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

Was the case "dropped" because the victims were being TERRORIZED??????

lizzie said:

If your case is legitimate, and you are dedicated to the truth winning out, you have to be willing to stay dedicated, no matter the outside pressure. What it tells me is that they were either doubtful of their own position, or they lacked moral courage.

Click to expand...

I've never been a 14 year old girl with a community of adults acting like school bullies toward me so I wouldn't know if I would have said moral courage.

How could a drunk, semi-unconscious 14-year-old have any capacity to give consent?

Dragonfly said:

Was the case "dropped" because the victims were being TERRORIZED??????

Click to expand...

Most likely the case was dropped because of the things which aren't talked about. This 14 year old girl was obviously drunk out of her mind, she was likely acting in a very flirtatious manner with the boys and it was most likely suggested she'd be interested in relations with the boys.

I don't know this at all, I'm just going based on what I've seen from adults and the hormones of teenagers. Does that mean the boys didn't rape her? Not necessarily. But what it does mean is the evidence was not likely to get a conviction, especially once the girl refused to cooperate. Why did the girl refuse to cooperate? There are many possible explanations. But I think everyone against the boys see the girl as an innocent victim and everyone who sides with the boys see the girl as a total slut. The truth is likely somewhere in between, and it is this truth which has made the case against the boys very difficult to pursue.

CycloneWanderer said:

How could a drunk, semi-unconscious 14-year-old have any capacity to give consent?

Click to expand...

If being drunk absolves one of responsibility, then how can you blame the boys, who were also drunk?

I've never been a fan of the "too drunk to consent" argument, especially if both people were drinking. If she was completely unconscious, that would be a different story, but simply being drunk should not absolve one of the responsibility, especially if both parties were drinking.

Ben K. said:

I've never been a 14 year old girl with a community of adults acting like school bullies toward me so I wouldn't know if I would have said moral courage.

Click to expand...

I haven't either, but that is what it takes.

CRUE CAB said:

If she was "14" then why was she hanging out with older highschoolers? Drinking? I think there is more to the story, there usually is.

Click to expand...

If he did rape her than any other considerations are null and void. There is NO reason that rape should ever be excused. IMO all that needs to be considered is if there was indeed a rape or not. The "why" or "how it came to pass" is irrelevent next to actual rape happening.

If he didn't rape her then she deserves to be shunned. :shrug: Crying rape when no rape happened can be just as bad as actual rape imo. In both cases someones life was ruined due to the selfishness of the antagonist.

Kal'Stang said:

If he did rape her than any other considerations are null and void.

Click to expand...

I believe the point is, or at least would be if I made the point, is the other considerations can help determine if it was rape.

Slyfox696 said:

Most likely the case was dropped because of the things which aren't talked about. This 14 year old girl was obviously drunk out of her mind, she was likely acting in a very flirtatious manner with the boys and it was most likely suggested she'd be interested in relations with the boys.

I don't know this at all, I'm just going based on what I've seen from adults and the hormones of teenagers. Does that mean the boys didn't rape her? Not necessarily. But what it does mean is the evidence was not likely to get a conviction, especially once the girl refused to cooperate. Why did the girl refuse to cooperate? There are many possible explanations. But I think everyone against the boys see the girl as an innocent victim and everyone who sides with the boys see the girl as a total slut. The truth is likely somewhere in between, and it is this truth which has made the case against the boys very difficult to pursue.

If being drunk absolves one of responsibility, then how can you blame the boys, who were also drunk?

I've never been a fan of the "too drunk to consent" argument, especially if both people were drinking. If she was completely unconscious, that would be a different story, but simply being drunk should not absolve one of the responsibility, especially if both parties were drinking.

Click to expand...

This falls dangerously close to:

"A drunk girl is asking for it..."


Regardless though, this is why a trial is needed.


Sounds too much like small town mid-west teenage athlete is being protected at expense of small town mid-west teenage girl.

Kal'Stang said:

If he didn't rape her then she deserves to be shunned. :shrug: Crying rape when no rape happened can be just as bad as actual rape imo. In both cases someones life was ruined due to the selfishness of the antagonist.

Click to expand...

If an adult, yes. If a child, no.

Slyfox696 said:

I believe the point is, or at least would be if I made the point, is the other considerations can help determine if it was rape.

Click to expand...

Was the girl involved in a sex act with full knowledge and consent? At 14 years old the answer is no.

Slyfox696 said:

I've never been a fan of the "too drunk to consent" argument, especially if both people were drinking. If she was completely unconscious, that would be a different story, but simply being drunk should not absolve one of the responsibility, especially if both parties were drinking.

Click to expand...

She was unconscious.

Further, an enlightened society must never allow drunkenness to absolve someone of evil acts. A blind drunk woman can NEVER give consent. A blind drunk man had better keep it in his pants.

Dragonfly said:

This falls dangerously close to:

"A drunk girl is asking for it..."


Regardless though, this is why a trial is needed.


Sounds too much like small town mid-west teenage athlete is being protected at expense of small town mid-west teenage girl.

Click to expand...

Then the young lady needs to get her act together, and start cooperating with the prosecution. You don't convict someone of a crime, without convincing testimony and cooperation by the one who was the victim.

Dragonfly said:

This falls dangerously close to:

"A drunk girl is asking for it..."

Click to expand...

Not to anyone who reads it honestly, it does not. To someone who reads it honestly and without bias it sounds exactly like what happens all across America, at all ages and has for as far back as I can imagine. People get drunk, they act on hormones. This is not new at all. I've known many girls who intentionally get drunk so they can have sex, but society has made it acceptable for drunk girls to be promiscuous, even as it shows disdain for sober women who do the same.

To suggest a teenage girl, with hormones raging and in a society which almost glorifies drunken sex, would never be suggestive with drunken teenage boys is ludicrous. Is that what happened in this specific case? I have no idea. All I'm saying is I'd say it's a very real possibility. And if you approach this without bias, you'll know it too.

Regardless though, this is why a trial is needed.

Click to expand...

A prosecutor has a duty to only bring to trial cases it believes it can win. If the prosecutor does not feel as if they can win the trial, it is their duty to not bring the case to trial. A trial is not like a trip to the principal's office, where both sides tell their story and the situation can be re-visited. A trial is a very serious and very expensive thing with very serious ramifications. For example, if the prosecutor brought a losing case to trial and evidence turns up after the boys were guilty, then the boys can never be tried again.

A trial is only when the prosecutor has a legitimate reason to believe he/she can win.

Sounds too much like small town mid-west teenage athlete is being protected at expense of small town mid-west teenage girl.

Click to expand...

No, it sounds too much like a situation where parents allow their children to go out and get so drunk they make very bad choices. And I'm talking about both the girl and the boys.

Slyfox696 said:

Most likely the case was dropped because of the things which aren't talked about. This 14 year old girl was obviously drunk out of her mind, she was likely acting in a very flirtatious manner with the boys and it was most likely suggested she'd be interested in relations with the boys.

I don't know this at all, I'm just going based on what I've seen from adults and the hormones of teenagers. Does that mean the boys didn't rape her? Not necessarily. But what it does mean is the evidence was not likely to get a conviction, especially once the girl refused to cooperate. Why did the girl refuse to cooperate? There are many possible explanations. But I think everyone against the boys see the girl as an innocent victim and everyone who sides with the boys see the girl as a total slut. The truth is likely somewhere in between, and it is this truth which has made the case against the boys very difficult to pursue.

If being drunk absolves one of responsibility, then how can you blame the boys, who were also drunk?

I've never been a fan of the "too drunk to consent" argument, especially if both people were drinking. If she was completely unconscious, that would be a different story, but simply being drunk should not absolve one of the responsibility, especially if both parties were drinking.

Click to expand...

Simply being drunk should not absolve one of the responsibility to not rape people. If anything, the police should have taken extra efforts to go after whoever the hell was providing the alcohol, too. Providing alcohol to minors and accesory to sexual assault.

Kal'Stang said:

Was the girl involved in a sex act with full knowledge and consent? At 14 years old the answer is no.

Click to expand...

Were the boys, who were also minors and also drunk, acting with full knowledge and consent?

In this case, age and alcohol cannot be held against one and not the other.

MaggieD said:

She was unconscious.

Click to expand...

Yes, according to the witness. And if so, that's certainly different than only being drunk, as I said. I'm more referring to the double standard which states a drunken woman should not be held accountable for her sexual habits but a drunken man can.

Further, an enlightened society must never allow drunkenness to absolve someone of evil acts. A blind drunk woman can NEVER give consent. A blind drunk man had better keep it in his pants.

Click to expand...

That's a double standard. If I get drunk and have sex with a drunken girl, do I get to accuse her of rape? Or is it only the woman who can get drunk and accuse the man of rape?

If both parties are drunk, then either both parties are responsible for their sexual habits or neither of them are. To say women cannot control their hormones while drunk but men should be held fully responsible is not only a double standard, it's also rather demeaning to women.

CycloneWanderer said:

Simply being drunk should not absolve one of the responsibility to not rape people. If anything, the police should have taken extra efforts to go after whoever the hell was providing the alcohol, too. Providing alcohol to minors and accesory to sexual assault.

Click to expand...

That's an excellent point.

As I read the article, these people went to three house parties. The parents at each of those houses should be placed under arrest.

Slyfox696 said:

Not to anyone who reads it honestly, it does not. To someone who reads it honestly and without bias it sounds exactly like what happens all across America, at all ages and has for as far back as I can imagine. People get drunk, they act on hormones. This is not new at all. I've known many girls who intentionally get drunk so they can have sex, but society has made it acceptable for drunk girls to be promiscuous, even as it shows disdain for sober women who do the same.

Click to expand...

And as far back as I can remember being drunk was no excuse to rape anyone. Every court case about it has said the same thing.

CycloneWanderer said:

Simply being drunk should not absolve one of the responsibility to not rape people.

Click to expand...

Agreed. What I'm referring to is when both the man and women are drunk, but only one party is held responsible for the sex.

If a man can be held responsible for his drunken sexual habits, then so can a woman.

If anything, the police should have taken extra efforts to go after whoever the hell was providing the alcohol, too. Providing alcohol to minors and accesory to sexual assault.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. And the girl should be charged with alcohol consumption by a minor (as should the boys).

Slyfox696 said:

Were the boys, who were also minors and also drunk, acting with full knowledge and consent?

In this case, age and alcohol cannot be held against one and not the other.
Yes, according to the witness. And if so, that's certainly different than only being drunk, as I said. I'm more referring to the double standard which states a drunken woman should not be held accountable for her sexual habits but a drunken man can.

That's a double standard. If I get drunk and have sex with a drunken girl, do I get to accuse her of rape? Or is it only the woman who can get drunk and accuse the man of rape?

If both parties are drunk, then either both parties are responsible for their sexual habits or neither of them are. To say women cannot control their hormones while drunk but men should be held fully responsible is not only a double standard, it's also rather demeaning to women.

Click to expand...

"I was drunk" will never be an excuse for breaking the law. You can call it a double standard all day long, but if it's against the law sober? It's against the law drunk.

Dragonfly said:

Small Town Turns On Girl Who Was Allegedly Raped By HS Football Player

or here: Daisy Coleman, Missouri Teen, Claims She's Shunned By Community After Rape Allegations

or here: Maryville rape case: The horrifying details of what happened to Daisy Coleman feel all too familiar.


Words just can't describe....

What's with this mentality of protecting athletes at all costs?

Or protecting boys?????

Why are girls seen as expendable?

Click to expand...

Uhh - reading all of that . . . no, I'm not knee-jerking and going "but some people lie"

I don't think there's any evidence of lying, here - as there is evidence which supports the claim . . . all it comes down to is a town hating an outsider, and hating a girl who was just a victim all because the offender was a precious football player.

I find it to be disgusting - and it should go to court and be decided there (video evidence and statements that support the victim's claims are substantial enough).

Further, after they moved back to their old house it was set fire to a'la arson.

Yeah, anyone who looks at all of this and goes 'but she might have been lying' is being blind. At the least, it's worthy of a full investigation. This family is the target of small town bull**** - and people questioning it from the outside aren't helping.

Kal'Stang said:

And as far back as I can remember being drunk was no excuse to rape anyone. Every court case about it has said the same thing.

Click to expand...

I totally agree. What I'm saying is that the simple fact of the woman being drunk should never mean the consensual sex should be considered rape.

If the my partner and I both get drunk, and we both agree while drunk to have sex, then the woman should never be allowed to claim I raped her, because the condition of being drunk means she could not actually consent. Because, if alcohol means she couldn't consent, then the alcohol would mean I would not be able to consent either.

Either both are responsible for drunken sex, or neither of them are. Only holding one party responsible in that situation (and I'm not talking about this particular case, speaking in general terms), is a double standard.

Slyfox696 said:

Were the boys, who were also minors and also drunk, acting with full knowledge and consent?

In this case, age and alcohol cannot be held against one and not the other.

Click to expand...

Yes, actually it can.

MaggieD said:

"I was drunk" will never be an excuse for breaking the law. You can call it a double standard all day long, but if it's against the law sober? It's against the law drunk.

Click to expand...

Again, I agree. What I'm saying is you cannot have drunken sex with a drunken man, and then claim the drunken man raped you because the consent you gave happened while you were drunk.

You're right. If it's against the law when both people are sober, it should be against the law when drunk. What I'm saying is if both people are drunk, and it's NOT against the law when sober, it should not be against the law when drunk.

Slyfox696 said:

Agreed. What I'm referring to is when both the man and women are drunk, but only one party is held responsible for the sex.

If a man can be held responsible for his drunken sexual habits, then so can a woman.


Absolutely. And the girl should be charged with alcohol consumption by a minor (as should the boys).

Click to expand...

Except in this case the victim wasn't a woman, she was a near-unconscious 14 year old girl. You can charge the girl with underage consumption, but good luck getting a judge to take it seriously - being raped is a harsher punishment than a judge could provide and they would probably rule that she has already been punished enough for getting drunk.

Kal'Stang said:

Yes, actually it can.

Click to expand...

Only if the girl was unconscious and did not consent at all (regardless of alcohol level). At least, that's the way it should be.

My point is that age and alcohol should have nothing to do with this particular situation when discussing whether the girl gave consent. If the girl gave consent, it should not matter her age or drunkenness, because the boys were also underage and drunk. If the girl did not give consent in any way, then the boys clearly broke the law. But simply saying the girl was underage and drunk means should could not legally give consent is ridiculous.

If she said no, then the boys were wrong. If she said yes, then her age and drunkenness have nothing to do with it.