At 3/21/13 01:38 AM, 372 wrote:
At 3/21/13 01:27 AM, HollowedPumkinz wrote:
lmfao did you just call us investigator wannabes for watching a homemade rape confession video?
At 3/21/13 01:10 AM, Ryanson wrote:
Than terrific, the justice system did its job without the need of little interweb investigator wannabes. minimal, and in this case, even considered an annoyance to those seriously working on the case.
At 3/20/13 11:37 PM, HollowedPumkinz wrote:
Let hard evidence do the talking, if this girl was raped, the DNA will prove as much, and so will the cross examinations.They were convicted.
Nope, not you guys, there have been plenty of people that have commented on the articles I've found of the case barking so loudly how "right" they were because they've watched this video, seen a photo and seen a couple articles. I don't get it myself, in this case they were actually "right", then again they were pretty damn guilty looking to start with. I find those kinds of people annoying, we, the observers who get nothing but internet information, can not make a true substantial stance on a trial because we don't know all of the details. But that won't stop people from jumping to conclusions and call for convictions before the trial even starts. Which is why I call them "witch hunters". No one here has been that bad.
@Gagsy, "Rape is rape no matter the situation" Ehhh, I'd be inclined to believe you but when alcohol becomes involved. Things get kinda complicated, for instance, if both parties are drunk, and the male party is being led on (yes, led on, like she's been making out with him alone in a room for 20 min and letting him get to 3rd base, etc.) and this, without actual verbal confirmation, is considered consent to a guy, because in real life, no guy is going to wait for a written fucking document that clearly spells out the girl's consent. In that situation, consent is seriously touch base (no pun intended) where neither party knows and is simply winging it and hoping they don't hear a "stop" or have them pull away. And when you're drunk, being able to sense if there's a "stop" or a pull away is really really hard because neither party is fully functional or aware. A girl's "stop" comes out as a slurr that the guy probably dismisses as moaning or such what goes on in his drunken skull. And then the morning comes and she's very ashamed and then claims rape to protect her status. But was it really? Despite the lack of physical or verbal consent can you really consider getting 99% there and then deciding to go back when you're both drunk to be even remotely possible when the BOTH of you are impaired?
It's extremely context heavy but, the defense that "rape is rape" is a very hard defense to break because proving that contextual conditions were met is very hard while claiming rape and proving that the opposing party had sex with them is very easy. It's true, these kinds of rape trials are rare but I have seen a few of them and they do happen. And it's only rare because most of the time it never escalates to the girl pressing charges because they understand that what they did was "leading them on" but if she doesn't like the person that she mistakenly fucked, she might claim rape.