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.

Presumably statutory rape.

The girl agreeing to go to the bathroom doesn't mean she couldn't change her mind, nor does it mean that she consented to anything done to her. I doubt she agreed to anal sex regardless of her agreement to go to the bathroom. How is that the 'moral' of the fething story? Your attitude makes me sick even if you do laugh it off with an 'apology' for victim blaming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Hanskrampf wrote:
All the tragedy aside: how did they try to catch him "in the act" of rape, when the girl agreed to the sex in the bathroom? What legal consequences would he have faced for trying to have consent sex in the school?

A man having sex is a criminal by default. The school could have expelled him without getting the legal system involved at all.

How is a man a criminal 'by default'? Poor men, how dare a women be allowed to change her mind. Once she's agreed there's no going back!

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
How is a man a criminal 'by default'? Poor men, how dare a women be allowed to change her mind. Once she's agreed there's no going back!

Did you miss the part where the girl agreed to have sex with the sole intention of claiming rape afterwards when the teachers were supposed to burst into the room to catch the "criminal" in the act?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Did you miss the part where the girl agreed to have sex with the sole intention of claiming rape afterwards when the teachers were supposed to burst into the room to catch the "criminal" in the act?

And your point is? Having sex in school is almost certainly against the school's rules, and that's all that matters. He wouldn't have been convicted of rape in court just for going to go have sex and getting caught, but that would have been sufficient for him to be caught breaking school rules and be punished by the school. Remember that schools have significant power to set rules and impose punishments for things that are perfectly legal outside of school.

(And of course the fact that he had sex with her after she said no does make him guilty of rape, regardless of how they got into the situation originally.)

 Peregrine wrote:
And your point is? Having sex in school is almost certainly against the school's rules, and that's all that matters. He wouldn't have been convicted of rape in court just for going to go have sex and getting caught, but that would have been sufficient for him to be caught breaking school rules and be punished by the school. Remember that schools have significant power to set rules and impose punishments for things that are perfectly legal outside of school.

So would she have been punished by the school for having sex too? Or would she somehow be exempt because she was an "undercover agent?" Or is only the man breaking school rules when two people have consensual sex?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
So would she have been punished by the school for having sex too? Or would she somehow be exempt because she was an "undercover agent?"

Of course she'd be exempt, that's the whole point of having someone cooperate with the police/school administration/etc to catch the person they're really after. Do you think that undercover cops spend time in prison after selling "drugs" to someone to get evidence of a crime?

Also, note that the plan did NOT involve her having sex. The intent was that she would say "yeah, let's go have sex" and then as soon as he arrived the adults would arrive as well and catch him with clear intent to break school rules instead of just rumors that he did it without getting caught. The only reason this progressed beyond the initial meeting was that they went to a different location and he decided to rape her when she didn't want to continue.

(Needless to say this was a really stupid plan, but it wasn't so stupid that it involved her actually having sex with the guy.)

Or is only the man breaking school rules when two people have consensual sex?

No, presumably both people are guilty of breaking the rules if it was a case of two people having consensual sex. It has nothing to do with gender.

They did not try to catch him raping anyone. Looking back I used a crappy thread title, sorry.

They tried to catch him trying to have sex.

And seriously, it doesn't matter what she promised the guy. The minute she says "no" and he forces himself on her it's rape.

It's a damn shame that we still have to have the "no means no" conversation in 2014.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
How is a man a criminal 'by default'? Poor men, how dare a women be allowed to change her mind. Once she's agreed there's no going back!

Did you miss the part where the girl agreed to have sex with the sole intention of claiming rape afterwards when the teachers were supposed to burst into the room to catch the "criminal" in the act?

Consent is irrelevant in a statutory rape situation.

This.... Faith in humanity failing

 lord_blackfang wrote:
A man having sex is a criminal by default.

A man forcing a woman to have sex with him against her will is definitely a rapist. And certainly among the worst kind, if that even makes sense about rapists.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
A man having sex is a criminal by default.

A man forcing a woman to have sex with him against her will is definitely a rapist. And certainly among the worst kind, if that even makes sense about rapists.

Actually wouldn't it be a woman forcing a woman to have sex with a man against her will since the Aide basically caused all this stupidity to happen?

At the very least be inducted on Forced Rape alongside him as well because of just how flippin stupid she was to basically tell the girl to do all this, since when do Teacher's Aide's have this sort of power again?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Actually wouldn't it be a woman forcing a woman to have sex with a man against her will since the Aide basically caused all this stupidity to happen?

No. But she was very stupid and reckless with another person's life and she deserve a lot of blame too.

Er...no. Thats not how the law and crimes work.

You see when a criminal does something wrong you don't BLAME THE VICTIM! (rimshot)


I think I get a Bingo!

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
At the very least be inducted on Forced Rape

What is "forced rape" as opposed to "rape"?

 Ouze wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
At the very least be inducted on Forced Rape

What is "forced rape" as opposed to "rape"?

Maybe it's like legitimate rape? That's a thing isn't it?

 Frazzled wrote:
Er...no. Thats not how the law and crimes work.

You see when a criminal does something wrong you don't BLAME THE VICTIM! (rimshot)


I think I get a Bingo!

I am not blaming the victim. That scum raped her and he deserves his punishment.

What I was saying was that the Aide that set her up to be raped should be punished for doing this.

Hard to type on a phone so my message may have been misconstrued.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Er...no. Thats not how the law and crimes work.

You see when a criminal does something wrong you don't BLAME THE VICTIM! (rimshot)


I think I get a Bingo!

I am not blaming the victim. That scum raped her and he deserves his punishment.

What I was saying was that the Aide that set her up to be raped should be punished for doing this.

Hard to type on a phone so my message may have been misconstrued.

OK agreed. I can think of a few criminal charges that would work as well.

I think most of the school officials were essentially part of a criminal conspiracy for their "plan", and shredding the files was obstruction of justice.

Also, were there violations of Alabama code 26.14 with regards to mandatory reporting?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Actually wouldn't it be a woman forcing a woman to have sex with a man against her will since the Aide basically caused all this stupidity to happen?

No. But she was very stupid and reckless with another person's life and she deserve a lot of blame too.

Classy. As soon as she said 'no' the boy should have stopped. She doesn't deserve 'a lot of the blame' for him abusing her against her will.

Out of interest, at when was the point of no return crossed in this debacle where it because a lot of her fault she was raped rather than the rapist? Was it as soon as she agreed to go to the toilet with him? Was it when she went in the room with him? When can a girl say 'no' to sex before it becomes her fault the man wouldn't stop and raped her?

Hybrid means the aide that set it up.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Hybrid means the aide that set it up.

And that her actions, as an authority figure dealing with a special needs student, do not constitute force; which is nonsense.

Relapse wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

Relapse wrote:
There's a reason it's a stupid idea to use civilians as bait. I remember this happening when I lived in Maine:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1990-09-23/news/9009230339_1_inside-the-store-convenience-store-gilbert


There were more detailed news reports at the time that revealed the woman did not want to be in the store, but the cops talked her into being there.
The chief was later interviewed saying that they were , "ready to take the perp down, but complications arose."

Another thing I hate is when cops use high school kids as bait by sending them into a store or bar to buy cigarrettes or alcohol.
There's a great recipe for disaster.

The lack of diligence by the Lewiston police in that case was followed by a period of non productive hyper vigilance.

I don't really recall anyone being punished over that discrace, do you?

No. Probably settled out of court because I don't recall what happened in the aftermath.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Classy. As soon as she said 'no' the boy should have stopped. She doesn't deserve 'a lot of the blame' for him abusing her against her will.

Do you know what is funny? I initially misunderstood the message I was answering to exactly the same way that you misunderstood mine . MrDwhitey has the right of it.

Also note that I said “a lot of blame”, not “a lot of the blame”. This is not a fixed quantity of blame where some of it will be taken away from the rapist to go on the aide, it is quite the opposite. The rapist is an horrible person, and on top of that the aide was pretty damn stupid.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
At the very least be inducted on Forced Rape

What is "forced rape" as opposed to "rape"?

Maybe it's like legitimate rape? That's a thing isn't it?

IIRC if you are under a certain age, you are unable to legally give consent. So any sex is technically rape, as there is no consent, even if both parties are willing. This can get ugly from a legal POV where couples are in a relationship, and one is just over the age of consent, and the other is just under.

As opposed to the more traditional use of “rape” where one person forces sex on another against their will.

I am suddenly reminded of that case where a couple left their garage open with the specific intent of shooting anyone who entered. What became of that?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I am suddenly reminded of that case where a couple left their garage open with the specific intent of shooting anyone who entered. What became of that?

CHUDs came and ate them. Never leave your garage open when there are hungry CHUDs about.

 Nevelon wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
At the very least be inducted on Forced Rape

What is "forced rape" as opposed to "rape"?

Maybe it's like legitimate rape? That's a thing isn't it?

IIRC if you are under a certain age, you are unable to legally give consent. So any sex is technically rape, as there is no consent, even if both parties are willing. This can get ugly from a legal POV where couples are in a relationship, and one is just over the age of consent, and the other is just under.

As opposed to the more traditional use of “rape” where one person forces sex on another against their will.

The phrase you are looking for is "statutory rape".

I'm still looking for a definition of "forcible rape", and how it's distinct from "rape".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I am suddenly reminded of that case where a couple left their garage open with the specific intent of shooting anyone who entered. What became of that?

Speaking of crimes unknown to me: he was charged with deliberate murder and his trial has not begun.

I think it's more or less the equivalent of manslaughter.

Not the state that gave us Alabama man!



This is pretty messed up.

SHOW ME THE THOUGHT PROCESSES OF THESE PEOPLE!

 Ouze wrote:


Speaking of crimes unknown to me: he was charged with deliberate murder and his trial has not begun.

I think it's more or less the equivalent of manslaughter.

I just looked up manslaughter in NSW law and I think deliberate murder is a lot different to manslaughter http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s18.html the removal of intent seems key, then again I'm not a lawyer so it probably means the opposite oif what i thought. I'm glad I'm not a lawyer point (b) in deliberate homicide almost broke my brain....and I'm still not sure what it means.

Anyways, I'm glad the "guardian of the garage" is getting the book thrown at him, he's a dirtbag.

 Ouze wrote:



The phrase you are looking for is "statutory rape".

I'm still looking for a definition of "forcible rape", and how it's distinct from "rape".

Well, I suppose one could make the argument that statutory rape is rape (that is, it's not distinct from rape), but that it's not necessarily forcible.

I'd consider that all rape is forcible. Lack of consent is the key issue and without this, penetration (or whatever) is taken forcibly. I guess a good analogy would be trying to open a door without a key. Maybe that's a little simplified, but still i think it makes the point that without consent , all rape is forced