Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
Topic: Steubenville defense lawyers to claim that girl consented, because she was too drunk to say no.
Anonymous A started this discussion 13 years ago#26,340
hen the Steubenville rape trial starts tomorrow, the lawyers for Trent Mays and Ma'lik Richmond, the high school football players accused of raping a heavily intoxicated 16-year-old — decreed a "dead girl" and "so raped" by one charming bystander — will argue that the teenager actually enthusiastically consented at some point in between vomiting on herself and passing out.
"Defense attorneys believe the girl, who lived across the river in Weirton, W.Va., made a decision to excessively drink and — against her friends' wishes — to leave with the boys," The Plain Dealer reports. "They assert that she consented to sex."
The girl, who we'll call Jane Doe, has told authorities she doesn't remember anything that happened after she left the first party she and the so-called "rape crew" attended. (Catch up on what happened that night here.) But since we have no reason to believe the testimony of a lying harlot who's ashamed of her sluttish behavior, let's defer to Associate Attorney General Marianne Hemmeter, who told the judge at a hearing in October that Jane was obviously too drunk to consent.
"The state doesn't have to prove that she was flat-lined," Hemmeter said. "Everybody agrees she's puking. She's puking on herself. People have to help her walk. She can't talk. She's stumbling."
If you're not able to walk, talk, or not throw up on yourself, you're most definitely not capable of willingly participating in multiple sex acts. Do we really have to spell this out?
"I wouldn't say she was passed out but she wasn't there to say yes or no," said just one of multiple witnesses who agreed Jane was "not OK."
Under Ohio law, rape is a first degree felony if the victim is "compelled through force, threat, or controlled substance." But attorney Walter Madison, who will defend one of the accused boys, says Jane was super down to drink and go party with a group of kids that included the two charged football players. That's irrelevant — we don't care if she consented to pre-partying with her peers, we care if they raped her when she was wasted — yet Madison claims the 16-year-old knew what she was getting herself into, because who wouldn't expect to be repeatedly sexually assaulted by multiple people without her consent after some shots? We call that "Friday night!"
"There's an abundance of evidence here that she was making decisions, cognitive choices," Madison said. "She didn't affirmatively say no."
BECAUSE SHE COULDN'T SPEAK.
Madison suggested that the girl was embarrassed only after her parents found out and that's why she hasn't...outed herself to the public? "The person who is the accuser here is silent just as she was that night, and that's because there was consent," he said, inspiring this writer to create an dartboard with his face on it. Perhaps Madison should write a rule book for teenage rape survivors instructing them exactly how to act when they're assaulted by exalted athletes who are supposed to be their friends. Chapter 1: How to Consent Silently, Because Apparently That's a Thing.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 8 minutes later[^][v]#397,705
That's not exactly a great legal defense, but they are entitled to a fair and speedy trial, and the defense attorney is hopefully doing his job competently. This is really a non-story in my opinion.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 39 seconds later, 8 minutes after the original post[^][v]#397,706
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Why is it a non story, exactly?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 13 years ago, 9 minutes later, 18 minutes after the original post[^][v]#397,711
@previous (A)
The story that was linked was an actual story: it gave a broad overview of what the case was about, who the plaintiffs and defendants were, what each side had to say, what the facts were, etc. and displayed them in a not overtly biased way. The jezebel thing is just another attack on the defendants that doesn't really bring anything new to the table that wasn't included in the cleveland.com article.
(Edited 30 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 minutes after the original post[^][v]#397,712
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
It seems like an attack on the lawyers to be honest, and also an attack on a society that blames most rape victims for their assaults.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^][v]#397,714
@previous (A)
So should the defense not be allowed to argue that she consented? I mean, I think it's pretty clear that she didn't, but I'm not going to say that the defense cannot argue that she did in court. If they do I think they'll lose pretty easily, but I don't think it's fair to criticize him for presenting the best defense he can for his client (assuming this is the best defense he can think of).
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 11 minutes later, 34 minutes after the original post[^][v]#397,720
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
No one is stopping them from doing so.
(Edited 9 seconds later.)
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 5 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#397,812
What if both people are drunk? Who got raped?
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#397,816
@previous (C)
everybody that wants to watch the two drunks doin it
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 3 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#397,825
What this really shows is that friends are utterly useless if they leave you behind in a state like that with a bunch of horny and drunk guys.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 3 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#397,839
@397,812 (C)
Thats not the case, so way bring it up at all?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 20 seconds later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#397,840
@397,825 (E)
The friend actually set her up to be raped. So sad.
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 8 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#398,005
@397,839 (A)
interesting topic of discussion? we've had your men are gross thread 1000000000000000x im trying to bring something fresh
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#398,009
The bro defense is a classic.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#398,014
@398,005 (C)
I've never said that. I cant help it that people get defensive when they hear the truth.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 13 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#398,188
@397,812 (C)
Penetration is a necessary precursor to rape. For this reason women fail as rapists, unless they own guns or strap-ons.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#398,191
There was a video posted on anontalk of a drunk 16 year old girl getting raped. She was being sick and everything. Was it these people, or something totally different?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#398,224
@previous (H)
idk anontalk hasnt been around for a while.
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#398,232
Meta !PARAdoxiHw joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#398,529
@397,839 (A) > Thats not the case, so way bring it up at all?
Hypothetically, assuming a man and a woman were both too drunk to consent and they had sex, who got raped? Both or neither? (Assume the man does not suffer whiskey dick).
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 12 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#398,541
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
The person actually performing the action. So if both people are rip roaring drunk, and making out and having sex, its not rape. If one were prone, with the other climbing up on top of their partner, while the partner was unconscious, vomiting, or unable to move, that would be rape.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 33 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#398,542
@398,529 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
Also, you should always ask, and never just assume. I'm big fan of enthusiastic consent.