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.

(Washington Post)   Back woods law from 1872 states that it's only rape if the woman you tricked is married. Difficulty: California   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 174
    More: Stupid, retrials, trial courts  
•       •       •

10214 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Jan 2013 at 12:13 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



174 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-01-04 08:56:40 AM
I don't like "rape by deception" laws anyway. Repeal the criminal laws but say the woman and/or her boyfriend can chop you into little bits if they catch you at the scene.
 
2013-01-04 08:57:49 AM
 
2013-01-04 08:58:45 AM
The appeals court added that prosecutors argued two theories, and it was unclear if the jury convicted Morales because the defendant tricked the victim or because sex with a sleeping person is defined as rape by law.

This is certainly a problem. Get it together, prosecutors
 
2013-01-04 10:04:18 AM
Good thing we don't have legislators now that have vague views on rape.
 
2013-01-04 10:23:53 AM
Are the judges saying this law violated equal protection under the US Constitution?

So why don't, why can't they just declare that law unconstitutional and ignore that?

/this whole trial is out of order
 
2013-01-04 12:16:19 PM
Justice was served....
 
2013-01-04 12:18:24 PM

dletter: Good thing we don't have legislators now that have vague views on rape.


I just wanted to repost this because who misses this comment is truly missing out.

/would lol again.
 
2013-01-04 12:20:19 PM
For a precedent on this ruling, one needs to only look at the case of Revenge Vs. Nerds, c. 1984.

Verdict: Not rape
 
2013-01-04 12:21:10 PM

RoyBatty: Are the judges saying this law violated equal protection under the US Constitution?

So why don't, why can't they just declare that law unconstitutional and ignore that?

/this whole trial is out of order


Err, how would that be helpful?
 
2013-01-04 12:22:59 PM
Difficulty: California

Ends in "-a", former Spanish colony. We'll let it slide.
 
2013-01-04 12:24:16 PM

Why Would I Read the Article: For a precedent on this ruling, one needs to only look at the case of Revenge Vs. Nerds, c. 1984.

Verdict: Not rape


I have always wanted to do it in a moon room since seeing that!
 
2013-01-04 12:24:21 PM
Is there a statute of limitations on this? Whilst in college, I was asleep in my roomate's room after a night of partying (very stoned and drunk). His girlfriend came in (also very drunk and stoned) and we had sex. I thought it was my girlfriend, she thought it was her boyfriend.

Even though we lived in Austin, I am scared the GOP might press charges on both of us.
 
2013-01-04 12:25:06 PM
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it unlikely that she didn't know someone other than her BF was boinking her. I mean, I think I would notice the difference even with the lights off.
 
2013-01-04 12:25:34 PM
Original signer of 1872 law.
img.izismile.com
 
2013-01-04 12:25:38 PM

Why Would I Read the Article: For a precedent on this ruling, one needs to only look at the case of Revenge Vs. Nerds, c. 1984.

Verdict: Not rape


What you did there.

/I smell it
 
2013-01-04 12:26:00 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: Err, how would that be helpful?


It would force the legislators to actually address the issue by making it a crisis instead of saying "pretty please with sugar on top" and allowing them to kick the can down the road.
 
2013-01-04 12:26:43 PM

Fark Rye For Many Whores: Difficulty: California

Ends in "-a", former Spanish colony. We'll let it slide.


So Virginia was a Spanish colony but not New Mexico?
 
2013-01-04 12:27:18 PM
Judges seem a bit weak these days - surely they all could have agreed on a new interpretation, or at worse a .. lets-just-ignore-this-one response.
 
2013-01-04 12:27:41 PM

Ladies, can you not tell when a different dick is pounding away at you?

I have a feeling this chick knew what was up.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-01-04 12:27:46 PM
What if l was tricked into thinking a woman is my wife....

What should l do if a suspicious smudge is noticed on her birth certificate?

I don't think she is really from the US...

Still waiting for the original long form.
 
2013-01-04 12:28:56 PM

Jacobin: Is it just me, or does anyone else find it unlikely that she didn't know someone other than her BF was boinking her. I mean, I think I would notice the difference even with the lights off.


If I wasn't sh*tfaced then yes I certainly would notice.
 
2013-01-04 12:30:18 PM

ZAZ: I don't like "rape by deception" laws anyway. Repeal the criminal laws but say the woman and/or her boyfriend can chop you into little bits if they catch you at the scene.


The deception laws are a little redundant. Rape is having sex with someone without their consent.
The lady in this article either asleep and unable to consent (article is kinda iffy the way I read it), or consented to sex with her boyfriend. The rapist is not her boyfriend, therefore he did not have her consent. Even more, pretending to be someone else indicates he knew he didn't have consent.

This should have been covered under a standard rape-rape law.
 
2013-01-04 12:32:05 PM
Isn't it screamingly illegal to have at someone who is asleep, especially if you have no indication of prior consent? Or are we going with the "women who occasionally fall asleep are totally asking for it" defense?
 
2013-01-04 12:32:34 PM
Wh ... wha ... say what?
 
2013-01-04 12:32:46 PM
I bet this law makes perfect sense to Diane Feinstein. She just wants it to be updated to ban "high-capacity penises", and to ban certain "evil pubic hair features" from an otherwise legal rape-like activity. Lead the way California...
 
2013-01-04 12:34:01 PM
How does this work with slave/master relationships? She didn't consent but her will is not her own and is the sole property of her master.

And mute women without arms who cannot sign a consent form.
 
2013-01-04 12:34:56 PM
So, it wasn't a legitimate rape... Well, she shouldn't have been such a drunkin' slut and ask for it by passing out horny.
 
2013-01-04 12:37:45 PM
The deception laws are a little redundant. Rape is having sex with someone without their consent.
The lady in this article either asleep and unable to consent (article is kinda iffy the way I read it), or consented to sex with her boyfriend. The rapist is not her boyfriend, therefore he did not have her consent. Even more, pretending to be someone else indicates he knew he didn't have consent.

This should have been covered under a standard rape-rape law.


I do agree with this, but I also have the question of how in the world can a woman not know if somebody other than their significant other is sticking their bandingo in her hoohaw?

it's not just the peener that's different, it'll be the height/weight of the guy, feel of their skin, hands, etc. It boggles my mind, honestly, and it's the one thing that casts doubt for me whether this was true "rape rape," Whoopi Goldberg style, or just a girl who cheated on her boyfriend and felt bad about it.
 
2013-01-04 12:37:50 PM
If she was drunk, don't they have something on the books to fry him on the grounds she couldn't consent?
 
2013-01-04 12:38:32 PM

ZAZ: I don't like "rape by deception" laws anyway. Repeal the criminal laws but say the woman and/or her boyfriend can chop you into little bits if they catch you at the scene.


I'm not a fan of rape by deception laws either, but I don't think this was really rape by deception. It was regular rape where the victim was just confused for a minute. I understand why the judge overturned it though. California needs to get their shiat together.
 
2013-01-04 12:39:09 PM
Why Would I Read the Article: For a precedent on this ruling, one needs to only look at the case of Revenge Vs. Nerds, c. 1984.

Verdict: Not rape


Only because the girl didn't press charges.
 
2013-01-04 12:42:08 PM

Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: Isn't it screamingly illegal to have at someone who is asleep, especially if you have no indication of prior consent? Or are we going with the "women who occasionally fall asleep are totally asking for it" defense?


She didn't sleep through the whole thing. She woke up and consented. It would be nice to know what the guy did in order to deceive her. If his crime is just banging a chick with the lights off, I don't think that should be rape. He'd have to do something extraordinary in order to make her think it was the husband. Really need more details before I can form an opinion on whether this is rape or not.
 
2013-01-04 12:44:06 PM

Why Would I Read the Article: The deception laws are a little redundant. Rape is having sex with someone without their consent.
The lady in this article either asleep and unable to consent (article is kinda iffy the way I read it), or consented to sex with her boyfriend. The rapist is not her boyfriend, therefore he did not have her consent. Even more, pretending to be someone else indicates he knew he didn't have consent.

This should have been covered under a standard rape-rape law.

I do agree with this, but I also have the question of how in the world can a woman not know if somebody other than their significant other is sticking their bandingo in her hoohaw?

it's not just the peener that's different, it'll be the height/weight of the guy, feel of their skin, hands, etc. It boggles my mind, honestly, and it's the one thing that casts doubt for me whether this was true "rape rape," Whoopi Goldberg style, or just a girl who cheated on her boyfriend and felt bad about it.


If you read the article or the judgement (linked earlier), according to her, when she woke up and noticed it wasn't her boyfriend, she fought and pushed him off.
 
2013-01-04 12:46:23 PM

JonPace: Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: Isn't it screamingly illegal to have at someone who is asleep, especially if you have no indication of prior consent? Or are we going with the "women who occasionally fall asleep are totally asking for it" defense?

She didn't sleep through the whole thing. She woke up and consented. It would be nice to know what the guy did in order to deceive her. If his crime is just banging a chick with the lights off, I don't think that should be rape. He'd have to do something extraordinary in order to make her think it was the husband. Really need more details before I can form an opinion on whether this is rape or not.


From the decision:
According to Jane, she woke up to the sensation of having sex. She was in a different position on the bed, perpendicular to the position she had been in when she fell asleep. She was confused because she and Victor had agreed not to have sex that night. When light coming through a crack in the bedroom door illuminated the face of the person having sex with her, i.e., defendant, she realized it was not Victor and tried to push him away. Defendant grabbed her thighs and pushed his penis back into her vagina. She pushed him away again and began to cry and yell. Defendant left her room; Jane locked her door and called Victor, asking him to come back to her house.

If "pushing away, crying, and yelling" is consent to you, I'm concerned.
 
2013-01-04 12:46:54 PM

Why Would I Read the Article: For a precedent on this ruling, one needs to only look at the case of Revenge Vs. Nerds, c. 1984.

Verdict: Not rape


Would Sixteen Candles apply in this case?
 
2013-01-04 12:47:08 PM

Random Anonymous Blackmail: And mute women without arms who cannot sign a consent form.


They can nod their head, though.
 
2013-01-04 12:48:44 PM

poe_zlaw: Is there a statute of limitations on this? Whilst in college, I was asleep in my roomate's room after a night of partying (very stoned and drunk). His girlfriend came in (also very drunk and stoned) and we had sex. I thought it was my girlfriend, she thought it was her boyfriend.

Even though we lived in Austin, I am scared the GOP might press charges on both of us.


Dear Penthouse Forum...
 
2013-01-04 12:50:08 PM
Additionally, while that is her version, his isn't much better:
Deputy Sheriff Peralta and other deputies responded and searched the area,eventually finding defendant crouched down behind some bushes. While being detained in Deputy Peralta‟s patrol car, defendant spoke to another deputy, Deputy Leyn. He admitted that he had gone into Jane‟s room while she was asleep. He said that he had kissed her and that she kissed him back, but he thought she might still be asleep. He pulled down her pajama bottoms, got on top of her, and started to have sex. He said she probably thought he was her boyfriend, and when she realized he was not, she started screaming. During a second interview with Deputy Leyn, defendant once again described what happened, including that Jane was asleep when he put his penis into her vagina, and wrote out a statement admitting that he kissed Jane and touched her vagina while she was asleep.
 
2013-01-04 12:50:12 PM
Rubber Man is unimpressed.

media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-04 12:51:43 PM
farm6.staticflickr.com

Note to self: Go to California. Rape.
 
2013-01-04 12:51:55 PM

Theaetetus: If you read the article or the judgement (linked earlier),according to her, when she woke up and noticed it wasn't her boyfriend, she fought and pushed him off.


Why would I do that?
 
2013-01-04 12:52:42 PM
So would this be grounds for a fraud complaint in civil court?
 
2013-01-04 12:52:52 PM
It's not Rape if you yell "SURPRISE" beforehand.
 
2013-01-04 12:53:07 PM

Theaetetus: Additionally, while that is her version, his isn't much better:
Deputy Sheriff Peralta and other deputies responded and searched the area,eventually finding defendant crouched down behind some bushes. While being detained in Deputy Peralta‟s patrol car, defendant spoke to another deputy, Deputy Leyn. He admitted that he had gone into Jane‟s room while she was asleep. He said that he had kissed her and that she kissed him back, but he thought she might still be asleep. He pulled down her pajama bottoms, got on top of her, and started to have sex. He said she probably thought he was her boyfriend, and when she realized he was not, she started screaming. During a second interview with Deputy Leyn, defendant once again described what happened, including that Jane was asleep when he put his penis into her vagina, and wrote out a statement admitting that he kissed Jane and touched her vagina while she was asleep.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-01-04 12:53:27 PM
Reminds me of the Inverse case I once saw prosecutted in a DC court:

WOman and her boyfriend reuglarly engage in rough sex with a side of violent rape fantasy.  Much screaming biting , kicking , pleading etc to the intense delight of both partners. Unbeknowst to the BF the Girl has an indentical twin sister who is a stewardess who has a key to the apt and often crashes there unannounced when she has an unexpected layover in town.

 Boyfriend comes home see his girlfriend sleeping on the bed in a sexy stewardess' outfit, thinks it is a signal for some hard-core role play.  Girlfriend doesn't disappoint giving an oscar-worthy performance of unwilling rape victim, fighting back extra hard, screaming at the top of her lungs etc.

In the post-coital quiet, the BF lights up a cigarette, the Girl runs out and calls the cops.  His sex partner turns out to be the unknown twin and not his GF and he is promptly charged with rape.

IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?
 
2013-01-04 12:53:30 PM
I can understand why this is rape, my question is how far does this extend? If a guy lies about being a doctor to get in a girls pants can he be charged with rape? In both cases the guy is misrepresenting who he is to trick a girl into sex.
 
2013-01-04 12:54:35 PM

Magorn: Reminds me of the Inverse case I once saw prosecutted in a DC court:

WOman and her boyfriend reuglarly engage in rough sex with a side of violent rape fantasy.  Much screaming biting , kicking , pleading etc to the intense delight of both partners. Unbeknowst to the BF the Girl has an indentical twin sister who is a stewardess who has a key to the apt and often crashes there unannounced when she has an unexpected layover in town.

 Boyfriend comes home see his girlfriend sleeping on the bed in a sexy stewardess' outfit, thinks it is a signal for some hard-core role play.  Girlfriend doesn't disappoint giving an oscar-worthy performance of unwilling rape victim, fighting back extra hard, screaming at the top of her lungs etc.

In the post-coital quiet, the BF lights up a cigarette, the Girl runs out and calls the cops.  His sex partner turns out to be the unknown twin and not his GF and he is promptly charged with rape.

IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?


sucks for that dude, but there was no consent. he's a rapist.
 
2013-01-04 12:56:32 PM

Why Would I Read the Article: Theaetetus: If you read the article...

Why would I do that?


cache.ohinternet.com
 
2013-01-04 12:57:48 PM

Magorn: IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?


For the twin's horror alone, regardless of the fact of his confusion... yes, he's a rapist.
Did he know GF had a twin who would stay over sometimes? Or that she had a twin?

Still, with what the girl went through, she deserves some accountability taken.
 
2013-01-04 12:59:37 PM

CapeFearCadaver: Magorn: IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?

For the twin's horror alone, regardless of the fact of his confusion... yes, he's a rapist.
Did he know GF had a twin who would stay over sometimes? Or that she had a twin?

Still, with what the girl went through, she deserves some accountability taken.


if only she'd had an accountabilabuddy
 
2013-01-04 12:59:46 PM

Magorn: IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?


IANAA, but Rape requires mens rea, does it not? No intent to have actual non-concensual sex, no rape?

Terrible tragedy for her, but it sounds like her real beef is with her sister for failing to warn her of an extreme and unusual hazard in the apartment, that is, a free-roaming penis that has blanket consent to physically force itself on a woman who looks exactly like her.
 
2013-01-04 01:00:06 PM
Well it's a good thing her body's natural defenses shut down her baby makin' parts, and she didn't get pregnant!
 
2013-01-04 01:00:39 PM

Biness: Magorn: Reminds me of the Inverse case I once saw prosecutted in a DC court:

WOman and her boyfriend reuglarly engage in rough sex with a side of violent rape fantasy.  Much screaming biting , kicking , pleading etc to the intense delight of both partners. Unbeknowst to the BF the Girl has an indentical twin sister who is a stewardess who has a key to the apt and often crashes there unannounced when she has an unexpected layover in town.

 Boyfriend comes home see his girlfriend sleeping on the bed in a sexy stewardess' outfit, thinks it is a signal for some hard-core role play.  Girlfriend doesn't disappoint giving an oscar-worthy performance of unwilling rape victim, fighting back extra hard, screaming at the top of her lungs etc.

In the post-coital quiet, the BF lights up a cigarette, the Girl runs out and calls the cops.  His sex partner turns out to be the unknown twin and not his GF and he is promptly charged with rape.

IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?

sucks for that dude, but there was no consent. he's a rapist.


Indeed. the Physical element of the crime is beyond question: unconsented to penetration.  The question is, however should a "mens rea" defense be allowed here?   While ignorance of the law is not an excuse,  it's generally held that a person must at least knowingly commit a crime before they can be charged with it (the Classic law school example is you point a gun at someone and fire, but you know it only has blanks in it.  However someone has secretly switched your blanks for live rounds.   Can you be charged with murder?  Should the REASON you pointed the gun at the person matter (IE being on stage, vs trying to scare them)? etc etc)
 
2013-01-04 01:00:57 PM

CapeFearCadaver: Magorn: IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?

For the twin's horror alone, regardless of the fact of his confusion... yes, he's a rapist.
Did he know GF had a twin who would stay over sometimes? Or that she had a twin?

Still, with what the girl went through, she deserves some accountability taken.


You can't place liability on someone based solely on how horrific it was for the victim. That's not finding someone guilty, that's finding a scapegoat.
 
2013-01-04 01:02:04 PM

Magorn: IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?


No mens rea. Not guilty. Bad taste to masturbate over the memory afterwards, though, and he would be unwise ever to try the "your sister was better" line.
 
2013-01-04 01:02:20 PM

CapeFearCadaver: For the twin's horror alone, regardless of the fact of his confusion... yes, he's a rapist.


Your level of horror isn't generally a factor, isn't it?
 
2013-01-04 01:02:47 PM

Theaetetus: CapeFearCadaver: Magorn: IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?

For the twin's horror alone, regardless of the fact of his confusion... yes, he's a rapist.
Did he know GF had a twin who would stay over sometimes? Or that she had a twin?

Still, with what the girl went through, she deserves some accountability taken.

You can't place liability on someone based solely on how horrific it was for the victim. That's not finding someone guilty, that's finding a scapegoat.


Of course. But she didn't consent. The whole situation is a big pile of confusion... but, she still did not consent.
 
2013-01-04 01:02:51 PM
Rather than posting an article with text of the decision, I'd prefer the entire act and subsequent case, trial, what have you, be acted out on camera - Benny Hill style. Because, it all seems that silly.

Not to make lite of someone opening a 40lb box, but this really seems more like a, I don'tknow, maybe a 25lb box?


I'm not trying to be trendy by saying "redonk", I'm just not sure how to spell "rediculious".
 
2013-01-04 01:04:30 PM
Also, holding him accountable for what happened does not automatically mean finding him guilty of first degree rape.
 
2013-01-04 01:06:50 PM

CapeFearCadaver: Theaetetus: CapeFearCadaver: Magorn: IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?

For the twin's horror alone, regardless of the fact of his confusion... yes, he's a rapist.
Did he know GF had a twin who would stay over sometimes? Or that she had a twin?

Still, with what the girl went through, she deserves some accountability taken.

You can't place liability on someone based solely on how horrific it was for the victim. That's not finding someone guilty, that's finding a scapegoat.

Of course. But she didn't consent. The whole situation is a big pile of confusion... but, she still did not consent.


If I accidentally run someone over with my car, putting them in a wheelchair for life, am I guilty of a crime? Even if I broke no laws and the accident was a complete fluke? I can guarantee you the person in the wheelchair will tell you they didn't consent to being run over.
 
2013-01-04 01:06:53 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: RoyBatty: Are the judges saying this law violated equal protection under the US Constitution?

So why don't, why can't they just declare that law unconstitutional and ignore that?

/this whole trial is out of order

Err, how would that be helpful?


Not a lawyer, but I don't think justices should be deciding cases based on adherence to a law that they believe is unconstitutional. They complain that the legislature should write a new law.

Better than complaining, how about refusing to enforce a law that is unconstitutional.
 
2013-01-04 01:08:04 PM

Magorn: Biness: Magorn: Reminds me of the Inverse case I once saw prosecutted in a DC court:

WOman and her boyfriend reuglarly engage in rough sex with a side of violent rape fantasy.  Much screaming biting , kicking , pleading etc to the intense delight of both partners. Unbeknowst to the BF the Girl has an indentical twin sister who is a stewardess who has a key to the apt and often crashes there unannounced when she has an unexpected layover in town.

 Boyfriend comes home see his girlfriend sleeping on the bed in a sexy stewardess' outfit, thinks it is a signal for some hard-core role play.  Girlfriend doesn't disappoint giving an oscar-worthy performance of unwilling rape victim, fighting back extra hard, screaming at the top of her lungs etc.

In the post-coital quiet, the BF lights up a cigarette, the Girl runs out and calls the cops.  His sex partner turns out to be the unknown twin and not his GF and he is promptly charged with rape.

IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?

sucks for that dude, but there was no consent. he's a rapist.

Indeed. the Physical element of the crime is beyond question: unconsented to penetration.  The question is, however should a "mens rea" defense be allowed here?   While ignorance of the law is not an excuse,  it's generally held that a person must at least knowingly commit a crime before they can be charged with it (the Classic law school example is you point a gun at someone and fire, but you know it only has blanks in it.  However someone has secretly switched your blanks for live rounds.   Can you be charged with murder?  Should the REASON you pointed the gun at the person matter (IE being on stage, vs trying to scare them)? etc etc)


It certainly looks like specific intent is not an element of 22-3002 or 22-3004 (contrasting the fact that it is an element in 22-3003 and -3005), so I think he'd be boned. And consent is a defense under 22-3007, but that's actual consent, not the defendant's belief that he had consent.
 
2013-01-04 01:08:31 PM
has rapelincoln.gif finally retired?
 
2013-01-04 01:09:31 PM

ElBarto79: CapeFearCadaver: Theaetetus: CapeFearCadaver: Magorn: IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?

For the twin's horror alone, regardless of the fact of his confusion... yes, he's a rapist.
Did he know GF had a twin who would stay over sometimes? Or that she had a twin?

Still, with what the girl went through, she deserves some accountability taken.

You can't place liability on someone based solely on how horrific it was for the victim. That's not finding someone guilty, that's finding a scapegoat.

Of course. But she didn't consent. The whole situation is a big pile of confusion... but, she still did not consent.

If I accidentally run someone over with my car, putting them in a wheelchair for life, am I guilty of a crime? Even if I broke no laws and the accident was a complete fluke? I can guarantee you the person in the wheelchair will tell you they didn't consent to being run over.


You or your insurance should be on the hook for covering that man's medical expenses due to you hitting him. There should be some level of accountability, yes.
 
2013-01-04 01:13:04 PM

RoyBatty: Holocaust Agnostic: RoyBatty: Are the judges saying this law violated equal protection under the US Constitution?

So why don't, why can't they just declare that law unconstitutional and ignore that?

/this whole trial is out of order

Err, how would that be helpful?

Not a lawyer, but I don't think justices should be deciding cases based on adherence to a law that they believe is unconstitutional. They complain that the legislature should write a new law.

Better than complaining, how about refusing to enforce a law that is unconstitutional.


Except they didn't say it was unconstitutional. Just stupid and tragic.
 
2013-01-04 01:13:07 PM

CapeFearCadaver: ElBarto79: CapeFearCadaver: Theaetetus: CapeFearCadaver: Magorn: IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?

For the twin's horror alone, regardless of the fact of his confusion... yes, he's a rapist.
Did he know GF had a twin who would stay over sometimes? Or that she had a twin?

Still, with what the girl went through, she deserves some accountability taken.

You can't place liability on someone based solely on how horrific it was for the victim. That's not finding someone guilty, that's finding a scapegoat.

Of course. But she didn't consent. The whole situation is a big pile of confusion... but, she still did not consent.

If I accidentally run someone over with my car, putting them in a wheelchair for life, am I guilty of a crime? Even if I broke no laws and the accident was a complete fluke? I can guarantee you the person in the wheelchair will tell you they didn't consent to being run over.

You or your insurance should be on the hook for covering that man's medical expenses due to you hitting him. There should be some level of accountability, yes.


I didn't ask if I would be accountable, I asked if I would be guilty of a crime. There's a difference.
 
2013-01-04 01:13:56 PM
Puts hat solemnly over heart. "The Law of the West."
 
2013-01-04 01:16:50 PM

CapeFearCadaver: ElBarto79: CapeFearCadaver: Theaetetus: CapeFearCadaver: Magorn: IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?

For the twin's horror alone, regardless of the fact of his confusion... yes, he's a rapist.
Did he know GF had a twin who would stay over sometimes? Or that she had a twin?

Still, with what the girl went through, she deserves some accountability taken.

You can't place liability on someone based solely on how horrific it was for the victim. That's not finding someone guilty, that's finding a scapegoat.

Of course. But she didn't consent. The whole situation is a big pile of confusion... but, she still did not consent.

If I accidentally run someone over with my car, putting them in a wheelchair for life, am I guilty of a crime? Even if I broke no laws and the accident was a complete fluke? I can guarantee you the person in the wheelchair will tell you they didn't consent to being run over.

You or your insurance should be on the hook for covering that man's medical expenses due to you hitting him. There should be some level of accountability, yes.


Ah, but that's civil... Should he face an attempted murder or battery criminal charge?
 
2013-01-04 01:17:02 PM

ElBarto79: CapeFearCadaver: ElBarto79: CapeFearCadaver: Theaetetus: CapeFearCadaver: Magorn: IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?

For the twin's horror alone, regardless of the fact of his confusion... yes, he's a rapist.
Did he know GF had a twin who would stay over sometimes? Or that she had a twin?

Still, with what the girl went through, she deserves some accountability taken.

You can't place liability on someone based solely on how horrific it was for the victim. That's not finding someone guilty, that's finding a scapegoat.

Of course. But she didn't consent. The whole situation is a big pile of confusion... but, she still did not consent.

If I accidentally run someone over with my car, putting them in a wheelchair for life, am I guilty of a crime? Even if I broke no laws and the accident was a complete fluke? I can guarantee you the person in the wheelchair will tell you they didn't consent to being run over.

You or your insurance should be on the hook for covering that man's medical expenses due to you hitting him. There should be some level of accountability, yes.

I didn't ask if I would be accountable, I asked if I would be guilty of a crime. There's a difference.


And I started out this conversation simply stating that the man indeed would be termed a rapist by his actions and that accountability should be taken. Here: she deserves some accountability taken

No where have I said otherwise. Actually:

CapeFearCadaver: Also, holding him accountable for what happened does not automatically mean finding him guilty of first degree rape.

 
2013-01-04 01:17:51 PM
Very poor execution of the "David Blaine"...
 
2013-01-04 01:18:39 PM

Theaetetus: JonPace: Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: Isn't it screamingly illegal to have at someone who is asleep, especially if you have no indication of prior consent? Or are we going with the "women who occasionally fall asleep are totally asking for it" defense?

She didn't sleep through the whole thing. She woke up and consented. It would be nice to know what the guy did in order to deceive her. If his crime is just banging a chick with the lights off, I don't think that should be rape. He'd have to do something extraordinary in order to make her think it was the husband. Really need more details before I can form an opinion on whether this is rape or not.

From the decision:
According to Jane, she woke up to the sensation of having sex. She was in a different position on the bed, perpendicular to the position she had been in when she fell asleep. She was confused because she and Victor had agreed not to have sex that night. When light coming through a crack in the bedroom door illuminated the face of the person having sex with her, i.e., defendant, she realized it was not Victor and tried to push him away. Defendant grabbed her thighs and pushed his penis back into her vagina. She pushed him away again and began to cry and yell. Defendant left her room; Jane locked her door and called Victor, asking him to come back to her house.

If "pushing away, crying, and yelling" is consent to you, I'm concerned.


Read a different article that didn't have that part in there, which is pretty damn important. It implied she had sex with someone then later out it wasn't who she thought it was.

I honestly don't see how this case isn't a straight up rape and where there controversy is.
 
2013-01-04 01:19:41 PM
cases in England that concluded fraudulent impersonation to have sex wasn't rape because the victim would consent, even if they were being tricked into thinking the perpetrator was their husband

I guess the prevailing wisdom of the time was that if a woman agreed to have sex she was a dirty whore morally compromised and who she was agreeing to have sex with was irrelevant.
 
2013-01-04 01:19:42 PM
I don't know from the way it sounds it seems that she was asleep and he started messing around with her to which she responded and was awakened. Up until the point she realized it was not her boyfriend I wouldn't consider that rape, because from the man's point of view it would have seemed that she was ok with it. Now if sexual activity continued after she realized it was not her boyfriend and then objected at that point it would become rape. I know that sounds wacky, but it is not clear that the man had any idea he was committing a crime since only she is reporting that he pretended to be her boyfriend.

I have had the experience of this from both sides and I don't consider either one of them rapes nor does the other party even though they are questionable encounters.

The first was with a woman who had fallen asleep next to me at a party and I did not realize she had been asleep since she was laying in front of me on her side with her back against me. I had reached down into her pants and began to play with her to which she responded by opening her legs wider. After a bit I pulled her pants down and mine then started to have sex with her to which she responded like any awake woman would. It was only a bit before she awoke and then I realized she had been sleeping when she asked me what the hell I was doing. I told her that I thought she was awake and asked her if she wanted me to stop to which she told me no.

The second time I had fallen asleep only to awake with a woman on top of me and she asked me if I wanted her to stop and I told her no it was alright.
 
2013-01-04 01:22:50 PM

Random Anonymous Blackmail: How does this work with slave/master relationships? She didn't consent but her will is not her own and is the sole property of her master.

And mute women without arms who cannot sign a consent form.


Dude, that's hot.
 
2013-01-04 01:23:15 PM

Theaetetus: CapeFearCadaver: ElBarto79: CapeFearCadaver: Theaetetus: CapeFearCadaver: Magorn: IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?

For the twin's horror alone, regardless of the fact of his confusion... yes, he's a rapist.
Did he know GF had a twin who would stay over sometimes? Or that she had a twin?

Still, with what the girl went through, she deserves some accountability taken.

You can't place liability on someone based solely on how horrific it was for the victim. That's not finding someone guilty, that's finding a scapegoat.

Of course. But she didn't consent. The whole situation is a big pile of confusion... but, she still did not consent.

If I accidentally run someone over with my car, putting them in a wheelchair for life, am I guilty of a crime? Even if I broke no laws and the accident was a complete fluke? I can guarantee you the person in the wheelchair will tell you they didn't consent to being run over.

You or your insurance should be on the hook for covering that man's medical expenses due to you hitting him. There should be some level of accountability, yes.

Ah, but that's civil... Should he face an attempted murder or battery criminal charge?


Even if I broke no laws and the accident was a complete fluke?

No.
 
2013-01-04 01:24:03 PM
 
2013-01-04 01:25:19 PM

JonPace: Theaetetus: JonPace: Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: Isn't it screamingly illegal to have at someone who is asleep, especially if you have no indication of prior consent? Or are we going with the "women who occasionally fall asleep are totally asking for it" defense?

She didn't sleep through the whole thing. She woke up and consented. It would be nice to know what the guy did in order to deceive her. If his crime is just banging a chick with the lights off, I don't think that should be rape. He'd have to do something extraordinary in order to make her think it was the husband. Really need more details before I can form an opinion on whether this is rape or not.

From the decision:
According to Jane, she woke up to the sensation of having sex. She was in a different position on the bed, perpendicular to the position she had been in when she fell asleep. She was confused because she and Victor had agreed not to have sex that night. When light coming through a crack in the bedroom door illuminated the face of the person having sex with her, i.e., defendant, she realized it was not Victor and tried to push him away. Defendant grabbed her thighs and pushed his penis back into her vagina. She pushed him away again and began to cry and yell. Defendant left her room; Jane locked her door and called Victor, asking him to come back to her house.

If "pushing away, crying, and yelling" is consent to you, I'm concerned.

Read a different article that didn't have that part in there, which is pretty damn important. It implied she had sex with someone then later out it wasn't who she thought it was.

I honestly don't see how this case isn't a straight up rape and where there controversy is.


Because the prosecution had those two theories- rape of an unconscious person, and rape of someone through fraud- and the jury didn't specify which one they found him guilty on. So, since the judge notes that the latter one doesn't apply, he has to assume that the jury could have meant that one and reverse the conviction. He does remand for a new trial, though.
If the jury comes back in the new trial saying "rape of an unconscious person", the guy's going to jail.
 
2013-01-04 01:25:21 PM

Magorn: Reminds me of the Inverse case I once saw prosecutted in a DC court:

WOman and her boyfriend reuglarly engage in rough sex with a side of violent rape fantasy.  Much screaming biting , kicking , pleading etc to the intense delight of both partners. Unbeknowst to the BF the Girl has an indentical twin sister who is a stewardess who has a key to the apt and often crashes there unannounced when she has an unexpected layover in town.

 Boyfriend comes home see his girlfriend sleeping on the bed in a sexy stewardess' outfit, thinks it is a signal for some hard-core role play.  Girlfriend doesn't disappoint giving an oscar-worthy performance of unwilling rape victim, fighting back extra hard, screaming at the top of her lungs etc.

In the post-coital quiet, the BF lights up a cigarette, the Girl runs out and calls the cops.  His sex partner turns out to be the unknown twin and not his GF and he is promptly charged with rape.

IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?


Depends. Everyone knows that one of each set of maternal twins is missing a soul (i.e. the evil twin). If it turns out that the "victim" was the soulless twin, one must acquit.
 
2013-01-04 01:26:10 PM
some of you are farking insane. she was in bed asleep. how on earth is that consent for any man who comes waltzing by to come and have sex with her?!?! "oh look, a sleeping woman, she must want to have sex with me".
 
2013-01-04 01:26:54 PM

CapeFearCadaver: ElBarto79: CapeFearCadaver: ElBarto79: CapeFearCadaver: Theaetetus: CapeFearCadaver: Magorn: IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?

For the twin's horror alone, regardless of the fact of his confusion... yes, he's a rapist.
Did he know GF had a twin who would stay over sometimes? Or that she had a twin?

Still, with what the girl went through, she deserves some accountability taken.

You can't place liability on someone based solely on how horrific it was for the victim. That's not finding someone guilty, that's finding a scapegoat.

Of course. But she didn't consent. The whole situation is a big pile of confusion... but, she still did not consent.

If I accidentally run someone over with my car, putting them in a wheelchair for life, am I guilty of a crime? Even if I broke no laws and the accident was a complete fluke? I can guarantee you the person in the wheelchair will tell you they didn't consent to being run over.

You or your insurance should be on the hook for covering that man's medical expenses due to you hitting him. There should be some level of accountability, yes.

I didn't ask if I would be accountable, I asked if I would be guilty of a crime. There's a difference.

And I started out this conversation simply stating that the man indeed would be termed a rapist by his actions and that accountability should be taken. Here: she deserves some accountability taken

No where have I said otherwise. Actually: CapeFearCadaver: Also, holding him accountable for what happened does not automatically mean finding him guilty of first degree rape.


Yea I see that, though I did specifically ask about criminal accountability. Maybe the answer is the the guy would not face any charges since he truly believed it was his girlfriend but he would have to compensate her for counseling or even just for pain and suffering. If you accidentally burn your neighbors garage down you might not face any charges depending on the circumstances but it would be reasonable to expect that you pay to have it rebuilt.
 
2013-01-04 01:27:13 PM

Profedius: I don't know from the way it sounds it seems that she was asleep and he started messing around with her to which she responded and was awakened. Up until the point she realized it was not her boyfriend I wouldn't consider that rape, because from the man's point of view it would have seemed that she was ok with it. Now if sexual activity continued after she realized it was not her boyfriend and then objected at that point it would become rape. I know that sounds wacky, but it is not clear that the man had any idea he was committing a crime since only she is reporting that he pretended to be her boyfriend.


And if you RTFA or any of the previous comments then you would have gotten the bit where she fought him off and screamed for help which prompted him to finally stop.
 
2013-01-04 01:28:20 PM

Theaetetus: Ah, but that's civil... Should he face an attempted murder or battery criminal charge?


Here's what I would do if I were this man's Judge at a criminal trial:

Convict him of 2nd degree Sexual Assault under a PJC. Sentence him to two years Probation where he would have to do some Community Service, attend classes regarding violence, have him pay for the victim's therapy; and once the Probation was up and all requirements met by him to an agreeable fashion have the conviction vacated.

Lesson learned, accountability taken.
 
2013-01-04 01:28:22 PM

Profedius: Up until the point she realized it was not her boyfriend I wouldn't consider that rape, because from the man's point of view it would have seemed that she was ok with it.


As far as I'm concerned, whether or not someone's "responding", if you have knowledge that they're asleep or that they are otherwise impaired in such a way that they can't comprehend the situation, it's legitimate rape-rape.

From the quote about his statement posted in this thread, he clearly believed that she was asleep when he penetrated her and did not believe he had her consent.
 
2013-01-04 01:28:31 PM

Magorn: Reminds me of the Inverse case I once saw prosecutted in a DC court:

WOman and her boyfriend reuglarly engage in rough sex with a side of violent rape fantasy.  Much screaming biting , kicking , pleading etc to the intense delight of both partners. Unbeknowst to the BF the Girl has an indentical twin sister who is a stewardess who has a key to the apt and often crashes there unannounced when she has an unexpected layover in town.

 Boyfriend comes home see his girlfriend sleeping on the bed in a sexy stewardess' outfit, thinks it is a signal for some hard-core role play.  Girlfriend doesn't disappoint giving an oscar-worthy performance of unwilling rape victim, fighting back extra hard, screaming at the top of her lungs etc.

