Kavanaugh Debacle: My Opinion.

[TurtleDude]

First, the age of Majority in the State of Maryland where the crime allegedly occurred is 18, not 17.

First if this is the quality of CA's legal expertise, he is dead wrong on this point. It is not even a choice in the state of Maryland. At 17 accused of a 3rd, 2nd or 1st degree sexual assault, the accused goes to trial as an adult. There is no judge remanding over, no extenuating circumstance that requires some hoop to go through. Its on auto-pilot.

I am curious-what area of law do you specialize in?. if you read it says MAY be tried as an adult

I want you to state that if this was brought to the attention of the police in 1982, its more likely than not, BK would have been charged as an adult-especially in light of the other witness denying the incident.

 

[TurtleDude]

First, the age of Majority in the State of Maryland where the crime allegedly occurred is 18, not 17.

First if this is the quality of CA's legal expertise, he is dead wrong on this point. It is not even a choice in the state of Maryland. At 17 accused of a 3rd, 2nd or 1st degree sexual assault, the accused goes to trial as an adult. There is no judge remanding over, no extenuating circumstance that requires some hoop to go through. Its on auto-pilot.

he is right-you don't understand the age of majority

First, the age of Majority in the State of Maryland where the crime allegedly occurred is 18, not 17.

https://statelaws.findlaw.com/maryland-law/maryland-legal-ages-laws.html




Second, it is not "attempted rape" as there was no actual "attempt" at vaginal intercourse. That would require they both be in such a state as for him to actually try to rape her physically and fail.

Rape is found in Sections 3-308 (Rape in the First Degree) and 3-304 (Rape in the Second Degree).

https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2005/gcr/3-303.html

https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2005/gcr/3-304.html

While "attempting" each is found in Sections 3-309 and 3-310.

https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2005/gcr/3-309.html

https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2005/gcr/3-310.html

It would be a major stretch based on the allegations (although she is attempting to meet the requirements by claiming his allegedly putting his hand over her mouth "made me fear he might kill me") to try to push either 1st or 2nd Degree "Attempted Rape."

All of the first three lesser degree's of "Sexual Offense" require actual sexual acts (oral or anal sex), or the use of a weapon.

https://statelaws.findlaw.com/maryland-law/maryland-rape-and-sexual-assault-laws.html

That leaves just FOURTH DEGREE SEXUAL OFFENSE. That is a misdemeanor with a statute of limitations of ONE YEAR after the incident. If Maryland has an adulthood extension, then it would be one year after the victim turns 18.

Soooo... NO, IMO under the limited fact pattern provided by the alleged "victim" Kavanaugh is not facing any FELONY charges.

Even if it did somehow arise? There is not enough evidence to go to trial, much less convict. One person's naked word, without any other tangible evidence? No way.

 

[jnug]

I am curious-what area of law do you specialize in?. if you read it says MAY be tried as an adult

I want you to state that if this was brought to the attention of the police in 1982, its more likely than not, BK would have been charged as an adult-especially in light of the other witness denying the incident.

It does read "may be" but at 17 in a case of 3rd degree sexual assault the practical result will be the same. The prosecutor is going to request that the accused go to trial as an adult and the chances of a judge not concurring are slim and none unless he happens to be a personal friend of the accused in which case all bets are off. But fairly judged, the 17 year old is going to go to trial as an adult. The prosecutor is going to ask for it and the judge is going to allow it...virtual auto-pilot unless the fix is in.

The 16 year old has a much better shot at staying out of an adult trial. Its only a year but the kid's attorney stands a much better chance of making an argument something like 16 is one year older than 15 while at 17 the prosecutor's argument that the kid is only one year younger than 18 is much more compelling and most often effective.

Depending on the State's desire to prosecute and the strength of evidence, the prosecutor likely allows the 17 year old to plea down. This is the result the state would want because it wants to have some sort of leash on the offender that pleas out that follows him for some period of time but really does not want to convict him as a felon. In fact in Maryland I believe the defendant plea's nolo as opposed to guilty. The kid does not do any time in this example, goes on probation for a year instead of to jail for a year, still has to pay his $1,000 fine and has to deal with some long term issues for his crime. The State has a ready means to keep track of him for a reasonable amount of time.

Don't want to deal with the consequences, don't get plastered, force a girl into a room, force her down on a bed, cover her, try to disrobe her and under no circumstances cover her mouth so that she feels she is in danger of being suffocated.

You do of course realize we are talking about an academic circumstance here. Should a charge be made in Montgomery County thirty-six years after the fact, the investigators are never going to find enough fresh tracks to move to a prosecutor to indict.

The circumstance Kavanaugh finds himself in is a political circumstance not a legal circumstance. It would not surprise me if Ford made the charge for her own satisfaction. it would not surprise me if she didn't. You could knock me over with a feather if the investigators found enough to induce an indictment on a 36 year old cold trail.

Does not make any of what is happening to Ford right and I do believe that the Neanderthal attitudes expressed by actual GOP Congressmen and Senators are going to come back on the party in the worst way.

 

[TurtleDude]

It does read "may be" but at 17 in a case of 3rd degree sexual assault the practical result will be the same. The prosecutor is going to request that the accused go to trial as an adult and the chances of a judge not concurring are slim and none unless he happens to be a personal friend of the accused in which case all bets are off. But fairly judged, the 17 year old is going to go to trial as an adult. The prosecutor is going to ask for it and the judge is going to allow it...virtual auto-pilot unless the fix is in.

The 16 year old has a much better shot at staying out of an adult trial. Its only a year but the kid's attorney stands a much better chance of making an argument something like 16 is one year older than 15 while at 17 the prosecutor's argument that the kid is only one year younger than 18 is much more compelling and most often effective.

Depending on the State's desire to prosecute and the strength of evidence, the prosecutor likely allows the 17 year old to plea down. This is the result the state would want because it wants to have some sort of leash on the offender that pleas out that follows him for some period of time but really does not want to convict him as a felon. In fact in Maryland I believe the defendant plea's nolo as opposed to guilty. The kid does not do any time in this example, goes on probation for a year instead of to jail for a year, still has to pay his $1,000 fine and has to deal with some long term issues for his crime. The State has a ready means to keep track of him for a reasonable amount of time.

Don't want to deal with the consequences, don't get plastered, force a girl into a room, force her down on a bed, cover her, try to disrobe her and under no circumstances cover her mouth so that she feels she is in danger of being suffocated.

You do of course realize we are talking about an academic circumstance here. Should a charge be made in Montgomery County thirty-six years after the fact, the investigators are never going to find enough fresh tracks to move to a prosecutor to indict.

The circumstance Kavanaugh finds himself in is a political circumstance not a legal circumstance. It would not surprise me if Ford made the charge for her own satisfaction. it would not surprise me if she didn't. You could knock me over with a feather if the investigators found enough to induce an indictment on a 36 year old cold trail.

Does not make any of what is happening to Ford right and I do believe that the Neanderthal attitudes expressed by actual GOP Congressmen and Senators are going to come back on the party in the worst way.

I doubt the 17 year old with a clean record would be tried as an adult.

 

[jnug]

I doubt the 17 year old with a clean record would be tried as an adult.

If it were shoplifting I would agree with you. Not sexual assault. You are too easily discounting having her mouth covered to mask her screams to such an extent that she felt her life was threatened (ie suffocated). Again this is really an academic exercise IMO. But going by what we know, the hand over the mouth atop what is clearly a sexual assault is the killer for the assailant. He is getting no breaks from the minute the charges include covering her mouth.

 

[TurtleDude]

If it were shoplifting I would agree with you. Not sexual assault. You are too easily discounting having her mouth covered to mask her screams to such an extent that she felt her life was threatened (ie suffocated). Again this is really an academic exercise IMO. But going by what we know, the hand over the mouth atop what is clearly a sexual assault is the killer for the assailant. He is getting no breaks from the minute the charges include covering her mouth.

I still call BS on your claims.

 

[TurtleDude]

[FONT=&quot]This is a fairly accurate check list based on what I recall in Ohio courts. I believe its relevant to most states

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.c...nse/juvenile/who-decides-try-a-juvenile-adult

Factors that may influence the judge’s decision or a prosecutor’s request to transfer a juvenile case to adult court include:[/FONT]

• the seriousness of the offense and whether the child caused serious harm to another person
• the age of the juvenile
• the juvenile’s record of criminal activity, and
• whether the juvenile is amenable to treatment. Someone not amenable would be a juvenile who has already received counseling and other services but continued to commit crimes, showing that the rehabilitative response of the juvenile system has not worked and isn't likely to work in the future.

lets see-no serious harm
no record of other alleged criminal activity
no prior contact with law enforcement

 

[jnug]

[FONT="]This is a fairly accurate check list based on what I recall in Ohio courts. I believe its relevant to most states

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.c...nse/juvenile/who-decides-try-a-juvenile-adult

Factors that may influence the judge’s decision or a prosecutor’s request to transfer a juvenile case to adult court include:[/FONT]

• the seriousness of the offense and whether the child caused serious harm to another person
• the age of the juvenile
• the juvenile’s record of criminal activity, and
• whether the juvenile is amenable to treatment. Someone not amenable would be a juvenile who has already received counseling and other services but continued to commit crimes, showing that the rehabilitative response of the juvenile system has not worked and isn't likely to work in the future.

lets see-no serious harm
no record of other alleged criminal activity
no prior contact with law enforcement

Having your life threatened IS serious harm.

Women are going to hate me for posting this. But judgements in court are mostly arrived at by balancing the key points of the case.

So why are women going to hate me for this post? Because in reality, you can make the case that the plastered duo while responsible for the fact that they were plastered, shoved her into the room, tossed her on the bed, one covering her, trying to disrobe her while not OK can be viewed with some leniency if you squint a bit. Now if its your daughter, you are likely not much interested in this argument and I know I have got the women in the audience squirming in their seats with this argument. But I can't deny the world we live in or at least the world we live in today.

The kid's attorney is going to bring up all sorts of extenuating circumstances for everything I described so far and again, if you squint a little and its not your daughter or your sister you can get where the attorney wants to take you. That all goes out the window as soon as that hand goes over the mouth. Youthful exuberance, drunkenness, that all goes down the drain as any sort of rational as soon as that hand goes over her mouth. First because it was exercised with enough force to make her feel that her life was threatened as she was being suffocated and that is hard to call anything but a premeditated effort to muzzle her forcefully. The attorney is not going to be able to argue with any voracity that his hand just happened to go over her mouth because he covered it with such force as she felt her life was threatened.

That sort of premeditated effort is murder in a courtroom. The kid is fine if you want to see him get out of this charged as a minor and therefore allowed to leave this in his juvenile record past all the way up to that hand over her mouth. It all goes out the window at that point because no matter what else the kid has done or not done up to that point, the state really does not know if they have a tiger by the tail or not because of that forceful hand over the mouth. They are not going to want to let him walk out of there with a juvi charge because they lose any ability to track him and keep his pulse for some number of years. They don't want to charge him as a felon either and they don't want to put him in jail either. But they are not going to let him just walk away from that hand over her mouth. Not gonna' happen. If the state can make its case, the outcome I describe is the outcome the state wants for everybody including the kid himself.

 

[TurtleDude]

Having your life threatened IS serious harm.

Women are going to hate me for posting this. But judgements in court are mostly arrived at by balancing the key points of the case.

So why are women going to hate me for this post? Because in reality, you can make the case that the plastered duo while responsible for the fact that they were plastered, shoved her into the room, tossed her on the bed, one covering her, trying to disrobe her while not OK can be viewed with some leniency if you squint a bit. Now if its your daughter, you are likely not much interested in this argument and I know I have got the women in the audience squirming in their seats with this argument. But I can't deny the world we live in or at least the world we live in today.

The kid's attorney is going to bring up all sorts of extenuating circumstances for everything I described so far and again, if you squint a little and its not your daughter or your sister you can get where the attorney wants to take you. That all goes out the window as soon as that hand goes over the mouth. Youthful exuberance, drunkenness, that all goes down the drain as any sort of rational as soon as that hand goes over her mouth. First because it was exercised with enough force to make her feel that her life was threatened as she was being suffocated and that is hard to call anything but a premeditated effort to muzzle her forcefully. The attorney is not going to be able to argue with any voracity that his hand just happened to go over her mouth because he covered it with such force as she felt her life was threatened.

That sort of premeditated effort is murder in a courtroom. The kid is fine if you want to see him get out of this charged as a minor and therefore allowed to leave this in his juvenile record past all the way up to that hand over her mouth. It all goes out the window at that point because no matter what else the kid has done or not done up to that point, the state really does not know if they have a tiger by the tail or not because of that forceful hand over the mouth. They are not going to want to let him walk out of there with a juvi charge because they lose any ability to track him and keep his pulse for some number of years. They don't want to charge him as a felon either and they don't want to put him in jail either. But they are not going to let him just walk away from that hand over her mouth. Not gonna' happen. If the state can make its case, the outcome I describe is the outcome the state wants for everybody including the kid himself.

no serious harm is physical harm-it says CAUSED serious harm. If I say I am going to kill you and do nothing to you or even show you a gun-that is not serious harm. Serious harm is beating someone severely, shooting them etc

 

[jnug]

no serious harm is physical harm-it says CAUSED serious harm. If I say I am going to kill you and do nothing to you or even show you a gun-that is not serious harm. Serious harm is beating someone severely, shooting them etc

Robbing someone of their air is serious harm and this is Maryland. Here is the actual relevant Maryland code:
Third Degree – includes any of the following:
engaging in sexual contact (intentionally touching the victim’s or defendant’s genital, anal, or other private parts for sexual gratification or abuse of either person) in any of the following situations:
Without consent while using a weapon, strangling or seriously injuring the victim, threatening the victim with death, serious injury, or kidnapping, or committed with another’s help OR
The victim is mentally or physically incapacitated (drunk or unconscious for example) and the defendant knows of his or her condition
The victim is under 14 years old and the defendant is at least 4 years older
Engaging in a sexual act (i.e. oral or anal sex) or vaginal sex with a 14 or 15 year old victim by a 21 year old or older defendant, AKA statutory rape

The result does not matter in Maryland. The threat of death or serious injury is enough.

 

[TurtleDude]

Robbing someone of their air is serious harm and this is Maryland. Here is the actual relevant Maryland code:
Third Degree – includes any of the following:
engaging in sexual contact (intentionally touching the victim’s or defendant’s genital, anal, or other private parts for sexual gratification or abuse of either person) in any of the following situations:
Without consent while using a weapon, strangling or seriously injuring the victim, threatening the victim with death, serious injury, or kidnapping, or committed with another’s help OR
The victim is mentally or physically incapacitated (drunk or unconscious for example) and the defendant knows of his or her condition
The victim is under 14 years old and the defendant is at least 4 years older
Engaging in a sexual act (i.e. oral or anal sex) or vaginal sex with a 14 or 15 year old victim by a 21 year old or older defendant, AKA statutory rape

The result does not matter in Maryland. The threat of death or serious injury is enough.

robbing someone of their air

this has to be the most idiotic attempt to pretend briefly putting your hand over someone's mouth is the same as CAUSING SERIOUS HARM. give it up,. its so contrived I am LMAO. did she suffer brain damage due to a lack of oxygen?> NO- so stop the silliness

you are just speculating because you so truly hate Kavanaugh you want to make something up to justify denying him a seat when you know damn well even if he did this it, it has no relevance to his ability to serve.

 

[jnug]

robbing someone of their air

this has to be the most idiotic attempt to pretend briefly putting your hand over someone's mouth is the same as CAUSING SERIOUS HARM. give it up,. its so contrived I am LMAO. did she suffer brain damage due to a lack of oxygen?> NO- so stop the silliness

you are just speculating because you so truly hate Kavanaugh you want to make something up to justify denying him a seat when you know damn well even if he did this it, it has no relevance to his ability to serve.

I am not speculating. I am commenting on your Ohio law which you brought up for some inane reason since Ohio is not Maryland. Maryland is the relevant state. I posted the Maryland statute which clearly reads strangling or seriously injuring the victim, threatening the victim with death, serious injury, or kidnapping, or committed with another’s help

I am not speculating about anything. Did Maryland suddenly move a few hundred miles to Ohio? I don't think so. What does Ohio Law have to do with an offense in Maryland and why bring up Ohio Law at all when it is so easy to just find the Maryland statute.

If it were Ohio I WOULD suggest to you that suffocating somebody even for a short time would likely qualify as a felonious assault even it were not a sexual assault. HOWEVER the offense was in Maryland and the Maryland statute is clear as day.

The biggest mistake i make with posters like you is that I try to give you the benefit of the doubt and time and time again, you just don't deserve it.

 

[braindrain]

I have been on the receiving end of an attempted date rape situation. He wasn't taking no for an answer and if he had been a little more determined, I might have been in serious trouble. I fought him off and got away. I do chalk his actions up to youthful indiscretion though. I don't think he was a serious or continuing menace. I wouldn't be afraid to let him be around young women. I wouldn't want what happened that afternoon to ruin his life.

So, I am a little torn. But this is the Supreme Court. A much higher standard should apply to obtaining a position on the court. And I do believe the accuser is being truthful, which means I believe that Kavanaugh is (again) failing to tell the truth in pursuit of a position on a U.S. court. So, even if people such as Orrin Hatch don't think attempted date rape should be disqualifying, Kavanaugh's apparent dishonesty is another strike, and should put him out.


But I don't think it will knock him out, because Republicans are bound and determined to get another Trump justice installed in the Supreme Court before Democrats have a chance to take back the Senate.

The thing is you believe her because it's what you want to be true, not because the evidence suggests it. Because at this point it's just her word against two others.

 

[braindrain]

Here's what I see:
An entirely corrupt administration has once again shown it is unfit for anything beyond nursery school and failed to properly vet it's chosen champion of the right.

As usual, rather than own up to a mistake, they smear a person's reputation - gee as if this were the only case. It's SOP Trump, destroy people who get in your way.

Without evidence, as none is needed, it's clear this is another palsy appointment and the man is as guilty as sin. Simply based on the fact that NOTHING Trump has ever done has been honest or in any way or benefit to anyone but him and his cronies.

I would not be surprised if they were all rapists. Nothing would shock me anymore about these bags of ****. Anyone supporting these pukes must hate women.

Yeah you sure seem like an unbiased person who we should put a ton of weight on your opinion.

You utomatically finding guilt in Kavanagh is just as disgusting as those on the right automatically calling her a liar and smearing her. You should all be ashamed of yourself.
Of course we all know you are to big a partisan hack for that.

 

[braindrain]

Beacuse you go from talking about the accuser...to unrelated people and entertainers attacking her credibility in a coordinated and politically motivated charade. There is the accuser, and the accused. Brett is not being accused of smearing her. She’s not...by decent people, being accused of smearing him.

It’s as governess said, some people on the right...and right wing media, that has taken it upon themselves to smear her. When Anita Hill was smeared by Republicans back in the day...the Senators themselves felt they could smear her from the floor. Now they use proxies. Maybe one day, the won’t do it at all.

An accusation warrants character assassination from right wing media, because of their agenda? Think about it.

And plenty of people on the left have already determined kavanaugh guilty and continue to smeared him.

Interesting how it's only the right acting like hacks that bothers you.

 

[Amelia]

The thing is you believe her because it's what you want to be true, not because the evidence suggests it. Because at this point it's just her word against two others.

No .

 

[Mach]

And plenty of people on the left have already determined kavanaugh guilty and continue to smeared him.
Interesting how it's only the right acting like hacks that bothers you.

I read a post that was absurd. I refuted it.
You read a post you felt was wrong, you tried to refute it.

Do you understand you're doing what you claim you want me to stop doing?

If you have something to debate, be my guest, because claiming you know what does and doesn't bother me, doesm't qualify.