• 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]

Slyfox696 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Actually "the drunk argument" does have a place given that there are different degrees of intoxication.
 
lizzie said:
THe house burned 8 months after the family moved
Click to expand...

They were terrorized to the point where they felt they HAD to move.

It might be connecting the dots, but the dots are pretty close together and quite large.
 
Dragonfly said:
They were terrorized to the point where they felt they HAD to move.

It might be connecting the dots, but the dots are pretty close together and quite large.
Click to expand...

Which source gives some evidence and instances of the family being "terrorized"?
 
lizzie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Lizzie, you work in the Health Profession too, you know how this works and you surely have had exposure to it at some time in your career. Mature adults have enough difficulty facing the prospect of giving evidence in Court for sexual assault cases, never mind a 14 year old. If she is traumatised/doesn't want to/mentally unstable, her Mum can't force her no matter much she wants her to follow through on the process. She can counsel/guide/encourage/support her daughter but she cant make her testify.
 
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...

Sounds pretty awful. I don't know how in the hell they declined to press charges if they had video confessions and physical evidence.
 
lizzie said:
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.
Click to expand...

SERIOUSLY???????

The child has already attempted suicide. Twice.

Where would you put your efforts as a struggling single mother of 4 right now??????
 
Looking at this again, it's not the ORC which applies in this case, but Missouri Revised Statutes.

Statutory rape and attempt to commit, first degree, penalties.

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.

2. Statutory rape in the first degree or an attempt to commit statutory rape in the first degree is a felony for which the authorized term of imprisonment is life imprisonment or a term of years not less than five years, unless in the course thereof the actor inflicts serious physical injury on any person, displays a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument in a threatening manner, subjects the victim to sexual intercourse or deviate sexual intercourse with more than one person, or the victim is less than twelve years of age in which case the authorized term of imprisonment is life imprisonment or a term of years not less than ten years.
Click to expand...

Statutory rape, second degree, penalty.

566.034. 1. A person commits the crime of statutory rape in the second degree if being twenty-one years of age or older, he has sexual intercourse with another person who is less than seventeen years of age.

2. Statutory rape in the second degree is a class C felony.
Click to expand...

So, it's different from Ohio law, but it's still not statutory rape in this case.

Here's general rape:

Forcible rape and attempted forcible rape, penalties--suspended sentences not granted, when.

566.030. 1. A person commits the crime of forcible rape if such person has sexual intercourse with another person by the use of forcible compulsion. Forcible compulsion includes the use of a substance administered without a victim's knowledge or consent which renders the victim physically or mentally impaired so as to be incapable of making an informed consent to sexual intercourse.

2. Forcible rape or an attempt to commit forcible rape is a felony for which the authorized term of imprisonment is life imprisonment or a term of years not less than five years, unless:

(1) In the course thereof the actor inflicts serious physical injury or displays a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument in a threatening manner or subjects the victim to sexual intercourse or deviate sexual intercourse with more than one person, in which case the authorized term of imprisonment is life imprisonment or a term of years not less than fifteen years;

(2) The victim is a child less than twelve years of age, in which case the required term of imprisonment is life imprisonment without eligibility for probation or parole until the defendant has served not less than thirty years of such sentence or unless the defendant has reached the age of seventy-five years and has served at least fifteen years of such sentence, unless such forcible rape is described under subdivision (3) of this subsection; or

(3) The victim is a child less than twelve years of age and such forcible rape was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhumane, in that it involved torture or depravity of mind, in which case the required term of imprisonment is life imprisonment without eligibility for probation, parole or conditional release.

3. Subsection 4 of section 558.019 shall not apply to the sentence of a person who has pleaded guilty to or has been found guilty of forcible rape when the victim is under the age of twelve, and "life imprisonment" shall mean imprisonment for the duration of a person's natural life for the purposes of this section.

4. No person found guilty of or pleading guilty to forcible rape or an attempt to commit forcible rape shall be granted a suspended imposition of sentence or suspended execution of sentence.
Click to expand...

It appears that rape is out as a charge, based on the witness's account, but there are a slew of sexual misconduct charges which may apply:

RSMO-Chapter 566
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Oh please. This bull**** notion that people are just innocently asking for evidence is old and tired.
Click to expand...
Yes, what happened to the good old days where we simply convicted without it?

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.
Click to expand...
No, we have more concern for the truth. Why should making an allegation be free of questioning? If I accuse you of murder, should we just accept my word for it?

The point is assuming an allegation to be true is not only dangerous, it's also against our very deeply held notions of justice. Just because we question the story told by the rape victim, it does not mean we think she is lying.
CycloneWanderer said:
She couldn't give legal consent. Period. End of story.
Click to expand...
Then neither could the boys, so arrest her for rape.

You're arguing in circles and it's tiresome.

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.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. If her alcohol consumption makes her incapable of consent, then the boys consumption makes them incapable of consent. It works both ways.

Also, being drunk is not a legal excuse for the commission of ANY crime.
Click to expand...
I've already explained this multiple times. Go read one of those.
Dragonfly said:
A) we all know there are different levels of "drunk".
Click to expand...
:lamo

So she was at the level which says she cannot consent, but the boys were at the level which says they could. Got it. Good thing you're remaining unbiased.

B) a young 14 year old girl can get unconsciously drunk while the guy can still be just boisterously drunk. Huge difference.
Click to expand...
I agree. Just like a young 17 year old boy can get unconsciously drunk while the woman can just be boisterously drunk.

C) If he was "as drunk as she was" he couldn't have had sex with her.
Click to expand...
If she consented and he was as drunk as her, then yes he could.

He would have been passed out
Click to expand...
If she was passed out, then she couldn't have consented. We're discussing if she did consent, so we're assuming (for this part of the discussion) she wasn't passed out.

and/or incapable of achieving erection.
Click to expand...
I do not recall anything being said about him having an erection or raping with his penis. Everything I've seen has been fingers.

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.
Click to expand...
Right...women are not responsible for their actions when drunk but guys are.

Double standards at their finest.

E) No matter how drunk a girl is, she doesn't deserve to be violated.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and have from the beginning. Where we differ is on the point of whether it's consider being violated if you agree to it.

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.
Click to expand...
And I'm saying a trial is not an investigation and should never be considered as one. You keep yelling about a trial, but a trial is only after investigation shows the prosecutor there is a real likelihood of conviction.
ThePlayDrive said:
Actually "the drunk argument" does have a place given that there are different degrees of intoxication.
Click to expand...
Ahh...so these boys are just naturally rapists? Or would you say their degree of intoxication was so great it put them to actions they would not normally do?

No, the drunk argument has no place.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Nonsense. If her alcohol consumption makes her incapable of consent, then the boys consumption makes them incapable of consent. It works both ways.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. A perpetrator doesn't "consent."

Intoxication is an affirmative defense for some offenses, but as of yet I have not found that to be the case for sexual offenses.
 
Harshaw said:
Looking at this again, it's not the ORC which applies in this case, but Missouri Revised Statutes.





So, it's different from Ohio law, but it's still not statutory rape in this case.

Here's general rape:



It appears that rape is out as a charge, based on the witness's account, but there are a slew of sexual misconduct charges which may apply:

RSMO-Chapter 566
Click to expand...
Why Missouri and not Ohio? Were they all the way in Missouri when it happened?
 
Harshaw said:
It doesn't. A perpetrator doesn't "consent."
Click to expand...
If she was the one who initiated it or at the least consented (and I'm not saying it was, I'm just trying to explain the double standard), then who is the perpetrator?

Intoxication is an affirmative defense for some offenses, but as of yet I have not found that to be the case for sexual offenses.
Click to expand...
Understood. The larger point I'm trying to make is, all things equal, women are not responsible for their drunken actions (with regards to sex) but men can be.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Why Missouri and not Ohio? Were they all the way in Missouri when it happened?
Click to expand...

The Daisy Coleman incident happened in Marysville, MO. The story referenced a different case in Steubenville, OH.
 
lizzie said:
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:
Click to expand...

It's an awfully big coincidence, don't you think?

If she won't testify, it'll be hard to get any kind of conviction. I'm more apt to believe her over the accused, but if there's no testimony, there's not much evidence.
 
Slyfox696 said:
If she was the one who initiated it or at the least consented (and I'm not saying it was, I'm just trying to explain the double standard), then who is the perpetrator?
Click to expand...

If she was, then none of it applies, but taking the witness's account at face value, that's not what happened. What actually happened, we don't know.
 
Harshaw said:
It doesn't. A perpetrator doesn't "consent."

Intoxication is an affirmative defense for some offenses, but as of yet I have not found that to be the case for sexual offenses.
Click to expand...

What offenses can the drunk defense be used for?
 
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...

Why were the charges dropped, there has to be a reason. I have a feeling a part of this story isn't being told....
 
calamity said:
Hey, you're the one acting like the American Taliban, blaming a 14-year-old girl for being raped by a 17-year-old boy. It's not partisan politics---it's Right Wing nuttery.
Click to expand...

Did you investigate the law in their state?

Why are you so sure it was statutory rape when this under age boy had sex with this under age girl?
 
Slyfox696 said:
Understood. The larger point I'm trying to make is, all things equal, women are not responsible for their drunken actions (with regards to sex) but men can be.
Click to expand...

exactly. if a drunken man and a drunken woman have consentual sex. she is a victim because she was drunk and he is a rapist.
 
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...

Hasn't the ruling already been made that if the female is too drunk to consent, it is rape?

Why were the kids let off in this case?

Also isn't the video of the 14 year old getting fingered child porn.

The person who made it and whoever possesses it should be doing hard time right about now.
 
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...

****ty parents would be my guess
 
lizzie said:
Idk, it was what one of the links by the op indicated. Seems odd to me. If a victim really wants justice served, why refuse to cooperate?
Click to expand...

She didn't have to do anything, there was video of the incident.
 
Slyfox696 said:
If she was the one who initiated it or at the least consented (and I'm not saying it was, I'm just trying to explain the double standard), then who is the perpetrator?

Understood. The larger point I'm trying to make is, all things equal, women are not responsible for their drunken actions (with regards to sex) but men can be.
Click to expand...
I realize you don't need to be told, but you have done an excellent job expressing your points.
The subject is emotive for some, and they just let it cloud their view.
 
Last edited:
Mason66 said:
She didn't have to do anything, there was video of the incident.
Click to expand...
The video of the incident, from what I read, was erased.
If so, there is no video.

But they do have videos of supposed confessions.
Which matters not, as you don't bring charges against someone on such evidence, especially when the supposed victim refuses to cooperate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom