• 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]

Mason66 said:
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.
Click to expand...

As has already been mentioned (though I'm not sure if mentioned to you) the video of that incident was erased after showing it to several people.

Excon said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is no double standard. If a drunken man were raped while unconscious by several drunk women, they'd be guilty as well.
 
Excon said:
Threatened her how?
With what?
Where are these threats?


I have seen it reported that her daughter was called a skank, after charges were dropped, but that isn't a threat.
Click to expand...

The article you posted yourself claims intimidation was used two days after the event. Did you read it?
Two days after discovering her daughter on the front porch, Coleman says, she got a phone call from another mother warning her that online threats were being levied against the Coleman children, including a suggestion that her sons would be beaten up in the school parking lot.

When she checked online, she discovered that many of the comments were aimed at Daisy. On Twitter, the brother of one of the boys at the Barnett home that night wrote that he hoped Daisy “gets whats comin.”

Daisy was suspended from the cheerleading squad for her role in the night’s events. Barnett did not finish his senior year there, according to his lawyer.

During his Senior Night with the wrestling team, Charlie was booed by some students. Among the comments that made it back to him in the weeks following the arrests: that his mother and sister were “crazy bitches,” that Barnett was blameless, and that Daisy had been “asking for it.”

“There were several days,” Charlie says, “I just wanted to go knock a kid’s teeth out.”
Click to expand...

Read more here: Nightmare in Maryville: Teens’ sexual encounter ignites a firestorm against family - KansasCity.com
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
THe 17-year old boy admitted having sex with the 14-year old girl. It should have been slam dunk.
Click to expand...

17 and 14, concenting minors.
I also remember being 17 and a varsity football player and I remember the 14 and 15 year old chicks that would do ANYTHING to hang with ball players.
And that was over 30 years ago.
 
Last edited:
Ben K. said:
Read more here: Nightmare in Maryville: Teens’ sexual encounter ignites a firestorm against family - KansasCity.com
Click to expand...

The information in this article alone merits the Kansas State Attorney taking a deep look at this incident and the subsequent investigation. Could be as simple as prosecutorial incompetence or the vast conspiracy mentioned. Doesn't really matter either way.

Bottom line, the girl was intoxicated...its rape. She blew a .13 and rape kit at the hospital verified it as well. Couple that with various witness accounts of the night and the suspect's admittance of intercourse, thats plenty to go forward with a sexual assault charge.
 
Dragonfly said:
No. And certainly not when alcohol is involved.
Click to expand...

funny how she can't be held responsible for her actions because she is a minor and alcohol was involved, but he can be held responsible though he too is a minor and alcohol was involved.

just more of that double standard where the male is always the perpetrator and the female is always the victim.


not saying what the kid did was right or acceptible in any manner....just pointing out the double standard of assigning responsibility.

It's like I said earlier, if two people get drunk and have sex...the next day she is a victim and he is a rapist.
 
MaggieD said:
There is no double standard. If a drunken man were raped while unconscious by several drunk women, they'd be guilty as well.
Click to expand...
This appears to be a deflection, because that isn't exactly the double standard being bandied about.
 
Fishstyx said:
Bottom line, the girl was intoxicated...its rape.
Click to expand...
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.”​
 
Excon said:
This appears to be a deflection, because that isn't exactly the double standard being bandied about.
Click to expand...

What is the double standard then?

?? That a drunk man can rape a drunken women and be found guilty of rape because the drunken woman is deemed not to be able to give consent. Yet the drunk man can be convicted of rape even though he's not in his right mind? I'm assuming THAT must be what's being bandied. Ha!

I'm going to make an assumption that it would be very difficult for a woman to prove rape if they were both drunk. Sans witnesses, she's probably screwed. :rofl (Accident, I swear!) But that's not what this particular case is about, is it? She was unfreakin'conscious! And there were witnesses. There's no double standard here.

And do I assume, then, that you find it wrong to convict someone of murder if they were drunk? Or vehicular homicide if they were drunk behind the wheel? There's no double standard. If there is, please to explain it to me.
 
Excon said:
Of course I read the whole damn thing.
But for Charlie wanting to "knock a kid’s teeth out", those are not threats, and I specifically mentioned threats. Did you not read what I said?
Click to expand...



I have seen it reported that her daughter was called a skank, after charges were dropped, but that isn't a threat.
Click to expand...

Considering you underlined the "after the charges were dropped" line, implied her being called a skank was the worst of the harassment it's quite clear you didn't read the article or are trying to mislead people.

Plus, "wanting" to knock someones teeth out is not a threat.

Plus the communities behaviour qualifies as harassment, so there's that to investigate if "threats" don't do it for you.

(4) Knowingly communicates with another person who is, or who purports to be, seventeen years of age or younger and in so doing and without good cause recklessly frightens, intimidates, or causes emotional distress to such other person; or

(5) Knowingly makes repeated unwanted communication to another person; or

(6) Without good cause engages in any other act with the purpose to frighten, intimidate, or cause emotional distress to another person, cause such person to be frightened, intimidated, or emotionally distressed, and such person's response to the act is one of a person of average sensibilities considering the age of such person.
Click to expand...
 
MaggieD said:
As has already been mentioned (though I'm not sure if mentioned to you) the video of that incident was erased after showing it to several people.



There is no double standard. If a drunken man were raped while unconscious by several drunk women, they'd be guilty as well.
Click to expand...

In the statement that was posted earlier, the kid that made the video admitted he made it but I am not sure if he showed it to the pólice. I would asume he did, or they wouldn't have known aboutit.

If the video was erased, that is another criminal charge they should pursue, destroying evidence.
 
OscarB63 said:
funny how she can't be held responsible for her actions because she is a minor and alcohol was involved, but he can be held responsible though he too is a minor and alcohol was involved.

just more of that double standard where the male is always the perpetrator and the female is always the victim.


not saying what the kid did was right or acceptible in any manner....just pointing out the double standard of assigning responsibility.

It's like I said earlier, if two people get drunk and have sex...the next day she is a victim and he is a rapist.
Click to expand...

What "actions" should she be held responsible for?

She was naked passed out on the ground.

What positive action did she take to cause this?
 
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...

How can anybody see it that way?

I don't understand how any girl or woman that was unconcious can consent to having sex.

She was physically moved to two other parties without her consent.

I think, if the girl is strong enough, should take it to the feds. The local cops don't want to do anything about it, but the feds might.
 
Mason66 said:
What "actions" should she be held responsible for?

She was naked passed out on the ground.

What positive action did she take to cause this?
Click to expand...

oh...so she was just sitting there minding her own business and passed out for no reason?
 
OscarB63 said:
oh...so she was just sitting there minding her own business and passed out for no reason?
Click to expand...

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?
 
Let's just get this straight.

Is there anyone on this thread arguing that, if a woman is unconscious and raped by a drunken man, he should not be prosecuted because he's drunk?
 
MaggieD said:
Let's just get this straight.

Is there anyone on this thread arguing that, if a woman is unconscious and raped by a drunken man, he should not be prosecuted because he's drunk?
Click to expand...

OscarB63 said if a woman drinks, she should be raped or can be. I would say yes.
 
Mason66 said:
How can anybody see it that way?

I don't understand how any girl or woman that was unconcious can consent to having sex.

She was physically moved to two other parties without her consent.

I think, if the girl is strong enough, should take it to the feds. The local cops don't want to do anything about it, but the feds might.
Click to expand...

The local cops DID want to do something about it. They thought the case was ironclad. It was the victim and her mother who apparently decided not to cooperate on the case, according to every account that I have read.
 
lizzie said:
The local cops DID want to do something about it. They thought the case was ironclad. It was the victim and her mother who apparently decided not to cooperate on the case, according to every account that I have read.
Click to expand...

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.
 
calamity said:
Burden of proof? The case has been proven.

What part of statutory rape went whoosh over your head? You do know what SR means, Correct?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mason66 said:
What "actions" should she be held responsible for?

She was naked passed out on the ground.

What positive action did she take to cause this?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

Because you've read about it now you know who should be convicted and of what. No even need for a trial. Ok.
 
MaggieD said:
Let's just get this straight.

Is there anyone on this thread arguing that, if a woman is unconscious and raped by a drunken man, he should not be prosecuted because he's drunk?
Click to expand...
Its called personal responsiblity. Get loaded, pass out (proabably egging on the boys all night) get trained, dont whine.
And getting so drunk in the age of camera phones, what are you thinking?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom