• 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]

MaggieD said:
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.
Click to expand...

there is no double standard in this case due to the circumstances. That doesn't mean that there is not, in general, a double standard when it comes to expectations of sexual behavior from drunken men and drunken women.

As a college student, a teacher and a cop, I have seen many cases where both parties were drunk off their ass and had sex and then the next morning she has "buyer's remorse" and claims she was raped. she is considered a victim because she was too drunk to give consent and he is considered a rapist and "should have known better" even though he was as drunk or more drunk than she was.
 
CRUE CAB said:
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?
Click to expand...

You're either 70 or 22. Can't figure out which. ;)

If it's YOUR daughter, Mr. Crue, I guarantee you wouldn't take that misogynistic attitude. "Get trained," indeed. Ha!
 
Mason66 said:
You said because she was drunk, she should have been raped. The double standard, right?
Click to expand...



stop lying. I never said, or implied, that because she was drunk she should have been raped. (hint: if you have to resort to lies...you've already lost the debate)

You didn't answer my question. What positive actions did this girl take to cause this rape?
Click to expand...

ah...changing the question (hint: another sign you have already lost the debate)
 
Ben K. said:
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.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
Like I read all the way down to the word skank and just stop reading there, huh?
Instead of reading what little was left, huh?

Your assertion is utterly ridiculous.
Skank was the worse I read. B, S, and W words, just aren't as bad.

An ambiguous supposed threat that supposedly comes from a third hand source, over the phone, that isn't even verified by the reporter, doesn't even qualify.


Ben K. said:
Plus, "wanting" to knock someones teeth out is not a threat.
Click to expand...
:doh
Yeah, it is. It is an expressed desire to do harm.

But if you don't think it is, then please do not express a desire to harm the great leader in the same fashion.
Because if you do, you will find out that such an expression is a threat.


Ben K. said:
Plus the communities behaviour qualifies as harassment, so there's that to investigate if "threats" don't do it for you.
Click to expand...
iLOL And again. I was speaking towards actual threats.
The communities behavior to what they believe was happening, false allegations, is expected, and you can not stop people from expressing themselves.
An individual who made any actual threat should be investigated to see if the threat is credible.
 
Mason66 said:
What are you even talking about? Who said that?
Click to expand...

You said you believe in trial as being one of the steps to what should be an assured conviction in this case. I'm just saying I disagree.
 
lizzie said:
I would really like to see where Oscar said that. I don't believe it for a second. You just lost all credibility imo.
Click to expand...

like I said...if you have to resort to outright lies...you've already lost.
 
lizzie said:
I would really like to see where Oscar said that. I don't believe it for a second. You just lost all credibility imo.
Click to expand...
This is what he posted

"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."

It is funny how she can't be held responsable for her actions. Minor or not she was unconcious on the ground naked and they violated her.

He stated that because alcohol was involved she had it coming. That is how I read what he wrote. That is making her responsable for her actions, whatever they may have been as he won't answer what her actions were to cause this.
 
X Factor said:
You said you believe in trial as being one of the steps to what should be an assured conviction in this case. I'm just saying I disagree.
Click to expand...

I did not say assured, you added that. I know what a trial is. The victim was denied that in this case.
 
Mason66 said:
This is what he posted

"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."

It is funny how she can't be held responsable for her actions. Minor or not she was unconcious on the ground naked and they violated her.

He stated that because alcohol was involved she had it coming. That is how I read what he wrote. That is making her responsable for her actions, whatever they may have been as he won't answer what her actions were to cause this.
Click to expand...

It would behoove you to read without emotional filtering, and understand what people say, rather than repeating what you wish they had said.
 
lizzie said:
It would behoove you to read without emotional filtering, and understand what people say, rather than repeating what you wish they had said.
Click to expand...

It is very clear what he said. He holds her responsable because she was drunk. He walked that back in alater post, but in this one that I replied to, that is what he said. It didn't matter that she was unconcious and the male inserted fingers and penises, she was responsable because she was drunk.
 
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...
That could be because you are assuming things you shouldn't be. :shrug:

But it is how the prosecution sees it.
The feds?
Is everybody's answer these day to take things to the Feds?
It would have to be a Federal crime for the Feds to become involved.
 
MaggieD said:
She was unfreakin'conscious! And there were witnesses.
Click to expand...
Apparently that claim hasn't held up under scrutiny. Go figure, huh?


MaggieD said:
There's no double standard here.
Click to expand...
One: You do not know if there was a double standard at work here or not.
The double standard may be why the boys were charged in the first place.
The point being, we don't know.

Secondly: The double standard bandied about does exist.
It may, or may not exist in this case, but it was also being discussed as existing outside of this case. And that was what was being bandied about.
 
calamity said:
I already fell on my sword here. I was wrong about the stat rape regarding 17 and 14 year-olds.
Click to expand...

