learn to process and assess dangerous situations. This is doubly true of young women or girls, who are aware from an early age that their burgeoning sexuality places them in slightly more risk than it would if they were a boy. They learn to manage awkward situations and most of all they learn to control and manage dis-inhibiting factors, such as alcohol. It seems that this girl, sadly, has placed herself in a bad situation, either through ignorance, stupidity or pure blind mis-reading of the situation. Now while that does not condone or merit the actions visited upon her in any way shape or form, nevertheless, it is still a contributing factor.

From a criminal standpoint the actions of the girl are irrelevant. From a practical standpoint, they are critical.

That said, danger is generally tacit to fun. It is unwise to be hard on people who have been victimized through any search for happiness, as most of us would be likely to repeat the error given similar circumstances. Hence the emphasis on the rapists.

Yeah the half sentence for the guy with learning diffculties was typically ridiculous. Its part of the culture of all western countries now, you know, that it is never your fault. Whenever something occurs people always try to ley the blame elsewhere.

My girlfriend said to me "i think the guy with learning difficulties should get twice as long because it will take him longer to learn his lesson!"

"I think I shall go to a strangers house alone and partake in alcoholic beverages with adult males where my parents don't know where I am."

As Dogma said, legally not important and it shouldn't be, but as a lesson to other kids it is very important. Unfortunately she is now a lesson to others. :(

Nurgleboy77 wrote:Hopefully they get ganged their entire 3-6 years.

Bullets would be too good for them.

Although who just goes to an address texted to them and gets hammered?

Wait I know, 16 yr old girls apparently.

Youngsters often do silly things, that's why we have laws to protect them.

dogma wrote:From a criminal standpoint the actions of the girl are irrelevant. From a practical standpoint, they are critical.

Ahtman wrote:"I think I shall go to a strangers house alone and partake in alcoholic beverages with adult males where my parents don't know where I am."

As Dogma said, legally not important and it shouldn't be, but as a lesson to other kids it is very important. Unfortunately she is now a lesson to others. :(

I really am lacking the information, to come to anywhere near that conclusion. In terms of the outcome of this encounter, we can obviously assume that her actions (at least in some form) were a type of mistake.

In terms of the circumstances leading up to this rape, I simply cannot agree off the cuff with either of you. By your logic, which I am working with strands of, this girl made a mistake simply by being around males specifically. Was the number of males a factor? Would two be sufficient for her to reasonably assume that bad things 'were bound to happen'?

There is literally no information regarding practically anyone involved in this indecent, regarding the article. This article is lacking in basically anything, besides being two steps from a one sentence summary. *Girl was raped by 4 guys, insufficient jail time ensues; cell phone involved.*

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=151947116

- Three men who took part in the gang rape of a 16-year-old girl whose ordeal was photographed on a mobile phone have been locked up.

- The girl's frantic mother desperately called her daughter's phone only for it to be answered by the men with the faint sound of her voice in the background.

- Bolton Crown Court heard the victim, who cannot be named for legal reasons, went to an address in Rochdale, Greater Manchester, after being called on her mobile.

- While there she drank Jack Daniel's whiskey and was then raped by the men as she became incapacitated.

This is a bullet point summary, of a pretty complicated situation. Narrowing the focus down to: Don't drink with 4 men, because they will rape you...
Leaves a whole lot of questions to be answered.

There was no indication that this girl did not know these men, opposite being the case, why would they have her cell phone number anyways?

I know that both dogma, and ahtman, can provide deeper explanations to their point. Get to it, there is a real argument for your case, to be had.

Keep in mind that this took place in the U.K., though poorly indicated, and the drinking laws are drastically different. Hell, the culture is drastically different to that of the U.S.. I know for sure that the majority of my cousins were casually drinking, by the age of 14, if not younger. I see no explicit reason why any of this would be considered extraordinarily, lacking in sense to partake in. The men are older, but not by that much, and if the girl had drank with them before in a larger group of people, there is even less reason for her to be considered directly accountable. Not in a legal sense as you both indicated, but accountable in a practical way.

If these guys decided that they should drive a car, while drinking, out to the woods; in that I could see exactly what you are saying.

I think the girl shouldnt have put herself in a situation where she was very vulnerable. This doesnt mean she is to blame.

Wrexasaur wrote:In terms of the circumstances leading up to this rape, I simply cannot agree off the cuff with either of you.

Oh? You already did.

Wrexasaur wrote:we can obviously assume that her actions (at least in some form) were a type of mistake.

That is all I said. I'm not sure where you are getting that recognizing that something isn't a good idea is the same as placing blame. They had no right to do any of the things they did. It is reprehensible and they should be punished, and are. Still, being able to recognize dangerous situations is an important part of survival, and this girl did not and unfortunately she got hurt. If you walk in to a biker bar and yell "sure are a lot pussies in here" you will get your ass handed to you. Now, they have no right to do so and it is just words but that isn't going to change that fact that you will get beat down. It doesn't make it ok that you are going to get beat up, but it also doesn't mean that it wasn't a stupid thing to do. Just because this girl used no critical thinking skills doesn't mean she deserved what happened in any way shape or form, but it also doesn't mean that what she did wasn't a very bright thing to do. Would you send your underage daughter to a strangers house filled with adult males with liquor? Of course not.

Ahtman wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:In terms of the circumstances leading up to this rape, I simply cannot agree off the cuff with either of you.

Oh? You already did.

No, I didn't.

Wrexasaur wrote:In terms of the outcome of this encounter, we can obviously assume that her actions (at least in some form) were a type of mistake

I can say after the indecent took place, that she made some kind of mistake. This is simply not the case in the circumstances leading up to the indecent.

Ahtman wrote:Would you send your underage daughter to a strangers house filled with adult males with liquor? Of course not.

So the number IS a factor. Why?

I have hung out personally, with 3 other guys, and one girl. We drank, and there was no rape. None of this situation sets off red flags in my mind, there was no information in the article, to indicate that these men were prone to such activities. This girl is also not underage in her country of origin. I don't drink with minors, and by that fact, pretty much all of the people involved in this indecent, I would not be drinking with. The drinking age in the U.S. 21 years old, the drinking age in the U.K. 5 years old in private with an adult, which there was... though it is clearly not as simple as that.

I understand that no one seems interested in actually going into detail about any of this, so I will simply let the conversation rest at loose ends. In short, do not drink with 4 guys, because you will get raped if you are a woman. There was no indication that these people did not know each other before this, thus not making them strangers , so any set of 4 males present a danger to one woman. Any set of 4 males ever, on the face of the planet. It is just bound to happen, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about that. Stay inside and lock your doors, men are out to rape you.

garret wrote:@Aka_tizz. so your saying anytime a girl drinks with male friends shes inviting rape? Cause thats what it sounds like to me.

Funny that garret is the only one that seems to understand what I am saying here.

Orkeosaurus wrote:That doesn't mean she "deserves" it, any more than the guy who picks up the strange hitchhiker splattered with blood deserves to be cut into pieces and thrown in a river as retribution for the crime of helping out strangers; it's simply a predictable consequence.

It is not a predictable consequence given the extremely in depth data you have presented us. Yes, we all know the story of the guy in the coat, with the hook, and the scraping of the side of the car... BLABLABLA. The analogy you are presenting, though rather fictional, is clearly not a situation most would put themselves in. To bring this back down to the earth, I will assume that the axe-wielding maniac, doesn't actually look like one, because chances are you would never be able to tell.

I don't pick up hitchhikers, not because I expect them to murder me though. I don't pick up hitchikers because there is a completely random chance that the nice looking person, that needs a ride, may actually be crazy. I have literally no reason to think that, besides stupid stories I have heard, that are in effect, statistically slim to none in occurrence. I have friends that thumbed it across the country, and the only question I had for them, is how in the hell they managed to get rides? There is no reason to be worried about an individual robbing and/or murdering you, unless you see a machete poking out of their bag or some such nonsense.

This conversation is an exercise in paranoia, and baseless assumptions.

There is a difference between simply drinking recreationally and drinking yourself into such a stupor that you can't even notice your own gang-rape.

Which I can take as the beginning of the argument that I was looking for. It was in no way the fact that this girl was with a group of males specifically, that led generically to her rape. The circumstances are actually pretty complicated if you ask me.

I will try and make it abundantly clear why this article is so lacking in actual detail.

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=151947116

While there she drank Jack Daniel's whiskey and was then raped by the men as she became incapacitated.

The mother left home to look for the girl and found her wandering in a dazed state in the street.

No information that leads me to believe this girl was actually in a stupor before she was raped, so... another rather baseless assumption. She could have had nothing but a single drink for all I know, and that may have been the limit of her intention.

Wrexasaur wrote:So the number IS a factor. Why?

Its statistics, the more men in a room the more likely at least one will be or could go on to be a rapist. the sentences these people got were disgraceful (but this is what happens when judges have to deal with guidelines set out by the goverment, then the goverment blames them for following the guidelines, no one wins). in the secondary debate on the girl, if you are male or female, in a strangers house and you get pass-out drunk you make yourself a target. gang rapists (there are multiple types of rapist) are follow a predatory pack mentality, they go for the weak and vulnerable. As every anti-crime campaign, at least in the UK, says don't make yourself a target

Wrexasaur wrote:She could have had nothing but a single drink for all I know, and that may have been the limit of her intention.

A single drink can, in rare cases, induce a stupor. Though you are right to connect the dazed state with the trauma implicit in a rape. At least that's what I think you're attempting to do.

Wrexasaur wrote:I will try and make it abundantly clear why this article is so lacking in actual detail.

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=151947116

While there she drank Jack Daniel's whiskey and was then raped by the men as she became incapacitated.

The mother left home to look for the girl and found her wandering in a dazed state in the street.

No information that leads me to believe this girl was actually in a stupor before she was raped, so... another rather baseless assumption. She could have had nothing but a single drink for all I know, and that may have been the limit of her intention.

If she had one drink, then what was incapacitating her? Do you think she was drugged our bludgeoned to the head, and the article conveniently forgot to mention it?

That she drunk herself into a stupor isn't a "baseless assumption", it's an assumption based on overwhelming likelihood given what is written in report.

Also, you also forgot:

Sentencing the trio today, Judge William Morris told them: "You each took advantage of her when she was intoxicated and helpless."

dogma wrote:A single drink can, in rare cases, induce a stupor. Though you are right to connect the dazed state with the trauma implicit in a rape. At least that's what I think you're attempting to do.

Yes, that was what I indicating, although lacking sufficient clarity in doing so.

BluntmanDC wrote:its statistics, the more men in a room the more likely at least one will be or could go on to be a rapist.

Okay...

in the secondary debate on the girl, if you are male or female, in a strangers house and you get pass-out drunk you make yourself a target.

She did not go to a strangers house, from the sounds of it, she knew these men. They were only three years older than her, so their age really lacks any meaning in this context. The substantial equivalent of this situation, were it to happen in the U.S., would be a 21 year old girl, hanging out with 24 year old guys. I have no doubts whatsoever, that many people would not think twice about this situation occurring.

Wrexasaur wrote:From the looks of it, the writer did not have access to, or chose to omit various important factors.

What evidence is there that for some reason the author of the article is "omitting" important facts about the case? I see none.

msn article wrote:...was then raped by the men as she became incapacitated.

'As she became incapacitated', does not square with your theory of her, drinking herself into a stupor, before being raped.

Uh... what? It squares with it perfectly.

She becomes incapacitated by the alcohol, and as this occurs the men rape her. You don't suddenly drop from totally lucid to totally incapacitated, so the wording is perfectly sensible to describe the rape of a person as they fall from "just" severely intoxicated (and probably incapable of legal consent at this point anyways) to so intoxicated that they are truly incapacitated by their condition (and surely incapable of any type of consent).

What are the alternatives, that you have neglected to give support for? If she was directly incapacitated by the rapists - say, by physical restraint, or by a blow to the head - then it would have said outright that they incapacitated her and raped her, not that they raped her "as she became incapacitated". It doesn't explicitly state what incapacitated her (until the Judge says so at the end), but "there she drank Jack Daniel's whiskey" is the only preface. That she was drugged (the only half-way sensible alternative) isn't even postulated, anywhere, and there is no reason at all to think that this was a drugging when the alternative explanation is both generally more plausible and specifically far better supported.

There is a difference between simply drinking recreationally and drinking yourself into such a stupor that you can't even notice your own gang-rape.

Sorry Orkeo, this is specifically what I was addressing. I apologize if I was not clear about that.

If you want to talk about degrees, then fair enough, but a person so intoxicated that they would technically be blacked out; would also lack the ability to walk around after being raped. I suppose it would be possible, but since we are talking probabilities here, highly improbable to say the least. I will add that I know people that assert their ninja-drinking techniques, where they can walk on water while blacked out. Personally, these people strike me as gak-faced, to say the least, during the time that they would have been in any such state. Ass-faced, smelly-pants, drunk... NOT ninja drunk.

I think she had a few drinks, and they took advantage of her, as well as bruising her through some means, in at least one location on her body.

All I have been asking here (and yes, I think I have contributed more than my fair share to this thread, in it's entirety), is why would it be so obvious that she was making a mistake, by having a few drinks with some people that she knew? There were 4 guys, that called and asked her to come hang out, which in itself, doesn't seem particularly suspicious.

If these men had a history of being prone to such activities, I could see your points. The problem is, that I see this as the equivalent (at least in some respects), to a 21 year old girl, meeting with a few 23-24 year old men. Just a few drinks, I am not sure why that is explicitly labeled by a red flag, within this thread. If they had drinks at a bar before, would that be much different? I can't truly see the difference there, aside the fact that maybe some people consider one woman, hanging out with 4 guys, suspicious in one form or another.

I don't mean to be abrasive, if it appears to anyone that I am doing so. If that is the case, for anyone here, I do apologize to them as well.

I wouldn't think she was actually unconscious, as they use the less specific wording "incapacitated" instead. However, a person walking down the street dazed and confused would likely have difficulty even knowing how to respond to a rape scenario, much less put of a defense.

I agree that being fearful of ever drinking around a group of guys is rather paranoid; however I still think that to become so drunk that you have severe difficulty responding to others is liable to end with you in trouble (and for that matter I wouldn't be surprised if a guy in this situation ended up with his wallet, cellphone, and coat missing). This isn't to say there is a moral difference in the actions of those involved, as victim vulnerability to crime is certainly no mitigating factor.

It believe it said that her mother called and heard the rape and said she could hear the men and her daughters voice faintly in the backround. I believe it means she might concious.
Beside it said she had bruising. Wouldnt that mean there might have been risistence. If she was incapcitated that wouldnt happned.

While an unconscious person is incapacitated, one does not have to be unconscious to be incapacitated. (That the less specific description is used is a good sign that the more specific description wouldn't fit.)

The bruising on the lip could have been in response to the sort of struggle or complaint that an incapacitated person would still be capable of; in fact, it seems a rather small injury for a person who was giving more dedicated resistance.

Bruising on the hip. it said it was bruising on the hip.

The hip? Damn, you read a word wrong once and then you never bother to check yourself when reading it again.

Still, bruising on the hip seems even more likely to be accidental. On the lip it would most likely have been a good smack to the face, but on the hip it would likely be "pushed into a wall" or something like that.

Wrex, I think you're getting a little overheated here on a certain point several people have made.

The simple fact is, if you deliberately position yourself in a situation where danger/risk is more likely than it would otherwise be, that is foolish. Simple as that.

Now whilst going and drinking yourself under the table at a complete strangers house does not mean that rape will occur, its probably a lot more likely than if you were at a friends house or your own, or even a pub. If I walk down the middle of the road, I am not necessarily going to get hit by a car, but the odds are far greater than if I stick to walking on the pavement. Result? I stick tow alking on the pavement.

Life is rife with dangers of many different kinds, and it is a foolish person who tempts fate. The girl in this case may not be responsible for any of the consequences that followed, but she is responsible for placing herself in a position where the risks were so much higher. No-one made her go to a strangers house and get completely wasted. She is not responsible for what happened afterwards, but in the same way that someone who walks in the road is probably more likely to get run over, a girl who goes to a complete strangers house full of men and gets completely hammered is more likely to get raped than one does not. Sad but true. Unfortunately, that is just the world we live in.