When does no, mean no?

[adoucette]

What you mean is by people who consider all the evidence and don't jump to premature conclusions based on quote mined snippets off the web?

Thank heavens.

Because I believe a judicial system is better if it allows an occasional guilty man to go free then if it convicts an occasional innocent man.
Which is why we put the burden of proof on the prosecuter and ask for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict.


Arthur

 

[adoucette]

I have to admit, what got me about this case, the killer for me, was when he accused her of having had an abortion and used it as a threat in case she did go public. That is inexcusable.

He didn't use that as a threat.
He said if she filed a suit to compel prosecution, then it would be public and the accused lawyers would know the things he knew and bring them out.

(250) M#2: we’ve talked about a motion to compel prosecution, and that’s the only other option. Ultimately that’s going to be [Name redacted] decision. But that’s really the only option…. Whether or not we’re going to do that, I don’t know. Incredibly high burden …

(255) KB: Be aware of something, if this, if you file this motion, it will be very public, publicly covered event. There are a lot of things that I have a knowledge of, that I would assume (name of possible suspect redacted) knows about and that they have to do with, perhaps, your motives for (unintelligible) and that is part of what our calculation has been in this.

Clearly there is no threat there, he's just telling her all of this info she's so far kept secret, but told him will come out, but it would come out from the DEFENSE side. Of course at this time he thought she had had an abortion but he subsequently learned that while they had talked of having an abortion, she had miscarried.

Arthur

 

[Tiassa]

What about this isn't perfectly clear?

Okay, I'm confused. We have an allegation of rape. We have what appears to be a confession from the accused. We have a prosecutor that still doesn't want to go forward with what should be one of the easiest convictions of anyone's career. What about this isn't perfectly clear?

Ah, but we have a few people looking for any reason they can find to justify the prosecutor's decision:

Cases where the two parties involved, knew each other (sexually) and were intoxicated are hard to prosecute.

They are hard to prosecute when the issue is what we refer to as "he said, she said". That is not the issue here. The accused confessed. This should not be a difficult prosecution.

One of his jobs is to challenge the defendent, as the defense will do in court, to see how she responds, so things he challenges her with are very likely to be framed from the point of view of what he expects the defense would do.

As he said: "he must only prosecute cases in which he has a reasonable chance of convicting someone, and this was not one of those cases".

• • •​

The same logic would prevail, if I'm trying to convince her why I'm not going to prosecute I'm going to give her a dose of what she would get on the stand at the hands of the defense and I'll point out how their previous relations and her self description of being "bedfellows" was going to be real problematic to winning the case ....

.... Convicting 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt with the facts as laid out here seems to me to be not that likely. The defense would likely have a field day with this poor woman on the stand and from what I understand, it is exactly this kind of case, that convictions are the least likely.

This is the United States of America, and while husbands and wives are generally bedfellows, it does not follow under any law that a wife is obliged to provide sexual comfort just because she shares a bed with her husband. Additionally, I have been in what some might call "tempting" situations before, sharing a bed with a woman. On one occasion, the woman declined the spare bedroom I offered her; we smoked pot together that included "shared" hits. On another it was a former girlfriend. On a third, it was the longest night of my life, in a hotel room with a beautiful young woman, while two of my friends had sex on the other bed. Or there was the time the drunk stripper and I had fooled around together in my car outside her house right before she decided she didn't want to go home and came back to my place. On any of those occasions, and more to be certain, I might have been able to harass my bedfellow into sex, and I might have gotten away with it. But that would not have changed the impropriety of the conduct, nor justified it, and even had I won consent, it would still have been rape.

The courtroom logic you offer falters on a similar consideration to John99's point. There is a confession. In order to get around that, the defense is going to have to challenge that confession. If they can't get it thrown out, then they'll have to put the accused on the stand.

The idea that convincing twelve jurors to accept a confession is somehow difficult speaks poorly either of Mr. Buck as a prosecutor, or the jurors as people.

i'm sure i'll get a rash of shit for this, but imo this woman's lack of sense and responsibility was contributory. what in the hell was she doing shitfaced drunk and alone in her home with her ex-boyfriend?

Clive Barker, in Imajica, spins a fantasy wherein men and women are not merely separate genders, but separate species perpetually at war with one another. That's all well and fine for a fantasy novel, but is this how we should view the real world?

I would hope not.

Your sort of argument reminds me of a discussion we had here at Sciforums a couple years back that featured an infamous argument:

"i know men should act responsibly, but we're literally animals. animals don't ask permission. i am in no way encouraging or condoning rape, its a horrific bestial thing, but i feel people are getting too caught up in morality and stuff, and missing some of the facts.

again, rape is bad. but if you pull the pin out of a grenade, is it your fault or the grenade's when it blows up?" (#1878878/119)​

The idea that men and women cannot be alone together under various circumstances without something sexual happening is part of the reason there is a War of the Sexes that continues even today. It's the twenty-first century. You know, when I watch the Fenix capsule extract another miner from a bad situation in Chile, I get a certain rush of abstract pride: This is the human species.

And when I read the argument that a woman shouldn't be able to get drunk and keep whatever company she wishes without being raped, I feel a certain tinge of abstract shame: This is the human species?

That my daughter should literally live in fear as she grows older is bad enough. Her womanhood should not be a curse. Her humanity should not be a curse.

That we might give over to such curses is an indictment of the human species.

What confuses me is how anyone can find this situation confusing. That is, sure, one might wonder why a prosecutor would not wish to go forward with what should be an open and shut case. But it blows my mind to find people—for whatever reasons—advocating rape. And, yes, that is what people are doing. That may not be their intent, but that is the effect.

 

[John99]

You do realize that the statute of limitations has not run out on this?

 

[Captain Kremmen]

No and rolling away means NO.

What's the use of buying women drink then?

 

[adoucette]

Okay, I'm confused. We have an allegation of rape. We have what appears to be a confession from the accused. We have a prosecutor that still doesn't want to go forward with what should be one of the easiest convictions of anyone's career. What about this isn't perfectly clear?

A) We haven't seen ALL the evidence

The original link included this:

The report itself was detailed and graphic. And while the circumstances that made Buck doubt the case's viability were noted throughout, ”

So, since we have not seen any of these "NOTES THROUGHOUT" it would appear that we have not seen the entire report.

B) She told the Officer in the initial review that she couldn't recall if she said no. This would be a HUGE problem for the prosecuter in the trial.

C) She admits inviting him to her apartment. The defense would use this as the first evidence of consent.

D) She admits telling him how to get in. The defense would use this as the second evidence of consent.

E) She knew she had invited him and was partially naked when he got there. The defense would used this as the third evidence of consent. When added to the fact that she doesn't recall telling him no, the defense would have most likely been able to give reasonable doubt to some jurors about it not being consensual.

F) She refers to them as "Bedfellows" (we haven't seen how she specifically makes the reference, as in past tense or current, but you can't presume it was past tense).

G) They have had consensual sex before, indeed she got pregnant by him (I know this isn't an excuse for rape, but the prosecuter knows it will influence some members on the jury, just human nature)

So that's an awful lot of "beyond a reasonable doubt" hurdles a prosecuter has to get over to get 12 jurors to convict on.
The supposed confession is his biggest asset, but given all of the above, a decent defense lawyer (IMHO) would still likely get one or more jurors to his side.

So

This discussion is NOT about was it rape or not.
We would need to see ALL the evidence and hear from both parties to make that determination.

This discussion is about was the DA justified in his decision to not bring the case to trial.

From the above, I can see why some would think so and others would not think this was winnable, but as you know, it's a judgement that DA's make all the time and they consider all the factors and can actually talk to the people and understand their community, so given all of the above, I would not presume to know that he was wrong in his assessment of the case.

Arthur

 

[Tiassa]

A problematic outlook

The original link included this:

The report itself was detailed and graphic. And while the circumstances that made Buck doubt the case's viability were noted throughout,

So, since we have not seen any of these "NOTES THROUGHOUT" it would appear that we have not seen the entire report.

An interesting manipulation of the sentence:

And while the circumstances that made Buck doubt the case's viability were noted throughout, there also were aspects of the file that seemed to invite further legal probing.

(Stein)​

Among those aspects seeming to invite further legal probing would probably be the confession:

He states after more questioning that maybe once or twice the victim said no. He stated he thought the victim did say no while he was fingering her. He stated he does recall her rolling away and saying no. He stated he agreed and then a short time later began touching the victim's back and again inserting his fingers into her vagina... 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. [Redacted] stated he thought the victim did say no shortly after he had climaxed, and while he was still inside of her.

(ibid)​

That is a confession.

B) She told the Officer in the initial review that she couldn't recall if she said no. This would be a HUGE problem for the prosecuter in the trial.

But the accused confessed.

C) She admits inviting him to her apartment. The defense would use this as the first evidence of consent.

D) She admits telling him how to get in. The defense would use this as the second evidence of consent.

E) She knew she had invited him and was partially naked when he got there. The defense would used this as the third evidence of consent. When added to the fact that she doesn't recall telling him no, the defense would have most likely been able to give reasonable doubt to some jurors about it not being consensual.

The implication of consent means nothing juxtaposed against the accused's acknowledgment that the victim explicitly attempted to decline sexual contact.

Implications of consent do not forfeit a woman's right to explicitly refuse that consent.

F) She refers to them as "Bedfellows" (we haven't seen how she specifically makes the reference, as in past tense or current, but you can't presume it was past tense).

The use of the word "were" is a strong implication. Still, though, it's irrelevant. Not even a married woman is obliged to provide sex for her "bedfellow" husband on demand.

G) They have had consensual sex before, indeed she got pregnant by him (I know this isn't an excuse for rape, but the prosecuter knows it will influence some members on the jury, just human nature)

How does prior sexual contact and consent equal a reasonable doubt to contest the words of the accused? How does prior sexual contact and consent equal a reasonable doubt at all?

So that's an awful lot of "beyond a reasonable doubt" hurdles a prosecuter has to get over to get 12 jurors to convict on.

That says a lot about how the prosecutor views the citizens of Colorado.

The supposed confession is his biggest asset, but given all of the above, a decent defense lawyer (IMHO) would still likely get one or more jurors to his side.

And a jury in Florida once acquitted an accused rapist based on what the woman was wearing when she was "not raped". The prosecutor didn't even try. That's the thing. No attempt to make the accused plead. Plead out, plead down, plead at all.

This discussion is NOT about was it rape or not.
We would need to see ALL the evidence and hear from both parties to make that determination.

This discussion is about was the DA justified in his decision to not bring the case to trial.

One side of the discussion hinges on that very question. For instance, some think arguable interpretations of what implies consent outweigh explicit refusals. Or, at least, they expect a Colorado jury to think so. Did her mouth say no, but her closed eyes say yes?

From the above, I can see why some would think so and others would not think this was winnable, but as you know, it's a judgement that DA's make all the time and they consider all the factors and can actually talk to the people and understand their community, so given all of the above, I would not presume to know that he was wrong in his assessment of the case.

And suddenly we're back to Eden. Or, rather, just outside its gates. Nakedness is evil, because it can only be sexual. We're back to an archaic sexism where no is yes, and the fact of prior sexual contact and consent equals standing license for all time.

Certainly, a juror in Colorado might make whatever excuses they can for a rapist. But when you have a suspect admitting violation of CRS 18-3-404(1)(a), one wonders what instructions a judge might give a jury that would empower them to acquit.

The effect of such an outlook as you describe is vast. It classifies humanity according to sex. It places the burden of men's behavior on women in such a manner as to assign liability to women according to how much they drink, or who they keep company with. It places sexual contact prominently in how a woman is expected to view the world and her fellow human beings. It is a driving fire of the War of the Sexes. Is the problem that Buck sees the argument that way, or that he expects a jury will?
____________________

Notes:

Stein, Sam. "Ken Buck Explained To Alleged Rape Victim Why He Wouldn't Take Her Case". The Huffington Post. October 12, 2010. HuffingtonPost.com. October 13, 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/12/ken-buck-refused-rape-victim-case-audio_n_758890.html

Colorado Revised Statutes. Michie's Legal Resources. (n.d.) Michie.com. October 13, 2010. http://www.michie.com/colorado/

 

[John99]

Except her own words would leave doubt once the defense attorney gets his hooks into it:

Excerpt from conversation:

KB: Do you recall your answer to police officer in your first interview, the police
officer asked if you said no, you said I don’t recall.”
(168) V: I said I’m pretty sure that I said no, but I cannot be 100% sure. And at
that point, it was because I said I couldn’t be sure that I had actually verbalized. I
know that that I had done my best to say no but I couldn’t be sure. I did push the
suspect away, told him know, passed out.” (reading from police report).

You also have to remember this is not a political issue and her own lawyer can decide to take it elsewhere. The part, as i said, where the issue would fall apart is the intoxication and other factors. A defense attorney would tear it apart.

People commit homicides while intoxicated and dont even remember it so if you are conscious, unconscious it puts doubt because you have to be certain yourself what transpired.

 

[SilentLi89]

Except her own words would leave doubt once the defense attorney gets his hooks into it:

Excerpt from conversation:



You also have to remember this is not a political issue and her own lawyer can decide to take it elsewhere. The part, as i said, where the issue would fall apart is the intoxication and other factors. A defense attorney would tear it apart.

People commit homicides while intoxicated and dont even remember it so if you are conscious, unconscious it puts doubt because you have to be certain yourself what transpired.

Tear what apart, I guess the law might be different there, but the fact that she was intoxicated and unconscious makes it rape by definition, doesn't it? Even if she said yes or didn't say anything, having sex with someone who is not awake is rape, regardless.

 

[John99]

Tear what apart, I guess the law might be different there, but the fact that she was intoxicated and unconscious makes it rape by definition, doesn't it? Even if she said yes or didn't say anything, having sex with someone who is not awake is rape, regardless.

Read the thread.

 

[Lori_7]

Clive Barker, in Imajica, spins a fantasy wherein men and women are not merely separate genders, but separate species perpetually at war with one another. That's all well and fine for a fantasy novel, but is this how we should view the real world?

I would hope not.

Your sort of argument reminds me of a discussion we had here at Sciforums a couple years back that featured an infamous argument:

"i know men should act responsibly, but we're literally animals. animals don't ask permission. i am in no way encouraging or condoning rape, its a horrific bestial thing, but i feel people are getting too caught up in morality and stuff, and missing some of the facts.

again, rape is bad. but if you pull the pin out of a grenade, is it your fault or the grenade's when it blows up?" (#1878878/119)​

The idea that men and women cannot be alone together under various circumstances without something sexual happening is part of the reason there is a War of the Sexes that continues even today. It's the twenty-first century. You know, when I watch the Fenix capsule extract another miner from a bad situation in Chile, I get a certain rush of abstract pride: This is the human species.

And when I read the argument that a woman shouldn't be able to get drunk and keep whatever company she wishes without being raped, I feel a certain tinge of abstract shame: This is the human species?

That my daughter should literally live in fear as she grows older is bad enough. Her womanhood should not be a curse. Her humanity should not be a curse.

That we might give over to such curses is an indictment of the human species.

What confuses me is how anyone can find this situation confusing. That is, sure, one might wonder why a prosecutor would not wish to go forward with what should be an open and shut case. But it blows my mind to find people—for whatever reasons—advocating rape. And, yes, that is what people are doing. That may not be their intent, but that is the effect.

you probably know that i'm the last one on this forum who would ever argue for a "but i'm a man" excuse. men aren't grenades. there are no pins to pull.

perhaps i worded my response incorrectly, so let me clarify. this guy is admittedly guilty of rape, no question, and this girl is entirely guilty of being irresponsible at best with her own body, no question.

i'm the only one on this forum that even believes in the possibility of a world and a society that's based 100% in love, peace, and joy. a world where people can live without fear. but tiassa, it's really clear that we don't live in that world now. and in regards to my own life, i have no choice but to think that for some reason i've been supernaturally protected. because statistically, and overwhelmingly, i should have been dead a long long time ago. not because people are evil, but because i have been immensely irresponsible with my own life and my own body.

i don't think people should walk around in fear. but i also find it difficult to sympathize with someone who loses a limb while knowingly skipping through a field of land mines. are land mines a crime? hell yes. is skipping through that field a really stupid thing to do? hell yes.

 

[adoucette]

An interesting manipulation of the sentence:

Not at all, it shows that we have not seen all of the police report.

The prosecuter saw it all, talked to the victim and the accused and after all of that declined to prosecute.

Now you arm chair quarterbacks are looking as just some of the info and deciding he made the wrong choice.

Indeed, you are claiming he turned down a slam dunk case.

Not likely.

Indeed, if the victim thought she had that strong a case, she could have filed a motion to compel prosecution, but she didn't.

Arthur

 

[SilentLi89]

Read the thread.

I have, is having sex with an intoxicated person or an unconscious person not rape there? I didn't see it mentioned anywhere in the thread. The jury might have their own morals but they have to decide if a rape took place, both parties say that it did by the definition of rape.

 

[adoucette]

That says a lot about how the prosecutor views the citizens of Colorado.

I presume he is more aware of how they decide on these issues then you are.

And a jury in Florida once acquitted an accused rapist based on what the woman was wearing when she was "not raped". The prosecutor didn't even try. That's the thing. No attempt to make the accused plead. Plead out, plead down, plead at all.

And there you go, the Florida case just shows that juries are inclined to find reasonable doubt even on what someone was wearing. Prosectuters indeed have a hard time prevailing in rape cases, particularly when there is a past history of consensual sex and no physical injuries. In this case, where the victim invited him over, told him how to get in the house, was waiting half naked and then said she didn't recall if she said no, that was going to be a real problem to the prosecuter. Could he over come it with the accused statements? Maybe, but to say there weren't real challenges in this case is, frankly, silly.

One side of the discussion hinges on that very question. For instance, some think arguable interpretations of what implies consent outweigh explicit refusals. Or, at least, they expect a Colorado jury to think so. Did her mouth say no, but her closed eyes say yes?

No it doesn't the DA didn't say he thought she wasn't raped, he said he didn't think he could prove the case.

And suddenly we're back to Eden. Or, rather, just outside its gates. Nakedness is evil, because it can only be sexual. We're back to an archaic sexism where no is yes, and the fact of prior sexual contact and consent equals standing license for all time.

Again, no we are not back anywhere, this is about what a prosecuter thinks he can convince a jury of.
You keep bringing it back to the question of was it rape, and that's not the issue. See the Ramsey analogy he gives. He's not questioning the crime, only the ability to convict.

The effect of such an outlook as you describe is vast. It classifies humanity according to sex. It places the burden of men's behavior on women in such a manner as to assign liability to women according to how much they drink, or who they keep company with. It places sexual contact prominently in how a woman is expected to view the world and her fellow human beings. It is a driving fire of the War of the Sexes. Is the problem that Buck sees the argument that way, or that he expects a jury will?

Would you really convict him based only on what you know right now?

I've not ever said she wasn't raped, from what I've seen it would appear so, but we are NOT the jury, we have not seen all the evidence or heard from the defendent.

So give it a rest.

The issue isn't "Do you think it was rape?", it is "Should the DA have brought the case given all we know?"

Like I said before it's a judgement that DA's make all the time and they consider all the factors and have the complete police report and talk to the people and understand their community, so given all of the above, I would not presume to know that he was wrong in his assessment of the case, nor do I think you are wrong for thinking he should have.

Arthur

 

[Tiassa]

This and That

perhaps i worded my response incorrectly, so let me clarify. this guy is admittedly guilty of rape, no question, and this girl is entirely guilty of being irresponsible at best with her own body, no question.

I would pair that consideration with:

i don't think people should walk around in fear. but i also find it difficult to sympathize with someone who loses a limb while knowingly skipping through a field of land mines. are land mines a crime? hell yes. is skipping through that field a really stupid thing to do? hell yes.

Roger Waters sang, "By the grace of God almighty, and the pressures of the marketplace, the human race has civilized itself. It's a miracle."

It won't be the grace of God that leads us to "a society that's based 100% in love, peace, and joy", but, rather, the pressures of the marketplace.

The problem with the land-mine analogy is that land-mines are, like grenades, a mechanical process. And if men aren't grenades, it's not simply because there are no pins to pull, but because they are human beings, and allegedly capable of thought and rational assessment.

And in excusing even one rapist because the victim somehow had it coming only reinforces a world in which women, especially, should calculate their actions according to fear.

• • •​

Not at all, it shows that we have not seen all of the police report.

The prosecuter saw it all, talked to the victim and the accused and after all of that declined to prosecute.

And that includes the prosecutor seeing the admission by the accused to violating CRS 18-3-404(1)(a).

Indeed, if the victim thought she had that strong a case, she could have filed a motion to compel prosecution, but she didn't.

Do, please, outline the legal procedures under Colorado law. Then we can start estimating the cost of a lawyer to undertake that process. And then we can refer ourselves back to the Huffington Post article: "A source close to the woman told The Huffington Post that, as a college student, she did not have the money 'to hire an attorney and pay for it herself.'"

And then we can start figuring out how that means she didn't think she had a strong case.
____________________

Notes:

Stein, Sam. "Ken Buck Explained To Alleged Rape Victim Why He Wouldn't Take Her Case". The Huffington Post. October 12, 2010. HuffingtonPost.com. October 13, 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/12/ken-buck-refused-rape-victim-case-audio_n_758890.html

 

[pjdude1219]

Not at all, it shows that we have not seen all of the police report.

The prosecuter saw it all, talked to the victim and the accused and after all of that declined to prosecute.

Now you arm chair quarterbacks are looking as just some of the info and deciding he made the wrong choice.

Indeed, you are claiming he turned down a slam dunk case.

Not likely.

Indeed, if the victim thought she had that strong a case, she could have filed a motion to compel prosecution, but she didn't.

Arthur

to quote the rapist

that is when I knew I did something wrong

the only issue is with stuck up conservative jurors who might have Victorian era views on females but to us people living in the 21 first century this is rape and young lady in question did nothing wrong and to excuse someone's primitive blaming the victim attitude of a DA no less is down right contemptible.

 

[Lori_7]

I would pair that consideration with:



Roger Waters sang, "By the grace of God almighty, and the pressures of the marketplace, the human race has civilized itself. It's a miracle."

It won't be the grace of God that leads us to "a society that's based 100% in love, peace, and joy", but, rather, the pressures of the marketplace.

The problem with the land-mine analogy is that land-mines are, like grenades, a mechanical process. And if men aren't grenades, it's not simply because there are no pins to pull, but because they are human beings, and allegedly capable of thought and rational assessment.

And in excusing even one rapist because the victim somehow had it coming only reinforces a world in which women, especially, should calculate their actions according to fear.

i am in no way excusing the rapist or saying that she had it coming. i think the mechanical aspect of the analogy is entirely false. i'm saying that given what we do know about the human race...that they are capable of thought and rational assessment, and will use that for good or evil given their intentions, that she did not practice any type of discernment in this situation. what was her rational assessment of the situation? she decided to get shitfaced drunk, and isolate herself with a guy that she probably never did trust on some level (or they'd still be together), and that she knows (from experience) is sexually attracted to her. what were her intentions? did she think he just wanted to talk? WHAT GUY JUST WANTS TO TALK? did she think he was there to hold her hair while she puked?

come on!

 

[pjdude1219]

Except her own words would leave doubt once the defense attorney gets his hooks into it:

Excerpt from conversation:



You also have to remember this is not a political issue and her own lawyer can decide to take it elsewhere. The part, as i said, where the issue would fall apart is the intoxication and other factors. A defense attorney would tear it apart.

People commit homicides while intoxicated and dont even remember it so if you are conscious, unconscious it puts doubt because you have to be certain yourself what transpired.

true but your overlooking the fact it also renders her incapable of giving consent and without a direct yes we must assume a lack of consent

 

[adoucette]

the only issue is with stuck up conservative jurors who might have Victorian era views on females but to us people living in the 21 first century this is rape and young lady in question did nothing wrong and to excuse someone's primitive blaming the victim attitude of a DA no less is down right contemptible.

He didn't blame the victim. He likened it to the Ramsey case, and that is clearly a crime and no one thinks that poor girl had it coming do they?
So his discussion was not at all about blaiming the victim but about what he thought he could prove in court beyond a reasonable doubt.
Her statements that night made that difficult to do, particularly the one where she said she didn't recall telling him no, or where she referred to their relationship as "bedfellows" or admitted inviting him to her room that night and told him how to get in and was then waiting for him half naked. (just like defendents have the right to remain silent, in rape cases like this, so should victims, until they have council)

So while you might think all of that is "blaming the victim", it's not, it is though a legal barrier to proving rape beyond a reasonable doubt to 12 jurors and that's what the DA has to weigh because out justice system is, by design, oriented with the burden of proof being on the accuser, and thus the defense would have quite a bit of leeway in discrediting this woman's testimony.

Again, you are attacking a straw man, no one is saying it wasn't rape.
People are questioning if, against a strong defense, could the DA prevail in court.
They aren't the same thing.

Arthur

 

[pjdude1219]

i am in no way excusing the rapist or saying that she had it coming. i think the mechanical aspect of the analogy is entirely false. i'm saying that given what we do know about the human race...that they are capable of thought and rational assessment, and will use that for good or evil given their intentions, that she did not practice any type of discernment in this situation. what was her rational assessment of the situation? she decided to get shitfaced drunk, and isolate herself with a guy that she probably never did trust on some level (or they'd still be together), and that she knows (from experience) is sexually attracted to her. what were her intentions? did she think he just wanted to talk? WHAT GUY JUST WANTS TO TALK? did she think he was there to hold her hair while she puked?

come on!

I think your letting your religious ideology and hatred female sexual equality cloud your opinion. guess what if a young lady wants to drink and invite guys thzts her preogative despite your puranical notions women don't need chaperones. Your still trying to blame her with your well if she were a prude like me this wouldn't have happened attitude.