Huh, I thought I remember you being all snide and implying that I didn't understand statutory rape. :lamo
 
Mason66 said:
This is what he posted

"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."

It is funny how she can't be held responsable for her actions. Minor or not she was unconcious on the ground naked and they violated her.

He stated that because alcohol was involved she had it coming. That is how I read what he wrote. That is making her responsable for her actions, whatever they may have been as he won't answer what her actions were to cause this.
Click to expand...

apparently, reading comprehension is not your strong suit. see bold above, how you get that I ever said she deserved to be raped out of that is staggeringly dense
 
calamity said:
Guilty of Stat Rape, for sure. THe trial would be to determine if it was forcible on top of it.
Click to expand...

Statutory rape and forceble rape are hundreds of miles apart on the atrocity scale. Plus, I'm not so sure that it's statutory rape, seeing how the boy is still a minor.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Nope. But they should be taken seriously. It is some kind of social sickness that this community doesn't even care to find out whether this girl was raped. All they care about is their boys in the football team.

This isn't a question of what's wrong with the criminal justice system. It's a question of what's wrong with these supposed human beings.
Click to expand...

It's also a social sickness where people are guilty until proven innocent. How many women lie about rape for pitty or to ruin a man's life that they want revenge against? Even if someone isn't convicted that slander sticks with them and many will just call them as guilty.

All rape allegations should be taken seriously, but they need to be kept at the level of allegation until the courts can rule on a verdict or if there is obviously clear evidence of the rape. This might not be just a case of flawed justice because the town wants to protect football guys.
 
Fishstyx said:
Based on the opinion of a small town prosecutor.
Click to expand...
: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.


Fishstyx said:
If that was your daughter, would you accept that rationale based on the evidence that is public?
Click to expand...
My position is that we do not know what actually happened.
But based on what the prosecutor has said, yes.


Fishstyx said:
Blood alcohol of the alleged victim of .13 seven hours after the incident,
Click to expand...
And?
Lushes don't drink?

Fishstyx said:
hospital rape kit confirming forceful sex,
Click to expand...
What do you think that means?
Because it doesn't mean it wasn't consensual.

Fishstyx said:
the suspect admitting to that sex occurred,
Click to expand...
Kids being kids.

Fishstyx said:
witness statements confirming it happened,
Click to expand...
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.

Fishstyx said:
video confirming it happened.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Video of it happening does not exist.

Fishstyx said:
Honestly, the admission of sex by the suspect and the girls blood alcohol is enough evidence to prove sexual assault.
Click to expand...
Obviously it is not.
 
X Factor said:
Sometimes, the allegations are actually false.

Duke lacrosse case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not saying anything about whether the allegations in the OP are true or not because I don't know, but there is a purpose for the criminal justice system and allegations does not equal convictions.
Click to expand...

Well, obviously the Sheriff's office thought they had a case. This is an all to familiar story. Local football players treated as demi-gods in these towns and eventually begin to believe it. Sad commentary on life in these places. Jesus, the girl was 14!
 
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...

Jesus, the kid was 14! Have we now reached the position that 14 year old girls who are drunk are capable of having 'consensual' sex? Do they not have statutory rape laws in Missouri?
 
apdst said:
Statutory rape and forceble rape are hundreds of miles apart on the atrocity scale. Plus, I'm not so sure that it's statutory rape, seeing how the boy is still a minor.
Click to expand...

The 'boy' is now in college and apparently still on the prowl. Presumably college aged girls may be able to deal with this better than a 14 year old.
 
Wiggen said:
Jesus, the kid was 14! Have we now reached the position that 14 year old girls who are drunk are capable of having 'consensual' sex? Do they not have statutory rape laws in Missouri?
Click to expand...
Jesus. The kids were in school together with a natural age separation. Of course there can be consensual sex between these two age groups.
Read the law as to what is not legal.
 
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...

Yeah, because God knows, 14 year old girls possess incredible maturity and would never ever try to be popular by hanging around with older kids!:lamo

I can only conclude you not only have never had teenagers, you don't know the first thing about them.

If she was 14? Do you know something everybody else doesn't know?
 
Wiggen said:
The 'boy' is now in college and apparently still on the prowl. Presumably college aged girls may be able to deal with this better than a 14 year old.
Click to expand...

Oh, so based on an internet article, you're convinced that he's guilty.
 
Excon said:
Jesus. The kids were in school together with a natural age separation. Of course there can be consensual sex between these two age groups.
Read the law as to what is not legal.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Wiggen said:
Well, obviously the Sheriff's office thought they had a case. This is an all to familiar story. Local football players treated as demi-gods in these towns and eventually begin to believe it. Sad commentary on life in these places. Jesus, the girl was 14!
Click to expand...

Dude may be the biggest scumbag ever, I just believe in Constitutional rights, even for scumbags.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom