Page 35 of 50 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 497

Thread: Small Town Turns On Girl Who Was Allegedly Raped By HS Football Player [#303, #380]

  1. #341
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    re: Small Town Turns On Girl Who Was Allegedly Raped By HS Football Player [#303, #380]

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    Doesn't matter, it should not have been dropped.
    Yes it should have.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  2. #342
    Farts in Elevators
    OscarB63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    09-06-14 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,526

    re: Small Town Turns On Girl Who Was Allegedly Raped By HS Football Player [#303, #380]

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Yes it should have.
    no video, no pics. it was a case of he said/she said. and since she isn't willing to "say" in court.... what frelling choice did the prosecutor have?
    The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

    An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

  3. #343
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    re: Small Town Turns On Girl Who Was Allegedly Raped By HS Football Player [#303, #380]

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarB63 View Post
    no video, no pics. it was a case of he said/she said. and since she isn't willing to "say" in court.... what frelling choice did the prosecutor have?
    None, according to him.
    As the prosecutor said, it wasn't their non-cooperation alone, but "information brought to his attention regarding what happened “before, during and after” the incident."

    And the video would have been no help because it showed her conscious and engaged in consensual activity.

    But as you are having a discussion with someone who doesn't pay attention to the facts ...
    Last edited by Excon; 10-17-13 at 02:43 PM.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  4. #344
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    re: Small Town Turns On Girl Who Was Allegedly Raped By HS Football Player [#303, #380]

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    @tererun
    You clearly are not familiar with the evidence in this case or the law.
    You should really do research or at least pay attention to what has already been provided before engaging your finger tips.
    You even just contradicted multiple facts that were specifically given to you.
    You clearly know not of what you speak.
    Pay attention.
    I am going to give this last response and then drop you. I remember what you are like from the zimmerman stuff, and I have probably spent too much time already with this and your ideas.

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    You are making stuff up here.
    Actually no. We know the girls were drinking. Under age drinking is a crime. They were told by their counsel to plead the fifth. This is because in ther telling of the account and getting it on a sworn statement they would open up the door to confessing to a crime. If the lawyer was telling them to shut up it is clear the prosecutor was not letting the under age drinking slide. I have used occams razor here and that all fits right in with what would happen if the girls were called upon by the prosecutor to swear a statement that would be used as a confession later. There might be more than just that, but that is good enough to conclude what happend. Even if there was more, whatever crime they were trying to stay silent about was not the intercourse. The intercourse is in no way legal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Had you bothered to pay attention the reason the prosecutor dropped the case wasn't just the failure to cooperate, but what happened before during and after the alleged incident.

    As previously provided.
    and here is the quote that is relevant

    In a later interview, Rice called it a case of “incorrigible teenagers” drinking alcohol and having sex.
    If the sexual activity is a given, which it is stated as such in that statement, it is a crime under the law. There is no legal sexual activity with a 13 year old under the law of the state. He admits a crime was committed. You are standing on that. Are you even reading what is said? They had sex and it is known. She cannot say yes. There is no way for her to have consented that night. All the other stuff is now superfluous. If the act of having sex is on record as a fact he has committed a felony.

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post

    Only in your convoluted, not paying attention to the facts, conspiratorial thoughts.
    there was no reason to drop the charges. If the boys admitted to having sex there was no reason to even ask the girls if they had sex. That is a confession. No one is saying they did not have sex that night. That is a felony, and the prosecutor had a duty to prosecute it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    One. The cops don't prosecute. Two, the boy were charged. Those charges were appropriately dropped.
    My mistake i should have said prosecutor. It was not appropriate as they had a felony.

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Three: Saying they had consensual sex is not a confession.
    Yes, it is a confession to having sex with a 13 year old which is illegal under the law. You can toss the consensual part out because consent was never needed because it could never be given. Just the act of sex with her at that time was a felony whether she wanted it or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Four: Had you bothered to pay attention to the information you were given, you would know that the video does not exist as it was deleted. And you would also know that the video is reported to show her engaging in consensual activity.
    Did you get that?
    Not unconscious, and consensual activity.
    If they admit to that content then he committed a felony by having intercourse with her.


    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Oy vey!
    No. You should look up the actual laws. And then pay attention to what laws that were in effect at the time of the indecent. Not the revised statutes which were revised after that incident.
    And again, consensual sex as well as no video.
    Ok, please do show us the law that was in effect at the time regarding sexual activity with a thirteen year old. What was the law at the time. If it was not illegal at that time then you win. I quoted the law as it is now, if it was different at the time please do enlighten me and i will move on. if that is the case then it sucks to be her.


    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Again showing you do not know what you are talking about.
    No they could not.
    The allegation was false to start with.
    She was 14.
    He did not confess to a felony, but to consensual sex and there is no video as it was deleted. Which only purports to show consensual activity. Making her allegation a lie.


    Wrong!
    I do believe she was 13 at the time, and they very clearly said they did include the other girl who was 13. But please do show us where the laws had changed so that at the time of the incident it was legal to have intercourse with a 13 year old. Provide me a link that is reliable and i can confirm and you win the argument. If that is the case it might have been dropped without much investigation.

  5. #345
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    re: Small Town Turns On Girl Who Was Allegedly Raped By HS Football Player [#303, #380]

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    None, according to him.
    As the prosecutor said, it wasn't their non-cooperation alone, but "information brought to his attention regarding what happened “before, during and after” the incident."

    And the video would have been no help because it showed her conscious and engaged in consensual activity.

    But as you are having a discussion with someone who doesn't pay attention to the facts ...
    You are realizing now that those revised statutes you were talking about which you say were not in effect at the time were actually in effect at the time. The title is revised because that means it is the most current statement of the law. Statutory rape laws have been on the books for years and I would find it really amazing that consensual sex with a minor was legal at the time. I could be wrong, I am not versed in Missouri law enough to know a couple years back if the statute was perhaps different. But please do show us where it was different otherwise it is really likely that it was illegal to have sex with a 13 year old girl in MO a couple of years ago just like it is today.

    I am waiting.

  6. #346
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    10-24-13 @ 02:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    913

    re: Small Town Turns On Girl Who Was Allegedly Raped By HS Football Player [#303, #380]

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonfly View Post
    I'm not saying the boys are guilty.

    I'm horrified that the boys apparently are being let off so easily, and even more horrified at the reaction of the town against the girl's family.
    You're not saying that they're guilty but are horrified that they're being let off easily?

    What the heck does this even mean???

  7. #347
    Farts in Elevators
    OscarB63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    09-06-14 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,526

    re: Small Town Turns On Girl Who Was Allegedly Raped By HS Football Player [#303, #380]

    something I haven't seen mentioned yet. since the girl is unwilling to assist the prosecution, I would think this guy could argue that any prosecution would violate his right to face his accuser.

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence
    bolded: since the girl refuses to testify/cooperate, and the video and photos of the incident have been erased/deleted...just what "witnesses" are there against him? without her presence and cooperation, any statements she made could be argued against as hearsay. none of the other people who were there could be compelled to testify because by doing so they would incriminate themselves.
    The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

    An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

  8. #348
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    re: Small Town Turns On Girl Who Was Allegedly Raped By HS Football Player [#303, #380]

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    I am going to give this last response and then drop you.
    That is called running.
    And you are running because you are wrong just as you were wrong in the Zimmerman threads.

    Your being wrong and not paying attention is not my fault, or my problem. It is yours. So run all you want.
    But I will make sure I point out where you are wrong for the others reading this, whether you reply or not.


    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    They were told by their counsel to plead the fifth.
    You do not know that, And I know you don't know that.
    So, prove it.
    It is that simple. Prove it or you are just blowing smoke.


    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    I have used occams razor here and that all fits right in with what would happen if the girls were called upon by the prosecutor to swear a statement that would be used as a confession later. There might be more than just that, but that is good enough to conclude what happend. Even if there was more, whatever crime they were trying to stay silent about was not the intercourse. The intercourse is in no way legal.
    Wrong on all counts.
    One. You didn't use Occams razor. You assumed something not in evidence. (which you are shown wrong by a quote below)

    The girl lied in her allegation. She was not unconscious. That is a big red flag.
    The mother admitted the girl is a liar. Big red flag confirmed.

    All you are doing is making misinformed pronouncements that are not in accord with the facts.
    And yes the sex was legal. Read the dam law that was in effect at the time. Like you were already told.



    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    and here is the quote that is relevant
    Everything he is quoted as saying is relevant.
    Funny how you left out the following. "But is it criminal? No.”


    Everything else you said is wrong. There was no felony unless it was forced. It wasn't forced but consensual.
    And Daisy, the one alleging rape, was 14, not 13.


    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    Ok, please do show us the law that was in effect at the time regarding sexual activity with a thirteen year old.
    She was not 13 at the time.
    Daisy was 14.
    And the other girl was with a 15 year old. And she wasn't cooperating either.


    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    What was the law at the time. If it was not illegal at that time then you win. I quoted the law as it is now, if it was different at the time please do enlighten me and i will move on. if that is the case then it sucks to be her.

    I do believe she was 13 at the time, and they very clearly said they did include the other girl who was 13. But please do show us where the laws had changed so that at the time of the incident it was legal to have intercourse with a 13 year old. Provide me a link that is reliable and i can confirm and you win the argument. If that is the case it might have been dropped without much investigation.
    It is your responsibility when discussing topics to at least be correctly informed and be aware of the information that was previously provided.

    This isn't about winning, but about the correct information being used to draw appropriate conclusions.
    If you don't have correct information, you can not come to an informed opinion on the subject, or be correct.

    The Statutes were revised August 28, 2012.
    That does not mean that everything in the Statutes was changed.
    The part that did was that they added "to cover cases of sexual contact when a person is incapacitated or incapable of giving consent".

    Which removes that from consideration and is actually contradicted by the video that was seen. Which also means her allegation is false. She was not unconscious, and it was consensual.
    She was 14, so the laws regarding being
    under 14
    do not apply.

    And as it was consensual and not forced, the other laws do not apply.


    Read the following from a Huff's article.

    White, the sheriff, said he never understood the Colemans' reasoning and that authorities weren't considering charges against the 14-year-old girl.

    "They stonewalled the case all by themselves," he said.

    Now that the family is saying they will cooperate, he wasn't sure whether that would make a difference.

    "They wouldn't cooperate and then they said they would cooperate. And then they wouldn't cooperate. And then they went back and forth," White said. "I'm guessing, and this is just speculation, but I'm guessing that the prosecutor would be a little gun shy to believe that they would be willing to cooperate at this time."

    He said authorities have had dealings with the suspects before and prosecuted them. Online court records show that the teen accused of assaulting Daisy had been on probation for a DWI.

    "It's not that he's afraid of these boys and their families or anything like that. It's just that he was left with no alternatives," White said.

    The case has drawn comparisons to one in Steubenville, Ohio, where two 17-year-old high school football players were convicted of raping a West Virginia girl after an alcohol-fueled party in 2012. The case was furiously debated online and led to allegations of a cover-up to protect the city's celebrated football team.

    Missouri expanded its rape, sodomy and sexual abuse laws, effective Aug. 28, to cover cases of sexual contact when a person is incapacitated or incapable of giving consent. Those crimes previously had required "forcible compulsion." State Rep. Jay Barnes, R-Jefferson City, who had supported that change, said Tuesday that it was prompted at least partly by the Steubenville case.


    Daisy Coleman Rape Case Can't Be Reopened By Missouri Attorney General
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  9. #349
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    re: Small Town Turns On Girl Who Was Allegedly Raped By HS Football Player [#303, #380]

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    You are realizing now that those revised statutes you were talking about which you say were not in effect at the time were actually in effect at the time. The title is revised because that means it is the most current statement of the law. Statutory rape laws have been on the books for years and I would find it really amazing that consensual sex with a minor was legal at the time. I could be wrong, I am not versed in Missouri law enough to know a couple years back if the statute was perhaps different. But please do show us where it was different otherwise it is really likely that it was illegal to have sex with a 13 year old girl in MO a couple of years ago just like it is today.

    I am waiting.
    Wtf?
    Read the above reply before you start spouting off with more bs.

    She was 14 at the time. So the laws that deal with being under 14 do not apply. Do you not realize that?

    566.032. 1. A person commits the crime of statutory rape in the first degree if he has sexual intercourse with another person who is less than fourteen years old.
    CHAPTER 566

    The above law does not apply.
    The only other laws that could apply, would be forcible or incapacitated.
    As incapacitated was added after the fact, it does not apply. Do you not understand that?

    The only evidence we have is that the act was consensual and that she was not unconscious as claimed.
    No crime was committed.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  10. #350
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    re: Small Town Turns On Girl Who Was Allegedly Raped By HS Football Player [#303, #380]

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    That is called running.
    And you are running because you are wrong just as you were wrong in the Zimmerman threads.

    Your being wrong and not paying attention is not my fault, or my problem. It is yours. So run all you want.
    But I will make sure I point out where you are wrong for the others reading this, whether you reply or not.


    You do not know that, And I know you don't know that.
    So, prove it.
    It is that simple. Prove it or you are just blowing smoke.


    Wrong on all counts.
    One. You didn't use Occams razor. You assumed something not in evidence. (which you are shown wrong by a quote below)

    The girl lied in her allegation. She was not unconscious. That is a big red flag.
    The mother admitted the girl is a liar. Big red flag confirmed.

    All you are doing is making misinformed pronouncements that are not in accord with the facts.
    And yes the sex was legal. Read the dam law that was in effect at the time. Like you were already told.



    Everything he is quoted as saying is relevant.
    Funny how you left out the following. "But is it criminal? No.”


    Everything else you said is wrong. There was no felony unless it was forced. It wasn't forced but consensual.
    And Daisy, the one alleging rape, was 14, not 13.


    She was not 13 at the time.
    Daisy was 14.
    And the other girl was with a 15 year old. And she wasn't cooperating either.



    It is your responsibility when discussing topics to at least be correctly informed and be aware of the information that was previously provided.

    This isn't about winning, but about the correct information being used to draw appropriate conclusions.
    If you don't have correct information, you can not come to an informed opinion on the subject, or be correct.

    The Statutes were revised August 28, 2012.
    That does not mean that everything in the Statutes was changed.
    The part that did was that they added "to cover cases of sexual contact when a person is incapacitated or incapable of giving consent".

    Which removes that from consideration and is actually contradicted by the video that was seen. Which also means her allegation is false. She was not unconscious, and it was consensual.
    She was 14, so the laws regarding being
    under 14
    do not apply.

    And as it was consensual and not forced, the other laws do not apply.


    Read the following from a Huff's article.

    White, the sheriff, said he never understood the Colemans' reasoning and that authorities weren't considering charges against the 14-year-old girl.

    "They stonewalled the case all by themselves," he said.

    Now that the family is saying they will cooperate, he wasn't sure whether that would make a difference.

    "They wouldn't cooperate and then they said they would cooperate. And then they wouldn't cooperate. And then they went back and forth," White said. "I'm guessing, and this is just speculation, but I'm guessing that the prosecutor would be a little gun shy to believe that they would be willing to cooperate at this time."

    He said authorities have had dealings with the suspects before and prosecuted them. Online court records show that the teen accused of assaulting Daisy had been on probation for a DWI.

    "It's not that he's afraid of these boys and their families or anything like that. It's just that he was left with no alternatives," White said.

    The case has drawn comparisons to one in Steubenville, Ohio, where two 17-year-old high school football players were convicted of raping a West Virginia girl after an alcohol-fueled party in 2012. The case was furiously debated online and led to allegations of a cover-up to protect the city's celebrated football team.

    Missouri expanded its rape, sodomy and sexual abuse laws, effective Aug. 28, to cover cases of sexual contact when a person is incapacitated or incapable of giving consent. Those crimes previously had required "forcible compulsion." State Rep. Jay Barnes, R-Jefferson City, who had supported that change, said Tuesday that it was prompted at least partly by the Steubenville case.


    Daisy Coleman Rape Case Can't Be Reopened By Missouri Attorney General
    Ok, so it all boils down to he had sex with a 13 year old girl and that was against the law at the time. Consent had nothing to do with it because a 13 year old cannot consent as per the law. But fee free to ramble on in your misconstrued whatever. They do not even need to look at the revision. The fact that they had sex was a crime.

Page 35 of 50 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •