• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

lizzie said:
The actions that she should be held responsible for did not involve the boy. They involved her home environment and life. She and her 13 year-old friend got drunk on alcohol that she (the victim) had stashed in her closet. She then reportedly started texting back and forth with the boy, and snuck out a window to go and be with the boys mentioned in the stories which have been published on this case. What she is guilty of is stupidity. I just don't understand her mother not pursuing this case vigorously.
Click to expand...

Non of that obsloves what the guys did to her. Oscar was saying that the guys should not be held responsable because the girl was not held responsable for her actions.

The girl didn't do anything to cause her rape at any of the three parties. Being drunk is not a Green light to rape someone.
 
This case is simply one of the many tips of the proverbial iceberg..
A college girl at ___ university hung herself after a football player at ___ university and she did what????
Besides boy on girl, we have male teacher on girl, female teacher on boy, incest same with both opposite,
I'm not specifically aware of any same-sex rape yes in high schools since I retired..
Check out the looks on your adminisrators' faces..
There's a lot of heavy stuff on their minds.
 
Mason66 said:
From what I have seen, there was plenty of evidence to charge many people with a variety of things without having to use the victim as a witness.

There were a ton of witnesses and 3 different parties that saw what happened. To say that the case could not have gone forward is crazy.
Click to expand...

If you think you might want to pursue prosecution, but haven't decided for sure, we recommend that you make the police report right away, while the evidence is still present and your memory is still detailed. The district attorney will decide whether or not to pursue prosecution, however it is unusual for cases to proceed without the cooperation of the victim. And if prosecution is pursued, the chance of success will be much higher if you reported, and had evidence collected, immediately after the attack.
Click to expand...
Reporting Rape | RAINN | Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network
 
X Factor said:
Because you've read about it now you know who should be convicted and of what. No even need for a trial. Ok.
Click to expand...

Please learn to read. What does my post say?????

It says charge. That is the first step to going to trial.

You do understand in order to convict somebody of something, a trial is needed, right?

What are you even talking about?
 
Excon said:
Bottom line is that is was determined that the evidence does not support such a charge.
So that really means it wasn't.



Rice said charges were dropped for lack of evidence, but he added, declining to go into the specifics, that information brought to his attention regarding what happened “before, during and after” the incident also played a role in his actions.

“There wasn’t any prosecuting attorney that could take that case to trial,” he said.

“It had to be dismissed. And it was.”

The parent of one of the teens at the Barnett house that night was the only one to comment briefly to The Star: “Our boys deserve an apology, and they haven’t gotten it yet.”

In a later interview, Rice called it a case of “incorrigible teenagers” drinking alcohol and having sex. “They were doing what they wanted to do, and there weren’t any consequences. And it’s reprehensible. But is it criminal? No.”​
Click to expand...

Based on the opinion of a small town prosecutor. If that was your daughter, would you accept that rationale based on the evidence that is public?

Blood alcohol of the alleged victim of .13 seven hours after the incident, hospital rape kit confirming forceful sex, the suspect admitting to that sex occurred, witness statements confirming it happened, video confirming it happened.

Honestly, the admission of sex by the suspect and the girls blood alcohol is enough evidence to prove sexual assault.
 
Mason66 said:
Non of that obsloves what the guys did to her. Oscar was saying that the guys should not be held responsable because the girl was not held responsable for her actions.

The girl didn't do anything to cause her rape at any of the three parties. Being drunk is not a Green light to rape someone.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it does, now, did I?
 
Mason66 said:
Please learn to read. What does my post say?????

It says charge. That is the first step to going to trial.

You do understand in order to convict somebody of something, a trial is needed, right?

What are you even talking about?
Click to expand...

So that's what you see a trial as? The first step in convicting someone? I'm as pro prosecution as anyone and I disagree with that.
 
Mason66 said:
It is unusal because usually the victim can testify as to what happened, but in this case, she had no memory of the happenings, so they had to build a case without her testimony, which is entirely posible.

Maybe the local pólice are relatives of the accused, who knows, but the case should have gone on.
Click to expand...

That doesn't change the fact that she apparently refused to cooperate. I'm not sure why this concept seems to escape you.
 
X Factor said:
So that's what you see a trial as? The first step in convicting someone? I'm as pro prosecution as anyone and I disagree with that.
Click to expand...

I said the charge of the crime is the first step, not the trial.
 
lizzie said:
That doesn't change the fact that she apparently refused to cooperate. I'm not sure why this concept seems to escape you.
Click to expand...

Because she is not needed for the case to continue. A rape happened, and as the victim, after the pólice have the evidence, can't say that she wants the charges dropped. The crime was committed and they can be prosecuted.

The prosecution can also compell her to testify, but about what I don't know.
 
Mason66 said:
Then what was your point in saying she was drunk?
Click to expand...

Just giving you a little background information. You seem to have thought that she just showed up at the boy's house sober, and then he proceeded to get her drunk and rape her. For all I know, this may be the reason that she has decided not to cooperate with the prosecution of the case.
 
Mason66 said:
Because she is not needed for the case to continue. A rape happened, and as the victim, after the pólice have the evidence, can't say that she wants the charges dropped. The crime was committed and they can be prosecuted.

The prosecution can also compell her to testify, but about what I don't know.
Click to expand...

Are you reading the links provided for you? It is unusual for a rape case to be prosecuted without victim participation. Jeez, I feel like I am beating my head against the wall. :lol:
 
Mason66 said:
I said the charge of the crime is the first step, not the trial.
Click to expand...

Ok, so the trial should just be one of the steps to convicting someone but the conviction should be a forgone conclusion. That's much better. Thanks for clarifying.
 
Mason66 said:
So you are of the opinión that any woman who drinks should be raped? That is a pretty strong stance to take.

You are saying her drinking was the positive action that caused her to be raped at 3 different parties.

Is that what you are trying to say here?
Click to expand...

strawman much? I never said anything of the sort. and just where does it say that she was raped at 3 different parties? I must have missed that part.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Nope. But they should be taken seriously. It is some kind of social sickness that this community doesn't even care to find out whether this girl was raped. All they care about is their boys in the football team.

This isn't a question of what's wrong with the criminal justice system. It's a question of what's wrong with these supposed human beings.
Click to expand...

None of us here know enough to condemn either side of the brew-ha-ha.
 
lizzie said:
Just giving you a little background information. You seem to have thought that she just showed up at the boy's house sober, and then he proceeded to get her drunk and rape her. For all I know, this may be the reason that she has decided not to cooperate with the prosecution of the case.
Click to expand...

The girl was unconcious on the ground naked and they still continued to violate her.

There were plenty of witnesses to that fact and the case should have continued.

Let's say the first time she had sex with somebody, she was drunk but awake and actually participating, that still does not excuse what happened afterwards, moving her to 2 more parties to share her with other people. Each act was a crime in and of itself.

I don't see how, with the mountain of evidence, they dropped the charges.

There had to be something else going on here.
 
lizzie said:
Are you reading the links provided for you? It is unusual for a rape case to be prosecuted without victim participation. Jeez, I feel like I am beating my head against the wall. :lol:
Click to expand...

I already answered that.
 
X Factor said:
Ok, so the trial should just be one of the steps to convicting someone but the conviction should be a forgone conclusion. That's much better. Thanks for clarifying.
Click to expand...

What are you even talking about? Who said that?
 
X Factor said:
It's annoying when people show their extreme ignorance, it's even more annoying when they don't realize how little they know. I don't know about Missouri law, but where I live (in Texas) there's defense to statutory rape if the parties are within 3 years in age of each other (as long as it isn't forcible). Now tell me how you know for a fact that that defense does not apply here. While you're at it, tell me when you think an accused should be given Constitutional protections and when they shouldn't.
Click to expand...
I already fell on my sword here. I was wrong about the stat rape regarding 17 and 14 year-olds.
 
OscarB63 said:
strawman much? I never said anything of the sort. and just where does it say that she was raped at 3 different parties? I must have missed that part.
Click to expand...

You said because she was drunk, she should have been raped. The double standard, right?

You didn't answer my question. What positive actions did this girl take to cause this rape?
 
X Factor said:
Sometimes, the allegations are actually false.

Duke lacrosse case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not saying anything about whether the allegations in the OP are true or not because I don't know, but there is a purpose for the criminal justice system and allegations does not equal convictions.
Click to expand...

SmokeAndMirrors said:
Nope. But they should be taken seriously. It is some kind of social sickness that this community doesn't even care to find out whether this girl was raped. All they care about is their boys in the football team.

This isn't a question of what's wrong with the criminal justice system. It's a question of what's wrong with these supposed human beings.
Click to expand...
Actually as usual the answer should be in between. Allegations taken seriously yes, and no animosity should be shown to either party until after facts are known and best possible solution, all trials are complete.
Both of y'alls thoughts here seem to present situations where animosity prior to knowledge has been shown mostly because of the idea of jumping the gun. One shows where a community jumped too quickly to condemn the alleged rapists, and this OP shows where a community maybe jumping too soon to the opposite. So any presumption, imo, simple stokes the potential that someone may be falsely condemned, be it the alleged victim or the allege rapist.
 
Mason66 said:
You said because she was drunk, she should have been raped. The double standard, right?

?
Click to expand...

I would really like to see where Oscar said that. I don't believe it for a second. You just lost all credibility imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom