• 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]

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.

So you get so drunk you pass out.

When you finally regain your senses, you realize you're naked, your butt-hole is on fire, and there's a guy spooning you from behind.

You're not gay. In a sober state you'd never consent to gay sex.

However, when you were so drunk you can't recall what happened, you ended up getting rear-ended.

Were you raped?
 
Except in this case the victim wasn't a woman, she was a near-unconscious 14 year old girl.
And the perpetrators were not men, they were drunken high school boys.

As I've said multiple times now, a state of unconsciousness means she could not consent. But her age and BAC have nothing to do with it.

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.
She and the boys should be charged, regardless of the outcome of the other case. You're right, she (and they) won't be, but they should. If we have law, we should follow the law.
 
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.

And if a girl is too drunk to clearly give or withdraw consent?
 
So you get so drunk you pass out.

When you finally regain your senses, you realize you're naked, your butt-hole is on fire, and there's a guy spooning you from behind.

You're not gay. In a sober state you'd never consent to gay sex.

However, when you were so drunk you can't recall what happened, you ended up getting rear-ended.

Were you raped?
I really don't know how many times I have to say a state of unconsciousness is not the same thing as being in a state of drunkenness. But, if I were so drunk I consented to gay sex with a man who was also drunk, then no, I would not have been raped. I would have made decisions I might later regret, but it would not be rape. Because if I'm not responsible for my actions because I'm drunk, then why should he be held responsible for his actions when he's drunk?
 
No, it is not. At 17 years old, the person would still be a minor. Just browsing through the laws on Ohio sex laws, a 17 year old boy with a 14 year old girl would not be statutory rape. Over and over again you'll see 18 or older with person older than 13 but less than 16 is a violation of the law, but nothing to suggest 17 and 14 is against the law. At least with regards to statutory rape.

Lawriter - ORC
I stand corrected.

Thanks
 
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.

The girl is scared out of her wits. Her house was set on fire.

"Get her act together" ????????????

Maybe if she wasn't in fear for her life and her families life she'd be more apt to have "her act together". :roll:
 
And the perpetrators were not men, they were drunken high school boys.

As I've said multiple times now, a state of unconsciousness means she could not consent. But her age and BAC have nothing to do with it.

She and the boys should be charged, regardless of the outcome of the other case. You're right, she (and they) won't be, but they should. If we have law, we should follow the law.

Following this LAW you love so much, a 14 year old girl is legally incapable of providing consent for sexual acts in the entirety of the United States. A 17 year-old is old enough to give consent.
 
And if the boys were too drunk to give or withdraw consent?

Were they the ones being raped?

Regardless, being too drunk to tell whether or not someone is too drunk to provide consent for sexual acts is not a legal defense against such legal charges against the party who initiates the sexual contact.
 
Last edited:
Following this LAW you love so much, a 14 year old girl is legally incapable of providing consent for sexual acts in the entirety of the United States.
Only with someone over the age of 18.

A 17 year-old is old enough to give consent.
A 17 year old is not considered an adult in the eyes of the law, at least in Ohio. I've already posted the link to the website with the law earlier in this thread.
Were they the ones being raped?
Circular argument. Try again.
 
Following this LAW you love so much, a 14 year old girl is legally incapable of providing consent for sexual acts in the entirety of the United States. A 17 year-old is old enough to give consent.

If the offender were 18, that would matter. And if he were, it wouldn't be statutory rape.

Ohio Revised Code:

[h=2]2907.02 Rape.[/h](A)
(1) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another who is not the spouse of the offender or who is the spouse of the offender but is living separate and apart from the offender, when any of the following applies:
(a) For the purpose of preventing resistance, the offender substantially impairs the other person's judgment or control by administering any drug, intoxicant, or controlled substance to the other person surreptitiously or by force, threat of force, or deception.
(b) The other person is less than thirteen years of age, whether or not the offender knows the age of the other person.

(c) The other person's ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age, and the offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the other person's ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age.
(2) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another when the offender purposely compels the other person to submit by force or threat of force.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of rape, a felony of the first degree. If the offender under division (A)(1)(a) of this section substantially impairs the other person's judgment or control by administering any controlled substance described in section 3719.41 of the Revised Code to the other person surreptitiously or by force, threat of force, or deception, the prison term imposed upon the offender shall be one of the prison terms prescribed for a felony of the first degree in section 2929.14 of the Revised Code that is not less than five years. Except as otherwise provided in this division, notwithstanding sections 2929.11 to 2929.14 of the Revised Code, an offender under division (A)(1)(b) of this section shall be sentenced to a prison term or term of life imprisonment pursuant to section 2971.03 of the Revised Code. If an offender is convicted of or pleads guilty to a violation of division (A)(1)(b) of this section, if the offender was less than sixteen years of age at the time the offender committed the violation of that division, and if the offender during or immediately after the commission of the offense did not cause serious physical harm to the victim, the victim was ten years of age or older at the time of the commission of the violation, and the offender has not previously been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a violation of this section or a substantially similar existing or former law of this state, another state, or the United States, the court shall not sentence the offender to a prison term or term of life imprisonment pursuant to section 2971.03 of the Revised Code, and instead the court shall sentence the offender as otherwise provided in this division. If an offender under division (A)(1)(b) of this section previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to violating division (A)(1)(b) of this section or to violating an existing or former law of this state, another state, or the United States that is substantially similar to division (A)(1)(b) of this section, if the offender during or immediately after the commission of the offense caused serious physical harm to the victim, or if the victim under division (A)(1)(b) of this section is less than ten years of age, in lieu of sentencing the offender to a prison term or term of life imprisonment pursuant to section 2971.03 of the Revised Code, the court may impose upon the offender a term of life without parole. If the court imposes a term of life without parole pursuant to this division, division (F) of section 2971.03 of the Revised Code applies, and the offender automatically is classified a tier III sex offender/child-victim offender, as described in that division.
(C) A victim need not prove physical resistance to the offender in prosecutions under this section.
(D) Evidence of specific instances of the victim's sexual activity, opinion evidence of the victim's sexual activity, and reputation evidence of the victim's sexual activity shall not be admitted under this section unless it involves evidence of the origin of semen, pregnancy, or disease, or the victim's past sexual activity with the offender, and only to the extent that the court finds that the evidence is material to a fact at issue in the case and that its inflammatory or prejudicial nature does not outweigh its probative value.
Evidence of specific instances of the defendant's sexual activity, opinion evidence of the defendant's sexual activity, and reputation evidence of the defendant's sexual activity shall not be admitted under this section unless it involves evidence of the origin of semen, pregnancy, or disease, the defendant's past sexual activity with the victim, or is admissible against the defendant under section 2945.59 of the Revised Code, and only to the extent that the court finds that the evidence is material to a fact at issue in the case and that its inflammatory or prejudicial nature does not outweigh its probative value.
(E) Prior to taking testimony or receiving evidence of any sexual activity of the victim or the defendant in a proceeding under this section, the court shall resolve the admissibility of the proposed evidence in a hearing in chambers, which shall be held at or before preliminary hearing and not less than three days before trial, or for good cause shown during the trial.
(F) Upon approval by the court, the victim may be represented by counsel in any hearing in chambers or other proceeding to resolve the admissibility of evidence. If the victim is indigent or otherwise is unable to obtain the services of counsel, the court, upon request, may appoint counsel to represent the victim without cost to the victim.
(G) It is not a defense to a charge under division (A)(2) of this section that the offender and the victim were married or were cohabiting at the time of the commission of the offense.
Effective Date: 06-13-2002; 01-02-2007; 2007 SB10 01-01-2008

Being 17, this does not apply:

[h=2]2907.04 Unlawful sexual conduct with minor.[/h](A) No person who is eighteen years of age or older shall engage in sexual conduct with another, who is not the spouse of the offender, when the offender knows the other person is thirteen years of age or older but less than sixteen years of age, or the offender is reckless in that regard.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in divisions (B)(2), (3), and (4) of this section, unlawful sexual conduct with a minor is a felony of the fourth degree.

(2) Except as otherwise provided in division (B)(4) of this section, if the offender is less than four years older than the other person, unlawful sexual conduct with a minor is a misdemeanor of the first degree.
(3) Except as otherwise provided in division (B)(4) of this section, if the offender is ten or more years older than the other person, unlawful sexual conduct with a minor is a felony of the third degree.
(4) If the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a violation of section 2907.02, 2907.03, or 2907.04 of the Revised Code or a violation of former section 2907.12 of the Revised Code, unlawful sexual conduct with a minor is a felony of the second degree.
 
His best friend admitted she was sexually assaulted whilst she was unconscious.

At one point, the girl was on the ground, naked, unmoving and silent, according to two witnesses who testified. Mays, they said, had exposed himself while he was right next to her.

Richmond was behind her, with his hands between her legs, penetrating her with his fingers, a witness said.

"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.' "

In an ideal world, all victims of sexual assault would have the courage and determination to follow through with the prosecution process to ensure justice is served. We also know unfortunately that is often not the case. This girl was 14 years old. I'm disgusted that people are passing judgement on her decision to not pursue this. You know nothing about what mental or physical condition she is currently in. Her house was set on fire. Jesus. You can't understand why a 14 year old would have difficulty coping with the enormity of this?
 
No surprise that the rape apologists in this thread are on the right side of the political spectrum. It's amazing how one's lean can be a predictor of one's misogyny.
 
If the offender were 18, that would matter. And if he were, it wouldn't be statutory rape.

Ohio Revised Code:



Being 17, this does not apply:

It appears to say it would matter if he were 4 or more years older. If she had been 13 it would be rape if "consensual".
 
If the offender were 18, that would matter. And if he were, it wouldn't be statutory rape.

Ohio Revised Code:

Being 17, this does not apply:

(c) The other person's ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age, and the offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the other person's ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age.

A person who is drunk to the point this girl was at is considered to be substantially mentally and physically impaired. The boy knew that she was drunk.
 
The girl is scared out of her wits. Her house was set on fire.

"Get her act together" ????????????

Maybe if she wasn't in fear for her life and her families life she'd be more apt to have "her act together". :roll:

THe house burned 8 months after the family moved, supposedly due to an electrical problem. I don't claim to know the truth of the story, but if the girl refuses to cooperate, and invokes her fifth amendment right, then we are not getting the entire story.

from your link:
Nodaway County Sheriff Darren White told the Huffington Post his department presented a "strong case" to prosecutors that then 17-year-old Matthew Barnett raped Coleman's daughter.

He said charges were dropped when Daisy Coleman declined to cooperate with prosecutors.

Melinda Coleman told CNN's Erin Burnett on Monday that White's claims are "absolutely not true," and said the police report from the incident proves it.

"The victims decided they no longer wanted to participate in the case," White told HuffPost. "They gave no deposition or statement and invoked their Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate themselves. The charges being dismissed had everything to do with the victims not wanting to assist in their case."

Prosecutor Robert Rice eventually dropped all charges against Barnett, who said the sex was consensual.
 
No surprise that the rape apologists in this thread are on the right side of the political spectrum. It's amazing how one's lean can be a predictor of one's misogyny.
I don't recall anyone being rape apologists. What I think several people are saying is that simply because a girl alleged rape, it doesn't mean it actually was. Could it have been? Sure. Is there evidence to say it was? Yes. But I think the problem several people have is the assumed believability of the girl, just because she's a girl. Let the facts decide, and if she was raped, then hold responsible those who are to blame. But threatening violence against the boys simply because the girl alleged it is not fair. Criticize them for their actions if it's warranted, but only if it's warranted.
 
(c) The other person's ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age, and the offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the other person's ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age.

A person who is drunk to the point this girl was at is considered to be substantially mentally and physically impaired. The boy knew that she was drunk.

OK. Doesn't have anything to do with the point, which was age.
 
(c) The other person's ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age, and the offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the other person's ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age.

A person who is drunk to the point this girl was at is considered to be substantially mentally and physically impaired. The boy knew that she was drunk.
A person who was drunk to the point these boys were are considered to be substantially mentally and physically impaired. Are you going to charge the girl for rape as well?

The drunk argument has not place in this discussion (at least it shouldn't). All parties were drunk. What matters is if she ever actually gave consent. Obviously, if she was unconscious, she could not have given consent. The question is did she?
 
It appears to say it would matter if he were 4 or more years older. If she had been 13 it would be rape if "consensual".

It only applies if the offender is 18 or older.
 
His best friend admitted she was sexually assaulted whilst she was unconscious.



In an ideal world, all victims of sexual assault would have the courage and determination to follow through with the prosecution process to ensure justice is served. We also know unfortunately that is often not the case. This girl was 14 years old. I'm disgusted that people are passing judgement on her decision to not pursue this. You know nothing about what mental or physical condition she is currently in. Her house was set on fire. Jesus. You can't understand why a 14 year old would have difficulty coping with the enormity of this?

Of course I can understand that. What I don't understand is that her mother apparently doesn't have what it takes either, and any mother should have the fortitude to do whatever it takes to seek justice for her daughter.
 
I don't recall anyone being rape apologists. What I think several people are saying is that simply because a girl alleged rape, it doesn't mean it actually was. Could it have been? Sure. Is there evidence to say it was? Yes. But I think the problem several people have is the assumed believability of the girl, just because she's a girl. Let the facts decide, and if she was raped, then hold responsible those who are to blame. But threatening violence against the boys simply because the girl alleged it is not fair. Criticize them for their actions if it's warranted, but only if it's warranted.
Oh please. This bull**** notion that people are just innocently asking for evidence is old and tired. What's happening in this thread is an example of how rape victims have been traditionally treated. They report that they've been raped and people question, doubt and interrogate them in the name of ensuring that the accused are protected and not unfairly treated. In other words, people have more concern for the accused than they do for the accuser (the victim). It's sick. It's a part of rape culture that sustains the acceptability of rape in our society and it's rape apologism.
 
A person who was drunk to the point these boys were are considered to be substantially mentally and physically impaired. Are you going to charge the girl for rape as well?

The drunk argument has not place in this discussion (at least it shouldn't). All parties were drunk. What matters is if she ever actually gave consent. Obviously, if she was unconscious, she could not have given consent. The question is did she?

She couldn't give legal consent. Period. End of story. Legally, you can argue all you want about if it is considered rape or sexual assault or the misdemeanor of sexual contact with a minor, but she literally and legally did not have the capability to provide consent and all sexual activity initiated against her would be illegal. The only thing you can argue is the charge.

Also, being drunk is not a legal excuse for the commission of ANY crime.
 
A person who was drunk to the point these boys were are considered to be substantially mentally and physically impaired. Are you going to charge the girl for rape as well?

The drunk argument has not place in this discussion (at least it shouldn't). All parties were drunk. What matters is if she ever actually gave consent. Obviously, if she was unconscious, she could not have given consent. The question is did she?

A) we all know there are different levels of "drunk".

B) a young 14 year old girl can get unconsciously drunk while the guy can still be just boisterously drunk. Huge difference.

C) If he was "as drunk as she was" he couldn't have had sex with her. He would have been passed out and/or incapable of achieving erection.

D) No matter how drunk a guy is - he's got no right or justification what-so-ever to put his penis in any hole he can.

E) No matter how drunk a girl is, she doesn't deserve to be violated.


I'm not suggesting the boys be castrated and sent to jail pre-lubed.

I'm saying a full-on investigation, and an honest trial are warranted. Obviously the investigation needs to be done by agencies outside of this podunk-backwards-ass mid-western hell hole.
 
Back
Top Bottom