• 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]

apdst said:
Oh, so based on an internet article, you're convinced that he's guilty.
Click to expand...

And based on the Internet article, you're convinced that he isn't. I suppose you approve of the good citizens of this hellhole running the family out of town, too. God, no wonder this sort of crap is tolerated.
 
X Factor said:
Dude may be the biggest scumbag ever, I just believe in Constitutional rights, even for scumbags.
Click to expand...

Which of his Constitutional rights were violated? Which would have been violated had he gone to trial?
 
Wiggen said:
I'm pretty sure getting a 14 year old kid drunk and then having forcible sex with her is not legal, but maybe it is where you come from.
Click to expand...

I thought you were claiming it was statutory. Lol. I notice that about this thread, you've all convicted him of forcible rape until it becomes more convenient to argue statutory rape. I'm curious what criteria you use to determine who should have a fair trial and who we should convict based on public outrage.
 
Wiggen said:
Which of his Constitutional rights were violated? Which would have been violated had he gone to trial?
Click to expand...

You certainly don't seem interested in the presumption of innocence or requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You want a jury trial guaranteed to result in conviction, no?
 
X Factor said:
I thought you were claiming it was statutory. Lol. I notice that about this thread, you've all convicted him of forcible rape until it becomes more convenient to argue statutory rape. I'm curious what criteria you use to determine who should have a fair trial and who we should convict based on public outrage.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I'd just be happy with any trial. But we didn't get that this time, because the girl was a newcomer and the kid was a football jock with family connections. I think it was probably forcible rape, but even statutory rape would deserve at least a trial. Or do we get a free pass if we're a jock in a small town and the girl is a nobody?
 
X Factor said:
You certainly don't seem interested in the presumption of innocence or requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You want a jury trial guaranteed to result in conviction, no?
Click to expand...

I don't get your point. Your conclusion is that the Sheriff is lying when he said he thought they had a very strong case against this punk?
 
Wiggen said:
I'm pretty sure getting a 14 year old kid drunk and then having forcible sex with her is not legal, but maybe it is where you come from.
Click to expand...
I could be wrong here, but I am pretty sure that it was consensual sex based on what the prosecutor said.

Let me quote it for the umpteenth time.

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.”​

I believe the underline is an admittance by the Prosecutor that it was consensual, which is based on knowledge of what happened “before, during and after” the incident.
 
Wiggen said:
Frankly, I'd just be happy with any trial. But we didn't get that this time, because the girl was a newcomer and the kid was a football jock with family connections.
Click to expand...
BS! You didn't get it because the evidence does not support the charge.
 
Excon said:
:doh
Small town prosecutor?
Let me exaggerate here; Those are the ones who are more than willing to indict ham sandwiches.
You have no valid point here.



My position is that we do not know what actually happened.
But based on what the prosecutor has said, yes.


And?
Lushes don't drink?

What do you think that means?
Because it doesn't mean it wasn't consensual.

Kids being kids.

Which apparently haven't held up, otherwise we wouldn't be where we are now.
“There wasn’t any prosecuting attorney that could take that case to trial,” he said.

“It had to be dismissed. And it was.”​
I guess the "had to be" confuses you.

Wrong. Video of it happening does not exist.

Obviously it is not.
Click to expand...

Wow man, you're pretty much putting up this prosecutor as infallible.

And the video did exist, at least according the Sheriff. Unless he is lying about it, don't know where you got that it doesn't exist from. Missouri state law considers consent cannot be given if victim is mentally incapacitated. Mentally incapacitated is defined as under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Read the following and see if you still feel the same way. There is enough there to want to see a third party come and go through this stuff.

Nightmare in Maryville: Teens’ sexual encounter ignites a firestorm against family - KansasCity.com
 
Fishstyx said:
Wow man, you're pretty much putting up this prosecutor as infallible.
Click to expand...
Did I say he was?
Yet his decision is based on all the evidence and the Law. So yeah, I think you should go with it.



Fishstyx said:
And the video did exist, at least according the Sheriff. Unless he is lying about it, don't know where you got that it doesn't exist from.
Click to expand...
:doh
The video I believe was reported as being erased by the person who took it.
Just as at least one picture was also erased by the person who took it.
These were supposedly viewed by others.



Fishstyx said:
Missouri state law considers consent cannot be given if victim is mentally incapacitated. Mentally incapacitated is defined as under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
Click to expand...
So you are now saying that she raped him, right? As he was incapacitated by the same.
But again, you do not know that it wasn't consensual.
How do you know that she didn't say to him at the beginning; Let's get drunk and ****?


Fishstyx said:
Read the following and see if you still feel the same way. There is enough there to want to see a third party come and go through this stuff.

Nightmare in Maryville: Teens’ sexual encounter ignites a firestorm against family - KansasCity.com
Click to expand...
Are you not paying attention?
That is the same article I provided.
There is nothing that supports your assertion for a third party.
 
Last edited:
Wiggen said:
And based on the Internet article, you're convinced that he isn't. I suppose you approve of the good citizens of this hellhole running the family out of town, too. God, no wonder this sort of crap is tolerated.
Click to expand...

The only thing I'm convinced of, is that I don't know enough to vall it either way. I know it sounds crazy, but don't you think it would be a good idea to make sure he's guilty before his life is ruined?
 
Excon said:
So you are now saying that she raped him, right? As he was incapacitated by the same.
But again, you do not know that it wasn't consensual.
How do you know that she didn't say to him at the beginning; Let's get drunk and ****?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter in the eyes of the law. Barnett admitted they had sex but claimed it was consensual. So he's not claiming he's been raped, however Colemen is. Her BAC was .13, which would be under the influence by just about any standard, more so when you factor in a 14 year old girl. Under Missouri law, you cannot give consent...AT ALL....if you're under the influence. And there's the rape kit. So you have admission that sex occurred, a blood test showing she was clearly under the influence and a rape kit confirming sex happened.

That in itself is enough should question why this case not being prosecuted.

Just strange, the prosecutor says "they were doing what they wanted to do" so he admits that sex occurred yet dismisses that this girl was under the influence when their is clearly evidence that she was.
 
Listen up all you folks.
Apparently the sex was consensual, she was not unconscious and the video was erased.


MaggieD said:
She was unfreakin'conscious!
Click to expand...
Apparently not.

Mason66 said:
I don't understand how any girl or woman that was unconcious can consent to having sex.
Click to expand...
Because she wasn't unconscious.

Fishstyx said:
hospital rape kit confirming forceful sex,
Click to expand...
Apparently not.


Fishstyx said:
video confirming it happened.
Click to expand...
Apparently not, as it was deleted.

The rest of the story is told in Nodaway County Sheriff’s reports. As Daisy Coleman continued drinking, her friend and an underage boy went into one of the bedrooms. Barnett admitted to sheriff’s investigators that he had sex with Daisy in another room, but said she wasn’t yet drunk, just “buzzed.” Zech said he used a buddy’s iPhone to videotape Barnett and Daisy kissing, half undressed. Barnett, Zech and two other boys say they watched the video before deleting it, according to sheriff’s reports.

Why Was The Maryville Rape Case Dropped? | KCUR​



Wiggen said:
I'm pretty sure getting a 14 year old kid drunk and then having forcible sex with her is not legal, but maybe it is where you come from.
Click to expand...
I was sure based on what the Prosecutor has said.
But as CNN reports it ...

"Subsequent investigation and interviews raised substantial doubt about the felony charge, specifically including whether the young lady was incapacitated during the encounter."

It said that, while charges were pending in May 2012, Barnett's lawyer tried to take sworn statements from the alleged victims and their relatives, but they "refused to answer any questions citing their Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate themselves. Accordingly, without competent evidence and with witnesses unwilling to testify, the State was under a duty to dismiss any prosecution when it became apparent that a conviction was not possible."

That left Barnett facing one remaining claim, a misdemeanor charge of child endangerment related to the allegation that the high school senior left the 14-year-old girl "in an incapacitated condition outside of her home in freezing weather."

During a deposition in July 2012, Daisy Coleman testified "with numerous inconsistencies and changes to previous statements," the statement from Barnett's lawyer says. "When the alleged victim's mother was questioned about these changes, she freely admitted that her daughter does not always tell the truth, particularly when she is in a stressful situation. Thereafter, the misdemeanor charge was dismissed."

Missouri Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder calls for review of rape case - CNN.com

​



Zech said he had used a friend’s phone to record some of the encounter. He said, however, that he thought Barnett and the girl were only “dry humping,” a term commonly used to describe rubbing together clothed. Another teen, however, told police the video featured both Barnett and Daisy with their pants down.

Nightmare in Maryville: Teens’ sexual encounter ignites a firestorm against family - KansasCity dot com​
 
Last edited:
Fishstyx said:
Doesn't matter in the eyes of the law. Barnett admitted they had sex but claimed it was consensual. So he's not claiming he's been raped, however Colemen is. Her BAC was .13, which would be under the influence by just about any standard, more so when you factor in a 14 year old girl. Under Missouri law, you cannot give consent...AT ALL....if you're under the influence. And there's the rape kit. So you have admission that sex occurred, a blood test showing she was clearly under the influence and a rape kit confirming sex happened.

That in itself is enough should question why this case not being prosecuted.

Just strange, the prosecutor says "they were doing what they wanted to do" so he admits that sex occurred yet dismisses that this girl was under the influence when their is clearly evidence that she was.
Click to expand...
Read the damn law and see what is says.

You are wrong in your application.

And you are wrong because the evidence does not support the charges.
 
Excon said:
Read the damn law and see what is says.

You are wrong in your application.

And you are wrong because the evidence does not support the charges.
Click to expand...

Its possible, don't think so.

Statute:
A person commits the crime of sexual assault if he has sexual intercourse with another person knowing that he does so without that person's consent
Click to expand...

So in a nutshell, you're saying that Barnett's ignorance of the consent laws makes him free and clear here and gives the prosecutor a pass here? Can you site where you can ever uses ignorance of the law as a defense?
 
lizzie said:
Not without a fair trial, not in the media, but in a court of law. We don't know the truth, and to say otherwise, is dishonesty.
Click to expand...

X Factor said:
I know, those constitutional provisions are such a pain in the ass, aren't they? We should suspend them whenever people are really, really mad.
Click to expand...

Wow, way to completely distort and misrepresent my position.

But what was I thinking. Anytime rape is alleged, the victim becomes the accused and the accused becomes the victim.
 
Fishstyx said:
Its possible, don't think so.

Statute:
A person commits the crime of sexual assault if he has sexual intercourse with another person knowing that he does so without that person's consent
Click to expand...

So in a nutshell, you're saying that Barnett's ignorance of the consent laws makes him free and clear here and gives the prosecutor a pass here? Can you site where you can ever uses ignorance of the law as a defense?
Click to expand...
:doh
Holy ****. Are you not paying attention?
It was a mutual act.

They were seen, as one person put it, “dry humping,” while another says both their pants were down.
She was conscious and engaged in a mutual consensual act.
 
Excon said:
Listen up all you folks.
Apparently the sex was consensual, she was not unconscious and the video was erased.


Apparently not.


Because she wasn't unconscious.

Apparently not.


Apparently not, as it was deleted.

The rest of the story is told in Nodaway County Sheriff’s reports. As Daisy Coleman continued drinking, her friend and an underage boy went into one of the bedrooms. Barnett admitted to sheriff’s investigators that he had sex with Daisy in another room, but said she wasn’t yet drunk, just “buzzed.” Zech said he used a buddy’s iPhone to videotape Barnett and Daisy kissing, half undressed. Barnett, Zech and two other boys say they watched the video before deleting it, according to sheriff’s reports.

Why Was The Maryville Rape Case Dropped? | KCUR​



I was sure based on what the Prosecutor has said.
But as CNN reports it ...

"Subsequent investigation and interviews raised substantial doubt about the felony charge, specifically including whether the young lady was incapacitated during the encounter."

It said that, while charges were pending in May 2012, Barnett's lawyer tried to take sworn statements from the alleged victims and their relatives, but they "refused to answer any questions citing their Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate themselves. Accordingly, without competent evidence and with witnesses unwilling to testify, the State was under a duty to dismiss any prosecution when it became apparent that a conviction was not possible."

That left Barnett facing one remaining claim, a misdemeanor charge of child endangerment related to the allegation that the high school senior left the 14-year-old girl "in an incapacitated condition outside of her home in freezing weather."

During a deposition in July 2012, Daisy Coleman testified "with numerous inconsistencies and changes to previous statements," the statement from Barnett's lawyer says. "When the alleged victim's mother was questioned about these changes, she freely admitted that her daughter does not always tell the truth, particularly when she is in a stressful situation. Thereafter, the misdemeanor charge was dismissed."

Missouri Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder calls for review of rape case - CNN.com

​



Zech said he had used a friend’s phone to record some of the encounter. He said, however, that he thought Barnett and the girl were only “dry humping,” a term commonly used to describe rubbing together clothed. Another teen, however, told police the video featured both Barnett and Daisy with their pants down.

Nightmare in Maryville: Teens’ sexual encounter ignites a firestorm against family - KansasCity dot com​
Click to expand...

Nice research. I figured it had to be something along those lines. It won't make a bit of difference to many participants of this thread though.
 
Excon said:
Listen up all you folks.
Apparently the sex was consensual, she was not unconscious and the video was erased.


Apparently not.


Because she wasn't unconscious.

Apparently not.


Apparently not, as it was deleted.

The rest of the story is told in Nodaway County Sheriff’s reports. As Daisy Coleman continued drinking, her friend and an underage boy went into one of the bedrooms. Barnett admitted to sheriff’s investigators that he had sex with Daisy in another room, but said she wasn’t yet drunk, just “buzzed.” Zech said he used a buddy’s iPhone to videotape Barnett and Daisy kissing, half undressed. Barnett, Zech and two other boys say they watched the video before deleting it, according to sheriff’s reports.

Why Was The Maryville Rape Case Dropped? | KCUR​



I was sure based on what the Prosecutor has said.
But as CNN reports it ...

"Subsequent investigation and interviews raised substantial doubt about the felony charge, specifically including whether the young lady was incapacitated during the encounter."

It said that, while charges were pending in May 2012, Barnett's lawyer tried to take sworn statements from the alleged victims and their relatives, but they "refused to answer any questions citing their Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate themselves. Accordingly, without competent evidence and with witnesses unwilling to testify, the State was under a duty to dismiss any prosecution when it became apparent that a conviction was not possible."

That left Barnett facing one remaining claim, a misdemeanor charge of child endangerment related to the allegation that the high school senior left the 14-year-old girl "in an incapacitated condition outside of her home in freezing weather."

During a deposition in July 2012, Daisy Coleman testified "with numerous inconsistencies and changes to previous statements," the statement from Barnett's lawyer says. "When the alleged victim's mother was questioned about these changes, she freely admitted that her daughter does not always tell the truth, particularly when she is in a stressful situation. Thereafter, the misdemeanor charge was dismissed."

Missouri Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder calls for review of rape case - CNN.com

​



Zech said he had used a friend’s phone to record some of the encounter. He said, however, that he thought Barnett and the girl were only “dry humping,” a term commonly used to describe rubbing together clothed. Another teen, however, told police the video featured both Barnett and Daisy with their pants down.

Nightmare in Maryville: Teens’ sexual encounter ignites a firestorm against family - KansasCity dot com​
Click to expand...

Well, that certainly might explain why the girl decided not to cooperate with prosecution. If she was not unconscious, and was actively participating, it would be pretty difficult to make a case for rape.
 
MaggieD said:
Here's an article that purports to describe testimony at the preliminary hearing:



If this is an accurate account of testimony, it's very difficult to understand how this was not sexual assault at the very least.

Here's a quotation from Comments that may explain the mindset:
Click to expand...

Here's a question for you, Mags. What if the boy was tried and the jury believed him guilty according to the letter of the law but the jury also decided the kid should not be a convicted felon for life so they go ahead and acquit him. Would you support their jury nullification?
 
Is the suggestion then that Mays best friend lied in his testimony at the preliminary hearing? That makes no sense.

"I tried to tell Trent to stop it," another athlete, who was Mays's best friend, testified. "You know, I told him, ‘Just wait — wait till she wakes up if you're going to do any of this stuff. Don't do anything you're going to regret.' "

He said Mays answered: "It's all right. Don't worry."

That boy took a photograph of what Mays and Richmond were doing to the girl. He explained in court how he wanted her to know what had happened to her, but he deleted it from his phone, he testified, after showing it to several people.
Click to expand...
 
X Factor said:
Here's a question for you, Mags. What if the boy was tried and the jury believed him guilty according to the letter of the law but the jury also decided the kid should not be a convicted felon for life so they go ahead and acquit him. Would you support their jury nullification?
Click to expand...

Well, after reading your "rest of the story," I'd be glad they did. However, if what you added in this thread were not the case, I would be furious. That doesn't mean, however, that I don't support jury nullification. I look at jury nullification as our last defense against bad law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom