Serious Issue of Rape

[Guest]

 

[crysede]

Thanks for the welcome! I'm having a great time except for this fucking bootemail pop-up that's getting on my last nerve.

I don't know if you're referring to a pop-up you're seeing on this site or not – if you are getting the pop-up on Lit, here's a link to the info EE mentioned:

Literotica does not, never has, nor will ever use pop-up ads. More than likely, you have a program on your computer that is causing the pop-ups. For more information, go here:
http://www.literotica.com/support/nopopups.shtml

 

[zipman]

Zipman,


http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/gma/goodmorningamerica/GMA030109_Calif_Rape_Ruling.html


Of course I just re-read the thing and noticed that I hadn't read to the end of the article. What the defense lawyer says doesn't quite jibe with what the dissenting court justice says.

The defense lawyer claims the girl never said no but ALSO that the boy knew she wanted to quit but wasn't given reasonable time to control his "primal urge". The justice states only that the girl did not specifically say "no".

So at this point I'm throwing my hands up. If she didn't say no or quit or stop then it's reasonable for him to claim that he didn't know she wanted him to stop. If, however, he claims to know that she wanted to stop and he continued anyway then that seems pretty clear to me that he knew he was in the wrong.

What kind of shitty lawyer did he have to even bring up the issue of how long it should reasonably take him to stop once he knew he was unwelcome? He either knew or he didn't know. If she didn't say then he could claim not to know but that doesn't seem to be the argument they used. What a moronic cow.

Demerits all around for the whole gang of clowns.

I totally agree with your post and the conclusions in it.

I think that one of the finer points in this is that the assertion that the boy knew she wanted to stop is not based on his testimony but rather based on the defense that his attorney chose. His actual testimony is not mentioned.

However, the facts are still far from clear in this case.

Thanks for posting the link (you too Chrysede).

 

[bridgeburner]

Thanks for the info. I've been a memeber at Lit for a couple years and had never seen anything like this before. It didn't at all seem the style so I was pretty amazed.

I've run Ad-Aware already and nothing came up so I'll go through their other suggestions and see what I come up with.

 

[Frimost]

He admits to rape in his defense. He only has to defend the charge against him.

Nothing less.

Otherwise, it would be a denial of the charge.

He doesnt' deny it.

He is a young kid, terrified, faced with authority figures bearing down on him like a ton of bricks. Because he is young and doesn’t understand the legal ramifications to the words he might utter under pressure to get people off his back.

Just today George Ryan released several people convicted of murder on death row.

He is going to repeal all the death sentences in all of Illinois tomorrow.

Many of these wrongfully convicted murders were adults forced by intimidation to confess to murderers that they did not commit.

My question is why are many of the same people who question the validity of the charges felons have been convicted of in a court of law the same people who will believe any rape charge brought against a man?

 

[BgMma]

He is a young kid, terrified, faced with authority figures bearing down on him like a ton of bricks. Because he is young and doesn’t understand the legal ramifications to the words he might utter under pressure to get people off his back.

Just today George Ryan released several people convicted of murder on death row.

He is going to repeal all the death sentences in all of Illinois tomorrow.

Many of these wrongfully convicted murders were adults forced by intimidation to confess to murderers that they did not commit.

My question is why are many of the same people who question the validity of the charges felons have been convicted of in a court of law the same people who will believe any rape charge brought against a man?

You know something? It would be refreshing to finally see a real rape charge deal with the atrocity that it is.

God forbid I ever be raped, but I would like to know that the cocksucker who did it to me got everything he deserved. And if not, I have a HUGE family........

 

[HeavyStick]

He is a young kid,..... get people off his back.



My question ...... charge brought against a man?

He is a young kid, terrified, faced with authority figures bearing down on him like a ton of bricks. Because he is young and doesn’t understand the legal ramifications to the words he might utter under pressure to get people off his back.

In some states, minors can not be interrogated without their parents present. Parents can also ask for legal counsel to be present. So in short, you have once again proven you don't know shit about the legal system. The parents could have stopped the interview/interrogation at anytime. They also could have requested an attorney at anytime.

My question is why are many of the same people who question the validity of the charges felons have been convicted of in a court of law the same people who will believe any rape charge brought against a man?

What are you trying to say? Put the cake down long enough for a comma or period to start a new sentence.

 

[Frimost]

fuck you heavystick, you think you make me look bad with your petty little quips? It just takes away from everything else you say.

 

[HeavyStick]

fuck you heavystick, you think you make me look bad with your petty little quips? It just takes away from everything else you say.

No it doesn't.

You say that. But it doesn't.

 

[Frimost]

"The only person (male or female) in any country, city, time, or culture ultimately responsible for their own welfare and safe being is themselves"

Smoke less crack, man.

You’re the one that has to smoke less crack.
The only person responsible for protecting yourself is you.

Most people think that law enforcement is responsible from protecting them from crime, that is false. Actually, they are only responsible for investigating, apprehending, and charging the felon, NOT from preventing the crime in the first place (unless it is occurring right in front of them). There is legal precedent that police have no obligation to protect you, just to clean up the mess afterwards.

Therefore, be careful, have some kind of protection and have a backup plan in order to not become a statistic.

 

[Frimost]

I never said that is was alright for a man to continue fucking a woman after she said stop.

I certainly never said a man can do whatever he wants to a woman once she says “yes”.

My stance was just that a new category of non-consensual sex that is lesser than full-blown rape should be applied to these kind of sticky situations when they are already in the act of fortification.

That's all.

No, I have never been accused of rape. I am just worried that wrongful accusations can become all too common by vindictive women out there, this ruling makes it all to easy for such accusations to stick because all the “evidence” you need for a rape charge (i.e. sperm) is going to be there after consensual sex. So how do you DIS-prove it? It would be like a trail of guilty until proven innocent which is not what are justice system was founded on.

 

[HeavyStick]

Oh wow.... our resident dirt merchant tries to develop an understanding about women.. He thinks if a woman gets in his car and doesn't give him gas money he's due some "tail"


Just don't try so hard Frimost.

 

[bridgeburner]

"responsible for their own welfare and safe being"

Demonstrably false.

If your child dies of starvation in your home you can bet you'll go to jail for it. If your employee is harmed on the job due to error on your part you are liable. If you run down a pedestrian in the street you are likewise accountable. As a member of society you are responsible for the harm you do to others whether they have taken all possible precautions against your actions or not.


Look up from the gaming, man. This isn't the Age of Ragnarok.

 

[Guest]