If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Court rules that mentally retarded woman with cerebral palsy who can only communicate with one finger was asking for it because she didn't bite the man who was raping her, releases rapist from prison. Sounds legitimate   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 24
    More: Followup, Connecticut Post, court ruling, NBC Connecticut, Lawrence Krauss, religious fanaticism, Richard Fourtin, supreme courts, victims' rights  
•       •       •

14170 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Oct 2012 at 2:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-05 02:50:45 AM
4 votes:
That can't possibly be *reads the article*....fark it. fark him. fark the state. fark the judges. fark this. I'm out. I'm going to bed. I hope they all get raped by the time I wake up.
2012-10-05 03:32:38 AM
3 votes:
i.imgur.com
2012-10-05 02:42:11 AM
3 votes:
Nice job, Connecticut. Hope you get raped soon.
2012-10-05 03:57:56 AM
2 votes:

BoxOfBees: [...] we are going to be dropping off our retarded children at the abortion clinic just to prevent them from bearing Satan's spawn.


If you're talking about aborting fetuses after they are determined to be defective, "we" are already doing that, at least those of us who judge that to be the right course of action. Yay for freedom and personal responsibility.

If you're talking about the guardians of mentally incompetent pregnant girls taking those girls in to the clinic to have abortions, I doubt that a large proportion of the public object to that, especially considering that sex with a mentally incompetent girl is often judged to be rape.

In any case, "we" as a society won't have to do anything. That's freedom. You and your fellow citizen may act in keeping with your own conscience in this matter. So long as you respect each other's privacy and obey the law of the land (such as HIPAA) you need not be disturbed by the choices of people who choose differently from you.
2012-10-05 02:50:22 AM
2 votes:
why isnt it legal to kill appellate judges again?
I am sure that if they didnt want you to shoot them in the head, they would just shout at the bullets or wink or something.
2012-10-05 11:08:02 AM
1 votes:

jackrazz: For everyone here pulling th einternet tough guy act about how this defendnat should be beaten down, shot, etc., I'll ask you the same question that was ignored in a Facebook thread about this case: why are you so sure that the defendant is guilty?

Is it because he was accused? That's an EXTREMELY low burden of proof you've got there.

Is it because a mentally handicapped individual did the accusing? I have a client in jail right now awaiting a competency evaluation with an IQ of approximately 62 (SEVERE Down's Syndrom) who accused another inmate of raping him. The problem is, there's no forensic evidence, and nothing that shows any interaction between my client and the accused inmate on any of the multiple cameras all over the jail. Now, I'm not dumb enough to beleive that thtere aren't dark areas where the cameras can't reach, but we're down to a he-said, she-said situation, just like in this case.

We have a rule of law to prevent mob mentality just like this. The Defendant received a fair trial, and was found to be not guilty on one of the three charges filed. While the jury DID find him guilty of the other two charges, the State failed to properly establish each of the essential elements as required by law, and the appellate courts overturned the conviction. The ONLY blame in this case should be placed on the prosecutor for not doing his job.


Personally, I'm upset that the court had the audacity to say that it didn't qualify as rape because the defendant didn't fight back. Even if he didn't do it, for any court to say that rape doesn't occur when a victim doesn't put up enough of a fight is simply monstrous.
2012-10-05 09:12:55 AM
1 votes:
For everyone here pulling th einternet tough guy act about how this defendnat should be beaten down, shot, etc., I'll ask you the same question that was ignored in a Facebook thread about this case: why are you so sure that the defendant is guilty?

Is it because he was accused? That's an EXTREMELY low burden of proof you've got there.

Is it because a mentally handicapped individual did the accusing? I have a client in jail right now awaiting a competency evaluation with an IQ of approximately 62 (SEVERE Down's Syndrom) who accused another inmate of raping him. The problem is, there's no forensic evidence, and nothing that shows any interaction between my client and the accused inmate on any of the multiple cameras all over the jail. Now, I'm not dumb enough to beleive that thtere aren't dark areas where the cameras can't reach, but we're down to a he-said, she-said situation, just like in this case.

We have a rule of law to prevent mob mentality just like this. The Defendant received a fair trial, and was found to be not guilty on one of the three charges filed. While the jury DID find him guilty of the other two charges, the State failed to properly establish each of the essential elements as required by law, and the appellate courts overturned the conviction. The ONLY blame in this case should be placed on the prosecutor for not doing his job.
2012-10-05 07:16:44 AM
1 votes:

T-Boy: Dating the mom and thought he would get some action from the mute retarded kid. As a parent of a child with CP who communicates with gestures, this ruling is dead wrong. As an attorney who has seen judges do stupid things, this isma really stupid thing.


Nope, looks like the ruling is "right" (i.e. legally correct). Looks like the prosecution charged him with the wrong thing, and the jury wrongly convicted him of it. So blame the prosecution for an unabashed rapist walking free. I wonder if they'll go to the bother of retrying him for the correct crime or if they'll just go "meh, can't be bothered and he made us look like dicks so let's just walk away quietly."

If you actually believe in justice and a fair and true justice system you should be cheering the decision, even if you are not happy about the effect of it in this case.

As much as I hate it when criminals use them to wiggle out of a conviction, legal technicalities DO matter. You don't want people going "oh well he was clearly guilty, so who cares what legalities we got a little bit wrong." You allow that kind of thinking to apply to obvious scumbags and you're opening the door for innocent people to be screwed over.

/Ask the NZ government how that's working out for them with Kim Dotcom
2012-10-05 06:59:28 AM
1 votes:
Dating the mom and thought he would get some action from the mute retarded kid. As a parent of a child with CP who communicates with gestures, this ruling is dead wrong. As an attorney who has seen judges do stupid things, this isma really stupid thing.
2012-10-05 05:57:44 AM
1 votes:

Gordian Shoelaces: Sounds like Missouri GOP politicians have been coaching Connecticut on which rapes are legitimate.


The northeast? Home of the Kennedy's? C'mon they invented and perfected non-legitimate rape.
2012-10-05 05:32:03 AM
1 votes:
Can somebody please post where this man lives?
2012-10-05 04:45:19 AM
1 votes:

ciberido: tomcatadam: There's got to be something more to this. Did the state really fark up the case that bad?

That's a very healthy first reaction to a Daily Mail article.


Here's the HuffPo link for those of us too proud to follow Daily Mail:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/richard-fourtin-case-supreme - court-accused-rapist-sexual-assault-handicapped-victim_n_1937528.html

Yes, I clicked a Daily Mail link so that you farkers wouldn't need to. One of us had to make the sacrifice. No, no, thank you, America, for making me strong.
2012-10-05 04:20:24 AM
1 votes:

tomcatadam: There's got to be something more to this. Did the state really fark up the case that bad?


That's a very healthy first reaction to a Daily Mail article.
2012-10-05 04:00:29 AM
1 votes:

rnatalie: Greymalkin: -. --- -- . .- -. ... -. ---

Your finger says no no, but your eyes say yes yes.


Actually, her eyes say "potato," but that's beside the point.
2012-10-05 03:49:06 AM
1 votes:
The problem seems to be that the particular crime he was charged with doesn't involve "did she fail to consent" but instead "was she physically unable to communicate lack of consent." That law seems designed for the unconscious/sleeping/drugged victim.

Apparently the prosecution failed to prove that this victim was physically unable to communicate. Pretty much everyone who testified about her said that the victim was in fact able to communicate in a number of different ways (including gestures and loud screeching), not to mention that she took the witness stand in court, and the rape only came to light in the first place because she communicated the allegation to someone. (The state offered zero evidence that she was physically unable to do all these things at the time of the assault.)

It isn't that she could have bit him (or shrieked or whatever) and didn't, it is that she could have -- even if she had bitten him it would only have made the guy's appeal easier to win.

Yeah, the result is stupid; if she didn't consent then she didn't consent. So...someone farked up at some point. My suspicion is that the prosecution didn't fully think through their cunning plan to (among other things) rely on a victim's testimony and also have to prove that she was physically unable to communicate. But I don't know why they thought this was the right way to charge the guy under the circumstances.

What this appellate court did is acknowledge the fact that nonverbal communication is still communication. (Imagine if a victim who shook her head and screamed could be said to not have communicated a lack of consent because she didn't use words.) And that meant the crime this guy committed couldn't have been the same one he got convicted of.


"As a preliminary matter, it bears emphasis that no
one would dispute that the victim is physically helpless
in the ordinary sense of that term. Physical helplessness
under § 53a-65 (6), however, has a highly particularized
meaning that is unrelated to whether a person is physically
able to resist unwanted sexual advances or mentally
able to understand when to resist such advances.
Rather, under § 53a-65 (6), a person is physically helpless
if they are ''unconscious or for any other reason
. . . physically unable to communicate unwillingness
to an act.'' (Emphasis added.) Our case law, and the
case law of other jurisdictions, makes clear that, under
this definition, even total physical incapacity does not,
by itself, render an individual physically helpless.14"

(I gather that last line is an inane way of saying that you can be physically restrained but still object to something verbally.)
2012-10-05 03:34:46 AM
1 votes:
To anyone who would complain about them, this is why assault rifles exist.
2012-10-05 03:19:43 AM
1 votes:

robohobo: ypsifly: Yeah if only the mentally/physically disabled would vote and pay taxes instead of living off of the social teat, they might get better representation in the courts and legislatures.

/ Sarcasm off....

Whoawhoawhoa, who wants them to vote?


It wouldn't lead to a noticeable difference in results.
2012-10-05 03:14:43 AM
1 votes:
Sentenced to six years in jail upon 2008 conviction

I've spent some time around people this disabled. If you rape one of them, you seriously need to be put away for longer than that, because you are quite possibly an incurable sociopath. This lowlife was dating the woman's mother, and the theory is what, that the daughter came on to him? That he engaged her in a conversation and realized she was his soulmate?

From the Libertarian Party Platform:
We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

Unless people use a little common sense and stop worrying about the sacrosanct wording of the law, we are going to be dropping off our retarded children at the abortion clinic just to prevent them from bearing Satan's spawn.
2012-10-05 03:13:49 AM
1 votes:

alienated: I am not going to read all of the comments before I pu forth my 2 cents, but really, ModMins ?
Cant we have just at least one damn day that does not show humans for the pest in the garden that you keep being ? I know, welcome to fark but i mean REALLY. Just going for the lowest common deniminator story does NOt help you.
I am happy someone got a green, but seriously- have we lowered the standards this damn low ? Please tell my that i am mistaken.


The world is a dark place. You can run away from it if you want, but don't force others to join you.
2012-10-05 03:05:41 AM
1 votes:
Four articles from the Daily Fail so far today and it's only 3AM!
2012-10-05 03:05:06 AM
1 votes:
I am not going to read all of the comments before I pu forth my 2 cents, but really, ModMins ?
Cant we have just at least one damn day that does not show humans for the pest in the garden that you keep being ? I know, welcome to fark but i mean REALLY. Just going for the lowest common deniminator story does NOt help you.
I am happy someone got a green, but seriously- have we lowered the standards this damn low ? Please tell my that i am mistaken.
2012-10-05 02:56:41 AM
1 votes:
Did she get pregnant?
2012-10-05 02:56:18 AM
1 votes:
Yeah if only the mentally/physically disabled would vote and pay taxes instead of living off of the social teat, they might get better representation in the courts and legislatures.

/ Sarcasm off....
2012-10-05 02:53:16 AM
1 votes:
It's a good thing I don't have any superpowers. If I did, scum like this animal would be dying from "accidents" rather often. The idiot judges, too.
 
Displayed 24 of 24 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report