When does no, mean no?

[pjdude1219]

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

No I am attacking the position of the DA that both he and his defender like yourself are to craven to come out and say honestly. He is blaming her and your defending that Victorian BS

 

[John99]

No I am attacking the position of the DA that both he and his defender like yourself are to craven to come out and say honestly. He is blaming her and your defending that Victorian BS

PJ, what part of "statute of limitations is not up" did you not understand? The DA is saying that with all the information the Defense attorney would shoot holes into it so that no jury would convict given the circumstances. You have to remeber there only needs to be reasonable doubt and the defense would love this case because reasonable doubt is her words in the police report.

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).

That is the main thing because it was freshest in her mind at the time. Accusing people and calling them names is not warranted because they deal in reality and the mebers of sciforum are not on trial here. If it is fair....or not fair blame the defense attorneys.

 

[adoucette]

Do, please, outline the legal procedures under Colorado law. Then we can start estimating the cost of a lawyer to undertake that process.

Actually motions like this should not be expensive, and she indeed had a lawyer at that hearing.

Motions may be made in the form of an oral request in open court, which is then summarily granted or denied orally. But today, most motions (especially on dispositive issues that could decide the entire case) are decided after oral argument preceded by the filing and service of legal papers. That is, the movant is usually required to serve advance written notice along with some kind of written legal argument justifying the motion.

There are also low cost legal services available to those without money in criminal cases like this, so while it isn't a slam dunk, it's also not exactly that big of a barrier.

What role, if any, do you think her being an advocate against sexual assault played in the prosecuters decision?

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

No I am attacking the position of the DA that both he and his defender like yourself are to craven to come out and say honestly. He is blaming her and your defending that Victorian BS

Do you understand the reference to the Ramsey case?

Since he used that as an example (it's in his neck of the woods) do you think he blames the little girl for her own murder?

No, obviously not.

Do you think he believes the Ramsey murder was not a crime?

NO, obviously not.

He said, like the Ramsey case, they might think they knew who committed the crime but they didn't think they could prove the case in court.

It's fine for you to think that he could, but it's not fine for you to ascribe motives for which you have no evidence.

Arthur

 

[madanthonywayne]

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.

I'd like you to expand on this. Even if you get consent it's still rape? This is because you "harassed" your bedfellow? What constitutes harassment sufficient to over ride actual consent?

There's a difference between a cad and a rapist.

 

[John99]

Good lessons to be learned here afa alcohol intoxication.

 

[visceral_instinct]

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:



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.



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.



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.

I remember this one.

I could use that argument to justify a lot of things...

If we accept for argument's sake that certain men can't help rape, and that failing to dress modestly enough around men 'causes' rape and is akin to removing the pin from a grenade, it follows from there that a lot of behaviours simply 'can't be helped'...

If the man can't help it, then neither can I, and you should just consider me an animal when I break someone's cervical spine for touching me (yeah, I nearly did this to someone...I won't go into detail...) and accept that I can't help it. After all, they chose to pull that 'pin' out of the 'grenade'.

Consistency is an awesome thing.

 

[SilentLi89]

I'd like you to expand on this. Even if you get consent it's still rape? This is because you "harassed" your bedfellow? What constitutes harassment sufficient to over ride actual consent?

There's a difference between a cad and a rapist.

I don't know where the line between harassment and annoyance is, but harassing or threatening consent out of someone is still considered rape. Because obviously if you have to harass them they probably don't want to have sex with you.

 

[Tiassa]

This and That

I'd like you to expand on this. Even if you get consent it's still rape? This is because you "harassed" your bedfellow? What constitutes harassment sufficient to over ride actual consent?

Once consent is refused, any attempt to manipulate consent risks classification as harassment, molestation, or assault, depending on the conduct.

Let's say I didn't touch her, but instead interfered with her sleep by pestering her. Sure, denying someone sleep is just fine, according to some legal experts, in a war theatre with terror suspects, but I don't see how it works with someone in their own home just so I can get laid.

Maybe I try to touch, massage, and otherwise stimulate someone into consent. After that first, "No," all of that contact is violative. How it is classified—e.g., harassment, molestation, or assault—depends on each state's laws.

Sometimes the difference between a cad and a rapist is whether or not a prosecutor is willing to enforce the law.

Imagine a situation. A woman you know only from some occasions of heavy drinking, starting at a local bar, decides to come back to your place. She kisses you once, open-mouthed, and even borrows some clothes to sleep in. She allows you to see her changing, and yes, that satin g-string has its temptational value. She refuses the spare room, and asks to share your bed with you. In bed, she curls up against you for physical contact.

At what point has she really consented to have sex with you? Is sexual intercourse the only possible interpretation of her behavior? Or maybe she's drunk, and just doesn't want to feel lonely in some strange place.

So when she notices your hand on her ass, she says, "Please don't."

What next? Do you try your luck? Try to tease and stimulate her into desire? Maybe presume she's playing hard to get, and if you just "take control", you can get some tail?

And maybe it would work. Maybe that is what she wants.

Or maybe you respect her request, take your hand off her ass, and go to sleep.

And when you see her at the bar again a few days later, what will that situation be? Will you sheepishly apologize for feeling her up? Or will you be apologizing for raping her?

I can deal with apologizing for feeling her up. And I can appreciate the gentle kiss, the thanks for being so nice, and the reassurance that I don't need to apologize for grabbing her ass.

I don't ever want to apologize for raping someone. Best way to do that is to accept that no means no.

One way you get close to people is when they trust you. Trust involves a recognition that another can cause you harm. And they trust—that is, they believe or accept—that you won't.

And if you're not selfish, not a sex machine, not a grenade or land mine, it's not especially difficult to respect that trust.

• • •​

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 situationl 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.

I think the amount of presumption in that is problematic.

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?

If her expectation should be that men should not be trusted to conduct themselves properly, society has more than a few problems to work out.

By the goddess, madam, the number of women I've been permitted to simply hang out with, and occasionally sleep beside? I cannot imagine what my life would be like without the friends I've had along the way. And sure, there were some long, conflicted nights in there. But neither do I know who or what I would be had I not learned what I could of those nights.

And it does get easier if people stop looking at each other so primarily as potential sexual mates.

I am allowed by circumstance to accept that other people—other human beings—might seek close comfort both emotional and physical, without transgressing to sexual contact. If I am allowed, why should a woman not be? Because it is simply easier to give over to fear, desire, and indecency?

If the only difference between what I am allowed to expect of other people compared to this unfortunate rape survivor is the fact of her womanhood, well, frankly, I don't know where to begin.

 

[John99]

Tiassa, no means NO period.

There are certain situations where there may be some extenuating circumstances. For example:

Being in a number of relationships i have said no to my female partner and they persisted and i, after awhile, willingly participate.

Contrast this to another time when i met a woman, who i knew causally, and when we were alone she became agressive and i said "NO" she persisted and i physically got her off of me. The reason was because i didnt want to take any chances of ending up with a STD.

So in the first case, living with these women and saying no but i gave in would not mean they forced me because i agreed and consented but not by saying "Yes" mind you. So there is no blanket robot way to respond to these situaations.

 

[adoucette]

Once consent is refused, any attempt to manipulate consent risks classification as harassment, molestation, or assault, depending on the conduct.

Let's say I didn't touch her, but instead interfered with her sleep by pestering her. Sure, denying someone sleep is just fine, according to some legal experts, in a war theatre with terror suspects, but I don't see how it works with someone in their own home just so I can get laid.

Maybe I try to touch, massage, and otherwise stimulate someone into consent. After that first, "No," all of that contact is violative. How it is classified—e.g., harassment, molestation, or assault—depends on each state's laws.

Sometimes the difference between a cad and a rapist is whether or not a prosecutor is willing to enforce the law.

The prosecuter doesn't get to enforce the law, the JURY does.
And you need all 12 to agree that the evidence supports that conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.

And if you're both in bed together by mutual consent with no evidence of physical coercion, there is not a prosecuter in this world who would take ANY of those suggested offenses to a jury trial.

You don't seem to differentiate what is against the letter of the law and what a prosecuter can actually win in a trial.

And like it or not, Prosecuters are judged (and promoted and get raises) based on their conviction rate, so they will typically not go with a long shot.
Indeed, they tend to go much more for SURE THINGS and since the amount of cases the typical prosecuter has on his docket at any given time is fairly high, this bar to prosecution is also pretty high.

The chance of getting a conviction of Rape of someone who was invited over, is in bed with them partially clothed, isn't a stranger, has previously had consensual sex and with no physical evidence of coercion is pretty damn low.

Which is as it SHOULD be.

Arthur

 

[Bells]

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!

You haven't read the trascript of the call the police had her do, did you?

She didn't isolate herself with a guy while she was drunk. She had apparently spoken to him on the phone and he then realised she was drunk. She had apparently mentioned that she was going to bed when she terminated the call. He then decided to drive to her house, jimmy the door open and came in and found her semi-conscious and very drunk in her home and in her bed and from Mr Buck, we come to learn that she was in a state of semi-undress. At one point in the call she makes to him, which was recorded by the police mind you, she asks him why had he come over and he responds with "I don't know". She asks him if he knew it was rape, since as a rape advocate, it seems she had educated him about rape and what constitutes rape, and he responds with "yeah".

But lets go back to when he has entered her house while she was half passed out in bed, because according to the police transcript, he wanted to lie down next to her. That was when the sexual assault began and he admitted to all of it, he admitted it to her in the police pretext call and he admitted to having raped her and to her having said "no" at least twice, to the police.

So, to use your excuse for the rapist, lets apply this to you. Next time you are at home, do not drink or get drunk. If you do, you should then be barred from calling anyone you know and have some sort of trust with (especially one you know understands rape and what constitutes rape since you have educated them about it before), just in case they decide to drive to your after you have gone to bed, jimmy your door open and come into your bedroom and rape you while you are half passed out drunk. You know, because we apparently now know the human species and know that is what all men of the human species do.

Do you see how ridiculous that proposition is? It would be like telling you to never ever get drunk in the presence of your husband, just in case he decides to rape you, even after you have told him no and tried to push him off while in a semi-conscious state. Because it seems in your world, your husband being a male of the human species, that is what he will be doing to you if you get drunk.

------------------------------------------------

There is one thing about this case that several of you cannot seem to grasp.

She said no. He confessed to the police that she said no when he had started fingering her. He confessed, that she had said no when he had climaxed in her.

That is established. We know that is what she said and we know he admitted it to the police and we also know that he knew what he had done was bad because he also admitted to the police directly that he had tried to then get her conscious to apologise to her.

So can someone tell me, based on that, how Mr Buck can then turn around and tell the victim that he thinks that she had implied consent? We know she had said no when he started to touch her vagina. But Mr Buck ignores that entirely in his discussion with the victim and tells her that because she was drunk, in her house and in her bed, not to mention in a state of undress, when the man entered her room, then as far as he is concerned, it is somehow implied that she had consented. But we also know that the man had then lain down next to her and then started to touch her, at which point she said no and rolled over away from him. So where is the implied consent?

Is it possible that Mr Buck had an issue with date rape? Is it possible that he thinks a woman getting drunk alone at home and being semi-naked when she goes to bed is inviting her rape when her ex then decides, of his own volition to drive to her house, knowing that she is drunk and going to bed, jimmies open the door and then enters her room and rapes her? Does anyone here believe that telling a man you've known for years on the phone that you're drunk and going to bed (a man you had not spoken to for a year but had been in a relationship with for quite a while and someone who had known you for over 4 years), while you are home alone, implying consent?

You know, this is what I do not understand about this case. At no time were the actions in any way, implying consent. Mr Buck's comments to the victim imply that as soon as you know your rapist and because you may have had sex consentually in the past with your rapist, that suddenly, that rapist will always have implied consent. In other words, a woman can divorce a man and a year later speak to him on the phone and boom, instant consent. Even if she has said the word "no" to him when he enters her house without her knowledge, gets into her bed and starts to touch her sexually. That is what Mr Buck implied in his words to the victim. And that is what people like John, Lori and Arthur seem to believe and worse still, seem to excuse.

I have taken this case to a couple of friends of mine, who are still prosecutors. I gave them the transcripts and the articles I have linked here, as well as told them that this is all the police incident report we can see and that apparently Mr Buck had written all over the rest of it, detailing why he thinks it is not rape. Their answer? Those 2 paragraphs where the alleged perpetrator admits to her having said no and describes how she was not in a state to even consent, that there is no way in hell he would not have been able to get a conviction. I asked them to review the whole thing. Like me, they prosecuted sexual assault cases, on both adults and children. I'll put it this way, these types of cases where the perpetrator admits everything to the police and describes it in that kind of detail is usually what is given to those who are new to the department, as it is virtually impossible to stuff it up. Why? Because you have a full confession to the police.

And yet, Mr Buck seems to believe otherwise and instead, rambles about how the victim did not remember at first saying "no". Which is often common. But the perpetrator remembers since he was sober enough to not only remember and know that she had said no, he was also sober enough to know that what he had done was bad. Mr Buck also believes that prior sexual relationship seems to imply consent. It does not. At all. His mentioning her words that they had been "bedfellows" in the past when they were in a relationship, does not mean that she had consented. Quite the contrary, even the perpetrator admitted that at no time did he have actual consent, quite the contrary, he admitted to the police that he was told "no", twice. Mr Buck then accuses the victim of having had an abortion in the past and that was what the perpetrator had accused her of. The victim replies that it was a miscarriage. I am curious as to whether Mr Buck believes that once you fall pregnant with a man, whether that gives the man consent to eternity, even if the woman says no. That aside, Mr Buck's accusation to the victim that she had an abortion reeks of dragging his personal feelings about abortion and about women into his job. Huge no no.

We know from the transcript and from listening to that conversation that at no time did he offer her any understanding or even compassion. Quite the contrary, his manner of speaking to her in that recording sounded cold and callous.

This again shines through when he later goes on to describe the victim as suffering from "buyers remorse" and when he again later on describes the facts of the case as pitiful.

What is equally pitiful are those who are quite literally grasping at straws to defend him and also, to defend the rapist in this case.

 

[adoucette]

What is equally pitiful are those who are quite literally grasping at straws to defend him and also, to defend the rapist in this case.

No one is defending the accused (that I've seen) the issue is did the DA have enough to go to trial?

You think yes, but there are certainly reasons why he might not of, including the fact that we haven't seen all of the police report, particularly her interview.

A) the Call is NOT under oath and will never be used in the trial, so it has no bearing on the DA's ability to convict.

B) She told the original officer that she couldn't recall if she said no. That is a HUGE problem for the prosecution because the obvious defense to that is she said YES. Sure the police report of what he said afterward is damaging, but so is hers.

Indeed, when you read the transcripts, it's clear she has no recollection of that night and is always asking the accused what happened. But in his phone conversation he is quite clear in that he says she was awake and taking part (at least at the start), so that's going to be his position on the stand.

Can the defense put the kibosh on the "confession". Maybe not, but good chance they will paint it in a better light.

C) She does admit to inviting him over. The defense will use that as evidence of consent.
D) She does tell him how to get in. The defense will use that as evidence of consent.
E) After inviting him over and telling him how to get in, she is in bed half naked. The defense will use that as evidence of consent.
F) He will probably testify that she took an active part as he related in the phone call, regardless of what she said, ie. implied consent.
G) In one official statement that will be used at trial she refers to them as "Bedfellows". We don't know exactly in what sense it was used, but the DA is concerned about it and if you don't know how it was used how can you dismiss it?
H) The DA brings this up to her: "when you look at what happened earlier in the night, all the circumstances", but without explanation (since she apparently knows what he is referring to), we don't know, but it could be significant.

There are less than 12 people responding to this thread, but just from the various comments, it doesn't look like you could get a conviction from this crowd, so why do you think the DA could when the accused will probably act like a choir boy on the stand and have a skilled defense lawyer representing him?

Arthur

 

[John99]

Bell, where does it say "jimmy" the door open?

All i see about that is:

The victim, then a 21-year-old student, had admitted she was intoxicated and invited her alleged attacker to her apartment. Her alleged attacker was also a former lover, though she said she hadn't seen him for more than a year.

 

[adoucette]

It was in the phone transcript.

How did you get into the apartment, was the front door unlocked or ... how did you get in?
Yeah, yeah, it was unlocked.
. And my door?
Uh ... your door? Oh, you told me to, uh, just jimmy it open with like a, a card or something.
Oh, okay.
So, uh, that's what Idid.
Hmm. So when, was I even awake when you got there?
Urn .. .I, I called out your name and you rolled over to say hi and I was like, "Hello," you know. "How you doing?"

And it was referenced in the transcript between the girl and the DA.

(139) KB: 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 …

Now what's interesting about this exchange is it is another reference to information that we have yet to see, but that the DA based his decision on.

What happened earlier in the night? We don't know.

But apparently it was important to the DA to mention it.

He didn't describe what happened, because she knew what he was referring to, but we don't.

Arthur

 

[Tiassa]

The desperation of rape advocacy

The prosecuter doesn't get to enforce the law, the JURY does.

Take it up with the Yale Law Review:

Failure of public prosecutors to enforce state laws has evoked in several states a variety of constitutional and legislative responses ....​

Of course, maybe things have changed over the last sixty years.

Citing an appearance of conflict, San Juan County Prosecutor Randy Gaylord has asked the state Attorney General to take over enforcement of the Shoreline Management Act at the gravel pit barge landing site. In a letter dated January 14, 2003, he wrote: "The commissioners have directed this office to prepare a contract to acquire all of the gravel pit property...For this reason we believe you are in a better position to objectively review and take appropriate action."

(San Juan Islander)​

And you need all 12 to agree that the evidence supports that conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt ....

.... The chance of getting a conviction of Rape of someone who was invited over, is in bed with them partially clothed, isn't a stranger, has previously had consensual sex and with no physical evidence of coercion is pretty damn low.

A jury faced with a defendant who acknowledges violating the statute in question has a low chance of conviction?

Which is as it SHOULD be.

Yes. Admitting guilt is insufficient to establish guilt. Exactly as it should be. Right? Because, well, the implicit and interpretive is much more meaningful and indicative than the explicit.
____________________

Notes:

Howard, W. "District Court Discipline of State Prosecutor for Failure to Enforce State Laws". Yale Law Journal. 1947. JSTOR.org. October 13, 2010. http://www.jstor.org/pss/793367

San Juan Islander. "Prosecutor won't enforce permit violations at gravel pit". January 20, 2003. SanJuanIslander.com. October 13, 2010. http://www.sanjuanislander.com/county/prosecutor/enforcement.shtml

 

[adoucette]

Take it up with the Yale Law Review:

Failure of public prosecutors to enforce state laws has evoked in several states a variety of constitutional and legislative responses ....​

Of course, maybe things have changed over the last sixty years.

Citing an appearance of conflict, San Juan County Prosecutor Randy Gaylord has asked the state Attorney General to take over enforcement of the Shoreline Management Act at the gravel pit barge landing site. In a letter dated January 14, 2003, he wrote: "The commissioners have directed this office to prepare a contract to acquire all of the gravel pit property...For this reason we believe you are in a better position to objectively review and take appropriate action."

(San Juan Islander)​

A jury faced with a defendant who acknowledges violating the statute in question has a low chance of conviction?



Yes. Admitting guilt is insufficient to establish guilt. Exactly as it should be. Right? Because, well, the implicit and interpretive is much more meaningful and indicative than the explicit.
____________________

Notes:

Howard, W. "District Court Discipline of State Prosecutor for Failure to Enforce State Laws". Yale Law Journal. 1947. JSTOR.org. October 13, 2010. http://www.jstor.org/pss/793367

San Juan Islander. "Prosecutor won't enforce permit violations at gravel pit". January 20, 2003. SanJuanIslander.com. October 13, 2010. http://www.sanjuanislander.com/county/prosecutor/enforcement.shtml

Semantics.
Those articles are using the term "Enforce" to mean for the DA to take it to a jury.

But the reality is, it is the Jury that determines if a defendent is guilty and thus enforces the law.



I'm not a lawyer, but that DA was well aware of that Police report of the supposed confession and that clearly didn't seal the deal for him.

Why do you think that is?

Both you and Bells insist that this was a SLAM DUNK, but yet the DA obviously didn't agree with that and wouldn't proceed.

Can you offer ANY reason why he wouldn't, besides what he said, that he didn't think he could get a conviction?

Are YOU more knowledgeable of the case and facts than he is?

Arthur

 

[madanthonywayne]

Once consent is refused, any attempt to manipulate consent risks classification as harassment, molestation, or assault, depending on the conduct.

I recall seeing something to that effect as part of the university code of conduct, but is that an actual law anywhere? Furthermore, has anyone ever been charged and/or convicted of rape in such a situation? First she says no, then she says yes? I don't mean under duress like at the point of a gun. But rather that she first said no and then she later clearly and definitively changed it to a yes.

What man hasn't tried to turn a no into a yes?

Let's say I didn't touch her, but instead interfered with her sleep by pestering her. Sure, denying someone sleep is just fine, according to some legal experts, in a war theatre with terror suspects, but I don't see how it works with someone in their own home just so I can get laid.

Is she your prisoner? She's free to go home if you're "pestering" her and interfering with her sleep. Or to tell you to get the hell out if you're at her place. "Pestering" is not rape. If she finds your sexual advances so off putting, perhaps you shouldn't be together in the first place.

Maybe I try to touch, massage, and otherwise stimulate someone into consent. After that first, "No," all of that contact is violative. How it is classified—e.g., harassment, molestation, or assault—depends on each state's laws.

Look, everyone knows there's no and there's no. Woman can go around at rallies saying "NO MEANS NO!", but that's not how they act in real life. There's a different tone of voice to a real no. A different body language. It's like at the end of a concert when the band steps off the stage and says, "Thank you, goodnight!", you know they don't mean it. Not until the lights go on in the theater.

Your wife/girlfriend says no, playfully, and you start to massage her. She doesn't object to this. In the process, she gets excited too and no becomes yes. That's rape?

On the other hand, you try to intiate sex and she firmly says no. You wait for her to fall asleep and jerk off.

When you've been with someone a while, you can tell the difference between a real no and a "I might be convinced" no.

Imagine a situation. A woman you know only from some occasions of heavy drinking, starting at a local bar, decides to come back to your place. She kisses you once, open-mouthed, and even borrows some clothes to sleep in. She allows you to see her changing, and yes, that satin g-string has its temptational value. She refuses the spare room, and asks to share your bed with you. In bed, she curls up against you for physical contact.

So when she notices your hand on her ass, she says, "Please don't."

What next?

We're drunk. We've kissed. She comes to my place. Refuses the guest bedroom, undresses in front of me, rubs up against me and then objects when I finally touch her?

I'd be pretty incredulous, but if she made if clear she really wasn't interested in sex, fine.

And when you see her at the bar again a few days later, what will that situation be? Will you sheepishly apologize for feeling her up? Or will you be apologizing for raping her?

I'd be coldly polite but not pursue any further relationship with her. Given the scenario you've presented, I'd consider her to be some kind of psycho prick tease. Unless there's more to the story that you haven't mentioned.

 

[adoucette]

Imagine a situation. A woman you know only from some occasions of heavy drinking, starting at a local bar, decides to come back to your place. She kisses you once, open-mouthed, and even borrows some clothes to sleep in. She allows you to see her changing, and yes, that satin g-string has its temptational value. She refuses the spare room, and asks to share your bed with you. In bed, she curls up against you for physical contact.

At what point has she really consented to have sex with you? Is sexual intercourse the only possible interpretation of her behavior? Or maybe she's drunk, and just doesn't want to feel lonely in some strange place.

So when she notices your hand on her ass, she says, "Please don't."

What next?

Well after all that any red blooded male is going to have a yard arm a hard long.

So one way or another, you are going to cum before you get to sleep and any normal red blooded woman, after kissing and undressing in front of you and curling up next to you in bed, wouldn't make that just your problem.

She doesn't have to have intercourse though, there are other methods of handling the situation.

But if I was told to not only not touch her but to handle it myself, I'd probably just call her a cab.

Arthur

 

[pjdude1219]

The prosecuter doesn't get to enforce the law, the JURY does.
And you need all 12 to agree that the evidence supports that conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.

actually neither do it is the exucitive branches role to enforce the law