When does no, mean no?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Bells, Oct 12, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Page 5 of 8
  1. Tiassa

    Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,893
    This and That

    Indeed.

    And since we're splitting hairs, a judge can vacate a jury verdict, or a defendant can plead guilty and skip the whole jury thing altogether.

    It could be that he let personal sentiment get in the way of enforcing the law. He wouldn't be the first, and certainly wouldn't be the last.

    That he has attitudes toward women similar to yours, and didn't want to prosecute a young man for taking what he thought was rightfully his.

    This isn't a particularly difficult issue to see. A prosecutor has a suspect admitting to violating the law, and chooses not to go forward. Whatever reasons he offers are, for quite obvious reasons—e.g., having a confession—suspect.

    Says you.

    Like I said: attitudes toward women.

    • • •​

    That will be a long search.

    And if I'm in her home, as with Mr. Buck's refusal to prosecute?

    However, for me sexual gratification is not a deal-breaker for whether or not a woman is welcome in my home.

    Sometimes, "Not tonight, dear," just isn't bullshit.

    Congratulations, sir. You are capable of leaving me speechless.

    No, really, there is absolutely nothing I can say to that it doesn't say for itself alrady.

    To the one, that's a risk one chooses to take. To the other, I'm not sure it's applicable in this particular circumstance.

    For me it's not a matter of incredulity. But maybe it's a broader outlook on sex, too. I can find comfort in a woman that doesn't involve piledriving her loins; her human mystery extends well beyond sexual intercourse.

    This is part of what I don't understand: How is it that a woman is measured in terms of the sexual gratification she gives?

    "Psycho prick tease," as such, is a comfort a man invents for his own sake. In other words, it can't be that there is value in other forms of contact, but that she must necessarily be out to torture us.

    It's not that there aren't psycho prick teases out there, but as a general measure, it assesses a woman according to whether or not she puts out.

    No, that's the thing. Sure, we had some strange adventures together, but why does her on that particular occasion behavior mean she wants to have sex? It's so removed from my outlook that I'm grasping at straws and falling back to basic psychology. We can leave it as a rhetorical question—indeed, we'd probably be better off if we did—but isn't there anything polymorphously sexual that gives you a thrill? There are sides of me that I enjoy that don't involve sexual intercourse, and I'm probably better off not sharing with anyone else. The idea that someone might take sexual comfort in me without sexual intercourse just doesn't seem so bizarre to me. I'd even go so far as to say that, in a Freudian context, it would be healthier for people if they actually found more of those outlets for themselves.

    If sexual intercourse is the standard against which we measure a person or a situation, we are binding ourselves as well.
     
    Tiassa, Oct 14, 2010
    #81

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Did you fail to read the transcript where he was speaking to her?

    Again, moot point. The perpetrator confessed to doing it, in his interview with the police. Or did that also escape you?

    No. But the incident report where he confessed in detail, where he said she had said no twice and where he said that she was so drunk she was semi-conscious to unconscious has a massive bearing on the DA's ability to convict.

    It would be like saying a DA says he cannot get a murder conviction even though the perpetrator tells police that yes, he did do it. Those two paragraphs indicate to me that Mr Buck was so intent on blaming a rape victim for her own rape that he plainly and openly overlooked a confession from a perpetrator. It was plain by the fact that he failed to even take on the case and it was even plainer from the manner in which he spoke to her. She asked him repeatedly about the perpetrator's confession and admittance of guilt in the police report and he told her that while she did not say yes, the consent in his opinion was intended.

    So where does "no" not mean no? If you're trying to stick your finger or dick in a woman and she says no and rolls over, do you think that means yes? Is she consenting, in your opinion?

    In this case, we have a drunk woman saying no twice. And we have a man continuing his sexual assault on her and then raping her. That, under any definition, is rape.

    She did not say yes.

    Do you how we know that? Because her rapist stated that she said no, and that she said no twice. Because her rapist said that she was so drunk that she was barely conscious. But that she had told him no twice.

    At no time does he say that she said yes. On the contrary, he says that she said no and that he then managed to bring her back to consciousness to ask for her forgiveness.

    Do you understand now?

    Now, as to her not remembering if she said no.

    Do you understand that if a woman is unconsciousness or semi-conscious or so drunk that she is in that state that she cannot give consent? Do you understand that she cannot legally give consent if she is that drunk? Yes? No?

    Actually no. In the transcript, she asked him why he did not stop when she asked him to and tried to push him off.

    Do you know what a pretext call is? What the purpose behind a pretext call is? The police will often get partners who have been raped to do such calls or face to face interviews to see if the rapist will even admit to it. Victims are often coached in not leading the perpetrator but to get them to talk about it, which is exactly what she does in that call. Then she slips up and tells him that she remembers trying to push him off and asks him why he didn't stop at that point.

    You're telling me they can put a better light on 'I started fingering her and she said no and rolled away.. So after a few moments I started again and then entered her, while she was in and out of consciousness'?

    Do you know what date rape means?

    If we were to use your judgement, it would mean that anytime a woman invites a man to her house for whatever reason, then it is consent. We know it is not. For example, if I hire an electrician to come to my house and then invite him in when comes to my door, it is not consent for him to have sex with me.

    She told him how to get in? Lets say the electrician comes to my house and I tell him to jimmy the door to get in as I am busy in the kitchen. Is that evidence of consent?

    She may have told him how to get in. But when he started to touch her, she told him "no". No means no. Yes, it is that simple.

    Actually no. The call transcripts make that quite clear. She asks him how he managed to get into her house and then asks him how he managed to get into her bedroom. She also asks him why he had come over. But again, that is all beside the point.

    With rape, she could have undressed him and rubbed his penis till it got hard if she wanted to. But as soon as she says no, it is a withdrawal of consent. Again, yes, it is that simple.

    How?

    We know from his own confession that she was so drunk she was barely conscious and that at times, she was not conscious at all. And we also know from his own confession that she told him no twice.

    Again, do you understand that a husband can and has been found of raping his wife? That sharing a bed with someone is not implied consent? That as soon as a woman says "no", and we know she did in this instance because even he admitted that she did, then any consent is immediately withdrawn? Do you understand that about rape and rape laws?

    Again, she said no and he had confessed that she said no.

    Which he completely disregards. He is talking about things that happened before she said no.

    Do you understand that bit yet? That no matter what happened before, the fact that she said no and then was not in a conscious state means that there was no legal consent? It really is that simple Arthur. My 5 year old could get this.

    We have less than 12 people and we have 3 defending a rapist.

    Says more about you than about the rest of us. But let me remind you of something. If there was a jury, said jury would have been selected and I can assure you, the 3 of you would never have made it on any jury that involves a rape trial. Not just because you 3 seem to believe that a woman invites a rape, but because the 3 of you would not be intelligent enough to be selected by either the prosecution or the defense.

    That side, those 12 people would have seen that he confessed to the police. That is if it even went to trial. Confession like that would mean a conviction regardless..

    So why do you think he refused to take on the case? He had a confession. It is a slam dunk case. He'd only have lost it if he failed to turn up to court. Could it be that he has a problem with date rape, with women and with abortions?
     
    Bells, Oct 14, 2010
    #82

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. pjdude1219

    pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    bells they choose stupid people for juries not smart people. the stupid are easier to influence.
     
    pjdude1219, Oct 14, 2010
    #83

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael

    Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    I'm not quite sure why she couldn't sue him in a court of law? Perhaps the jury would have found him innocent. Or not. But, it's really up to the jury isn't it? I mean, it seems that this man made up his mind of how the jury would decide - well, what's the point in having a jury???

    The only reason I could suspect is that the prosecutor was so sure that they jury would come back with a not guilty that he didn't want to set a precedent for future cases resulting in even more people found innocent?
     
    Michael, Oct 14, 2010
    #84
  8. adoucette

    adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Bells,
    You think that police report equates to an slam dunk conviction.
    I don't, and apparently neither did the DA.
    I think that on the defense stand he would get a chance to explain those statements and with a good defense lawyer it wouldn't end up nearly as damaging.
    See the Phone transcript.
    Note that the Phone Transcript was BEFORE the police transcript and it tells a different story of her participation.
    And when you use statements like:
    It just shows you aren't thinking in terms of a sucessful prosectution at a trial.
    It might be Rape as defined by law, but if those are the facts a prosecuter won't bring it to trial, and that is the issue here, not is it rape, but can you prove it is rape:

    And is it true that you invited him over to your house that night?
    Yes
    And is it true that you then proceeded to undress him?
    Yes
    And is it true that you rubbed his penis until he had an erection?
    Yes
    And isn't it true that the sex was consenual?
    NO!

    Good luck with that jury.

    That's what you seem to be missing, his ability to prevail in court.

    You claim it was a slam dunk, but the DA obviously doesn't agree.

    You think the defense's ability to create "the appearance of consent", based on he actions is without merit as far as prevailing with the jury.
    But of course it is. The defense lawyer prevails if he simply creates reasonable doubt on this issue with one juror.
    With all those things I listed, in the hands of a good defense attorney, there is a good chance one juror could be swayed, because remember, the defense is going to be able to put some jurors in the pool that their jury selection analysis shows will be ameanable to this argument.

    As for the DA's decision.

    He's the DA.
    He deals with putting bad guys away all the time, including rapists.
    He has only so much time and so many cases he can try.
    He deals with deciding who he can or can't get a conviction on all the time.
    He knows the kind of juries he will face and their attitude towards issues raised in this case.
    In this case, he decided he didn't have a good chance and so he declined.
    Which frees him to spend his time on cases he thinks he can get a conviction on.

    You might disagree with his decision but without evidence that doesn't give you the right to denigrate his character.

    Unless you have some actual EVIDENCE to suggest that DA has a problem with date rape or with women (there was no abortion in this case), then present it.

    Arthur
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2010
    adoucette, Oct 14, 2010
    #85
  9. adoucette

    adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Bells,
    Again I ask you to STOP with this BS.
    I am ONLY discussing the DA's decision to take this to trial.
    I am also quite aware of what a Defense Attorneys role is and that is to convince a jury that certain ACTIONS on the part of the Defendent can in fact can create "the appearance of Consent"
    That's the ONLY hurdle the defense has to get over is that the Defendent, (presumably also intoxicated to some extent), thought he had her consent.

    Doesn't mean he did.

    But if the Defense lawyer can use her statements to show that he was invited over, that he was told how to get into her room, that he didn't physically force her and that she wasn't passed out when it started, then given the totality of the event, even with his statements to the police, I believe a good attorney could indeed probably prevail with at least one juror.

    So quit with the lectures on what is or isn't rape, or to presume I am not aware of what is or isn't rape or consent etc etc. it's no more relevant to this discussion than explaining what murder is in the Ramsey case.

    Arthur
     
    adoucette, Oct 14, 2010
    #86
  10. adoucette

    adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Could be, but if that WAS the case, then there would likely be a PATTERN to this.

    Got one?

    WTF are you talking about?
    What attitude towards women do I supposedly have?

    No, the issue is simply; Does he think he can get a conviction, and in deciding that remember he has evidence we don't.
    For instance, why is the defendent worried that he will pull Felicia into this? What role did she play? What was the DA referring to when he talked about events that had transpired earlier in the night?
    Where is HER transcript where she tells the officer that she doesn't remember if she said no?

    See we don't really have all the facts do we?


    Yeah, the way you laid it out it appears that the woman is being sexual and trying to arouse you.
    The KEY is that part where you said she undressed in front of you.
    Women don't undress in front of a man unless they are TRYING to arouse them. She had the option of changing in another room, and in which case she would be sending quite a different message.

    Not at all, I wouldn't be comfortable letting a woman who is sending those kind of mixed messages spend the night in my bed.

    Consider:
    http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/archive/spring09/15/

    Arthur
     
    adoucette, Oct 14, 2010
    #87
  11. adoucette

    adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Yeah.
    Did you?

    So it's pretty clear from the opening statement, where he likens the case to the Ramsey case, that he isn't disputing that it was Rape, he is saying he can't prove it.

    Too bad the girl cuts him off on statement 118 when he was trying to explain the issues with prosecution.

    The rest is about "The APPEARENCE of Consent".

    Note he NEVER says she actually consented (and thus that it wasn't rape).

    I know it is a subtle difference but it is an important issue when it gets to trial.

    The Defense does not have to prove she gave consent, only that there was the appearance of consent.

    That's what the DA says he has a problem with and apparently why he doesn't think he can win with a Weld County Jury.

    Since he has seen all the evidence and we haven't, has met and talked with both people, so has an idea of how they will come across on the stand (and we haven't) and has experience with how Weld County jurors decide rape cases (and we haven't), I'm going with his judgement unless someone can show that there is some better explanation as to why he didn't proceed with this case.

    By the way, that experience with Weld County jurors is not to be ignored. Weld county is ranch country, about 45 people to the square mile, and the attitudes of the people in Weld County might not be the same as those in Seattle say. Again, the prosecuter knows the cross section of people that would be on the jury and that is clearly part of his decision. Since I've never been to Weld county, again, I defer to his judgment.

    Arthur
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2010
    adoucette, Oct 14, 2010
    #88
  12. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Wait.. What?

    You're telling me that a Prosecutor can't prove that he raped her with a confession?

    This is what you are going with here? What kind of a dumbarse Prosecutor does not think he can win with a confession? It defies all logic that he gets a confession to the police and he does not think he can get a conviction.

    It is laughable.

    If you read the transcript where she is speaking to Mr Buck, you will see that she keeps bringing up his confession and he does not address it. Instead, he attacks her personally for inviting her own rape. And then he accuses her of getting an abortion.

    There is no appearance of consent. She was completely incapacitated and she said no. Having had sex with him in the past is not an appearance of consent. Even if she had had sex with him 5 minutes before, it would not be an appearance of consent. Do you know why?

    Because:

    a) She said no, by his admission.
    b) She was completely incapacitated, by his admission and by hers.

    This is first week criminal law stuff Arthur. Overly basic and simple.

    At no time was there consent from when he walked into that bedroom. Even if she had said yes in the living room, for example, when she was in the bed and he then entered the bedroom and lay down next to her and touched her and she said no, there was no consent. The fact that she was, by his and her own admission, that incapacitated that she was barely conscious, means that there was no consent. So coupled with her "no".. In no way could there be any appearance of consent.

    Once she said no. Once she was that incapacitated.. There was no consent.

    Do you understand that bit?

    This is the issue here. And she challenges him on it several times. And not once does he address the man's confession, instead choosing to concentrate on her behaviour. Not once does he acknowledge that she was incapacitated and thus, unable to actually give consent. Not once does he address the fact that the rapist said "no".

    He tells her that he believes, in his mind, that there is an appearance of consent. There was no such appearance.

    You actually contradicted yourself with that comment by the way. If she did not consent, then it is rape. As you said, he never says taht she consented. Therefore, it is rape. I think that's the part that you're not quite grasping.

    Without consent, it is rape.

    She was virtually totally incapacitated to the point of being unconscious at times. She said no. Those two points mean that she did not consent and the first also means that she was in no position to consent.

    I'll give you an example.

    Lets say I go out with my husband to a bar and get batshit drunk. We get home and I kiss him passionately and then I go to bed and take off my clothes. He follows shortly after and then starts to touch me. I say no and roll away from him and half pass out from the alcohol. He then starts to touch me again and then has sex with me. I am in and out of consciousness and after he has climaxed inside me, I again tell him no.

    Do you think my husband has raped me?

    Where is the consent implied? Is it implied consent because I kissed him? Is it implied because we normally share a bed anyway? Is it implied because I was naked in my own bed and going to sleep?

    I'll give you a hint..

    I was overly drunk and incapable of actually giving consent. I also told him no.

    Any lawyer, with even an inch of brain matter between their ears would be able to point to several factors. Primarily that he confessed to several things:

    1) She said no. Twice. She also rolled away from him, which again, kind of tells you that she did not want him to touch her.

    2) She was not in a fit mental state to give consent. Because you know, she was barely conscious.

    Any appearance of consent there may have been before he entered that bedroom went out the window with both points 1 and 2.

    Any implied or express consent before he entered that bedroom disappeared as soon as she uttered the words "no" and as soon as the fact that she was barely conscious... by his own admission..

    The suspect’s own statements to the police investigating the case also seem to confirm that the sex was not consensual, and that he knew that at the time.

    “He stated … that maybe once or twice the victim said no. He stated that he thought the victim did say no. He stated he does recall her rolling away and saying no,” the report states.

    The suspect also said that at one point he left the bed because she had pushed him away and told him no. But he came back.

    “He stated after he had intercourse with the victim and climaxed that he pulled out. He stated when he did so, the victim was barely conscious and that’s when he realized he had done something wrong,” the report states.

    Asked to describe the victim’s state of consciousness, the suspect said in the police report, “The victim was laying there and her eyes would open and then close. He stated they were open only a short time and then would close again.”

    All of the suspect’s quotes were written by the investigating officer as his account of the conversation.


    (Source)
    ​

    But lets look at what he law in Colorado says about the excuses that Mr Buck gave to the victim about her implication of consent. He told her that she had invited him over, that she was in a state of undress when he had walked into the bedroom, that they were "bedfellows" previously.. Lets have a quick looksy at what the law has to say about prior relationships and consent, shall we?

    (1.5) “Consent” means cooperation in act or attitude pursuant to an exercise of free will and with knowledge of the nature of the act. A current or previous relationship shall not be sufficient to constitute consent under the provisions of this part 4. Submission under the influence of fear shall not constitute consent. Nothing in this definition shall be construed to affect the admissibility of evidence or the burden of proof in regard to the issue of consent under this part 4.


    Part 4 Unlawful Sexual Behavior 18-3-401. Definitions
    ​


    How about the "bedfellows" argument Mr Buck put forward. What does the law in Colorado say about that, Arthur? Should we have a look?

    Any marital relationship, whether established statutorily, putatively, or by common law, between an actor and a victim shall not be a defense to any offense under this part 4 unless such defense is specifically set forth in the applicable statutory section by having the elements of the offense specifically exclude a spouse.

    18-3-409. Marital defense
    ​


    My my..

    Now, he accused her of being drunk. We have had people like Lori trying to say that she somehow invited it for being druink, etc. We also have Mr Buck, the supposed prosecutor, also virtually telling her that her actions and her level of inebriation led to her implying consent. So lets see at what happens with consent when someone is so drunk that they lapse in and out of consciousness, shall we? Keep in mind, that we know she was that drunk from the perpetrator's own confession to the police:

    18-3-402 Sexual assault

    (1) Any actor who knowingly inflicts sexual intrusion or sexual penetration on a victim commits sexual assault if:

    (a) The actor causes submission of the victim by means of sufficient consequence reasonably calculated to cause submission against the victim's will; or

    (b) The actor knows that the victim is incapable of appraising the nature of the victim's conduct; or

    (c) The actor knows that the victim submits erroneously, believing the actor to be the victim's spouse; or

    (d) At the time of the commission of the act, the victim is less than fifteen years of age and the actor is at least four years older than the victim and is not the spouse of the victim; or

    (e) At the time of the commission of the act, the victim is at least fifteen years of age but less than seventeen years of age and the actor is at least ten years older than the victim and is not the spouse of the victim; or

    (f) The victim is in custody of law or detained in a hospital or other institution and the actor has supervisory or disciplinary authority over the victim and uses this position of authority to coerce the victim to submit, unless the act is incident to a lawful search; or

    (g) The actor, while purporting to offer a medical service, engages in treatment or examination of a victim for other than a bona fide medical purpose or in a manner substantially inconsistent with reasonable medical practices; or

    (h) The victim is physically helpless and the actor knows the victim is physically helpless and the victim has not consented.


    Part 4: Unlawful Sexual Behavior 18-3-402 Sexual assault

    ​


    So tell me, where is the appearance of consent? Everything that Mr Buck told the victim that he felt gave an appearance of consent goes against the law itself when it comes to sexual assault and rape, in that the law does not recognise any of it as consent or as giving the appearance of consent.


    No, what we have here is a DA who tells a rape victim that she invited her own rape, accuses her of having had an abortion and then tells her that he can't win a case with a confession from the rapist because of his own twisted beliefs about her behaviour.

    That is what we have. We have a DA who told a rape victim that he can't get a conviction with a confession and admittance of guilt from the rapist.

    You mean in the 2 hours he admitted to looking at it?

    The evidence contained a confession to the police by the rapist.

    Now, he's either that fucking dumb that he can't read and comprehend a police incident report that includes the confession, or he was that bad of a prosecutor.

    There is no excuse for any prosecutor not pursuing a case with a police confession. In all my time in my profession, I have never heard of any prosecutor completely disregarding a police confession by the perpetrator and refusing to take on the case. Not once. In an environment where the amount of convictions you get actually matter.. It is inconceivable that he overlooked and ignored a confession from a rapist and refused to take on the case.

    Now, you can agree to stand by his decision and judgement, but I can assure you, he failed badly.

    Are you saying that the people of Weld county are so stupid as to not be able to understand a confession? Are you suggesting that the people of Weld county are that dumb that they would ignore a confession entirely?

    Does the prosecutor think they are that stupid as to ignore a confession?

    Is he projecting his own bias and sexism onto the jury pool maybe? Or his own ability to win a case with a confession?
     
    Bells, Oct 14, 2010
    #89
  13. madanthonywayne

    madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Neither is it for me. But the situation you describe is a very provocative one and the woman's actions up to "please don't" all seemed designed to drive you insane with lust. All that capped with a "please don't" just doesn't jibe.
    I'm a married man. I"m quite familiar with "Not tonight".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I don't see it as a risk at all. A one night stand would be a differnt situation because you wouldn't really know each other at all and there'd be a serious risk of misreading the signals. But I know what my wife means without her even talking.
    There's a time and a place for everything, but foreplay without the pile driving is like opening an elaborately wrapped present only to find an empty box inside.
    No one has claimed otherwise. However, she is measured by her actions and doing everything she could to get a guy worked up and then saying "please , no" just isn't nice.

    If she wasn't interested in sex, fine. But what she did was like cooking you your favorite meal, setting the table, putting the food on your plate, waiting until you were about to put he fork in your mouth and then saying, "Please don't eat that".
     
    madanthonywayne, Oct 14, 2010
    #90
  14. John99

    John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    She can do many things with this as THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS NOT RUN OUT and afaik there is no statute of limitations in rape cases. She and what had to have been her attorney during the other interview with the DA didnt pursue it further. A political opponent found this 5 days before an election (youll have to check on that as i never heard of these people and dont know when the elections are BUT that is what i read).

    The DA pointed out the conflicting remarks and is telling her that the defense attorney will use those to put reasonable doubt into the minds of the jury and from what i read would be a cakewalk due to

    A: inviting him over
    B: not remembering if she said NO during the encounter in initial statement to police (those statment take precedence usually as they are freshest in the minds of people but she couldn't remember due to being intoxicated.)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt

    In a case like this now that the facts are coming out doesnt look like the DA made the wrong choice and this is not your average brutal rape case so i cant see this being an issue not that i care about the DA or who wins the election mind you.
     
    John99, Oct 14, 2010
    #91
  15. jpappl

    jpappl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
    Bells,

    That's enough for me. She just said no and he admitted to it. IMO he's done.
     
    jpappl, Oct 14, 2010
    #92
  16. adoucette

    adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Bells,
    The appearance of Consent is what the Defense has to show.

    Without this caveat:
    , no defendent could be charged with rape if they had simply had consensual sex before.

    But the key word there is SUFFICIENT, so that definition doesn't mean a defense lawyer can't use the current or previous relationship as part of his explanation to the jury that in the case being tried that there was an appearance of consent.

    The more piling on he can do the better.

    As to your rant.

    So if you think he is THAT FUCKING DUMB, then how come

    Are they also that fucking dumb?

    http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2010/10/13/ken-buck-progressnow-rape/16369/#more-16369

    Arthur
     
    adoucette, Oct 14, 2010
    #93
  17. John99

    John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Unfortunately even with that there are conflicting statements so you need to look at the whole case. And from what i read the defense attorney has enough to put reasonable doubt into the minds of the jurors.

    What i find odd is inviting him over, which she admits to and telling him to "jimmy" the door. That part of this is something i dont understand but we really dont have enough information like the parties involved had.
     
    John99, Oct 14, 2010
    #94
  18. adoucette

    adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    jpappl, the discussion isn't about, was it rape, it's about should the prosecuter have taken it to trial?

    The prosecuter says, that because of the various statements she made, such as telling the police she could not recall if she said no, that he couldn't win, and so declined.

    The Greeley police chief agreed the case wasn’t winnable as did the Boulder district attorney.

    Arthur
     
    adoucette, Oct 14, 2010
    #95
  19. Tiassa

    Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,893
    Attitudes toward women

    Well, if your post at #79 wasn't enough, you also reinforced the point in this one:

    Is sexual intercourse the only possible interpretation of her behavior?

    We'll have to see what else emerges.

    Earlier in the night? I thought Buck was pretty clear about that:

    Because when you look at what happened earlier in the night, all the circumstances, based on his statements and some of your statements, indicate that you invited him to come to your apartment... that you told him how to get in .... It would appear to me and it appears to others that you invited him over to have sex with him. Whether that you, at that time, were conscious enough to say yes or no... ?

    (Colorado Independent; boldface accent added)​

    You might have a point, though, Arthur. Buck, like you, seems to think that sex is the center of association between men and women. Perhaps that's something widespread enough among Colorado citizens that we could expect a juror to say, "Well, we have the defendant's acknowledgment that he raped her, but we're not going to convict because even though he raped her and admits it, she asked for it."

    I see. So because someone in the past has falsely claimed rape, the fact that the accused admits to raping the victim is immaterial? Explain, again, how that logic works?
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Colorado Independent. "Meeting with Ken Buck". (n.d.) ColoradoIndependent.com. October 14, 2010. http://coloradoindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Ken-Buck-transcript.pdf
     
    Tiassa, Oct 14, 2010
    #96
  20. jpappl

    jpappl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
    I understand that is more complex then first sight, like many things.

    However, if I was a cop and interviewing the guy and he told me.

    "I wanted to have sex with her but she said no"

    Knowing that they had sex, he just admitted to acting against her wishes.

    Doesn't matter if she is confused, he admitted she said no and he had the responsibility to act accordingly.

    You can't run into a parked car just because it is parked illegally.

    You can't rape someone just because they are drunk.
     
    jpappl, Oct 14, 2010
    #97
  21. jpappl

    jpappl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
    Adoucette,

    As I said above. He apparently admitted to her saying no, and proceeded anyway.

    Like I said, you can't rape someone just because they are drunk.
     
    jpappl, Oct 14, 2010
    #98
  22. adoucette

    adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    No, but when a woman undresses in front of you down to her satin g sring, as you claimed, when she could have undressed and changed into the clothes you provided her in private, then she is being overtly sexually suggestive.

    So, like I said, if she is sending those kind of mixed messages I wouldn't chance her spending the night.

    As that article I posted shows a LARGE percent of rape charges turn out to be FALSE, so a wise male does not spend the night with a woman who appears to be sending those kind of conflicting messages. (note, that article had nothing to do with the Weld County case, which you would have thought was obvious from how I used it)


    Could be, but it's not exactly clear, and like I said, there is quite a bit we haven't seen, like her statements to the police.

    Why do you think that is?

    Wouldn't an objective journalist show those as well?

    You know he has them, because he has his statements to the police and they would be in the same report.

    Arthur
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2010
    adoucette, Oct 14, 2010
    #99
  23. adoucette

    adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Like I said, this isn't a discussion about was it rape or not.

    It's a discussion about was the Prosecuter justified in deciding not to take it to trial.

    But consider, besides the DA, both the Greeley police chief and the Boulder district attorney also agreed the case wasn't winnable.

    Arthur
     
    adoucette, Oct 14, 2010
    #100
Page 5 of 8
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page