In the post-coital quiet, the BF lights up a cigarette, the Girl runs out and calls the cops.  His sex partner turns out to be the unknown twin and not his GF and he is promptly charged with rape.

IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?


Please tell me you have a link for this story
 
2013-01-04 01:31:30 PM

chairmenmeow47: some of you are farking insane. she was in bed asleep. how on earth is that consent for any man who comes waltzing by to come and have sex with her?!?! "oh look, a sleeping woman, she must want to have sex with me".


Sometimes within couples there is a concept known as "implied consent". Usually, a pretty healthy couple would lay out boundaries like "well, if you feel frisky and I'm out cold it's totally cool. But only if it isn't that time of the month because I don't want to be stuck with the laundry." In the case laid out in TFA the boyfriend agreed, in advance, that there would be no sex that night and left after she went to bed. When she woke up, probably pissed thinking that her boyfriend ignored her request, of course she was shocked that it was some other dude entirely.
 
2013-01-04 01:31:38 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: Theaetetus: CapeFearCadaver: ElBarto79: CapeFearCadaver: Theaetetus: CapeFearCadaver: Magorn: IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?

For the twin's horror alone, regardless of the fact of his confusion... yes, he's a rapist.
Did he know GF had a twin who would stay over sometimes? Or that she had a twin?

Still, with what the girl went through, she deserves some accountability taken.

You can't place liability on someone based solely on how horrific it was for the victim. That's not finding someone guilty, that's finding a scapegoat.

Of course. But she didn't consent. The whole situation is a big pile of confusion... but, she still did not consent.

If I accidentally run someone over with my car, putting them in a wheelchair for life, am I guilty of a crime? Even if I broke no laws and the accident was a complete fluke? I can guarantee you the person in the wheelchair will tell you they didn't consent to being run over.

You or your insurance should be on the hook for covering that man's medical expenses due to you hitting him. There should be some level of accountability, yes.

Ah, but that's civil... Should he face an attempted murder or battery criminal charge?

Even if I broke no laws and the accident was a complete fluke?

No.


Did you meant to reply to someone else? Or are you saying that you can't be monetarily liable for an accident if it was, in your opinion, a "complete fluke"?
 
2013-01-04 01:32:31 PM

CapeFearCadaver: Theaetetus: Ah, but that's civil... Should he face an attempted murder or battery criminal charge?

Here's what I would do if I were this man's Judge at a criminal trial:

Convict him of 2nd degree Sexual Assault under a PJC. Sentence him to two years Probation where he would have to do some Community Service, attend classes regarding violence, have him pay for the victim's therapy; and once the Probation was up and all requirements met by him to an agreeable fashion have the conviction vacated.

Lesson learned, accountability taken.


And then maybe he'd think about implementing a "Go" word in congress with his "Safe" word.
 
2013-01-04 01:34:25 PM

freewill: Profedius: Up until the point she realized it was not her boyfriend I wouldn't consider that rape, because from the man's point of view it would have seemed that she was ok with it.

As far as I'm concerned, whether or not someone's "responding", if you have knowledge that they're asleep or that they are otherwise impaired in such a way that they can't comprehend the situation, it's legitimate rape-rape.

From the quote about his statement posted in this thread, he clearly believed that she was asleep when he penetrated her and did not believe he had her consent.



I dunno, waking up to your significant other touching you is pretty normal and, most people would say, nice. Certainly not rape. If that's rape then virtually everyone, male or female, is guilty.
 
2013-01-04 01:34:34 PM

chairmenmeow47: some of you are farking insane. she was in bed asleep. how on earth is that consent for any man who comes waltzing by to come and have sex with her?!?! "oh look, a sleeping woman, she must want to have sex with me".


chairmenmeow47: some of you are farking insane. she was in bed asleep. how on earth is that consent for any man who comes waltzing by to come and have sex with her?!?! "oh look, a sleeping woman, she must want to have sex with me".


chairmenmeow47: some of you are farking insane. she was in bed asleep. how on earth is that consent for any man who comes waltzing by to come and have sex with her?!?! "oh look, a sleeping woman, she must want to have sex with me".

 
2013-01-04 01:35:43 PM

ElBarto79: Yea I see that, though I did specifically ask about criminal accountability. Maybe the answer is the the guy would not face any charges since he truly believed it was his girlfriend but he would have to compensate her for counseling or even just for pain and suffering. If you accidentally burn your neighbors garage down you might not face any charges depending on the circumstances but it would be reasonable to expect that you pay to have it rebuilt.


Agreed, and I just responded to Theaetetus in what I feel would be a good set of terms for that situation.
Not only lesson learned and accountability taken, but no Sex Offender Registry, as long as conditions are met satisfactorily.
 
2013-01-04 01:35:51 PM

Theaetetus: Holocaust Agnostic: Theaetetus: CapeFearCadaver: ElBarto79: CapeFearCadaver: Theaetetus: CapeFearCadaver: Magorn: IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?

For the twin's horror alone, regardless of the fact of his confusion... yes, he's a rapist.
Did he know GF had a twin who would stay over sometimes? Or that she had a twin?

Still, with what the girl went through, she deserves some accountability taken.

You can't place liability on someone based solely on how horrific it was for the victim. That's not finding someone guilty, that's finding a scapegoat.

Of course. But she didn't consent. The whole situation is a big pile of confusion... but, she still did not consent.

If I accidentally run someone over with my car, putting them in a wheelchair for life, am I guilty of a crime? Even if I broke no laws and the accident was a complete fluke? I can guarantee you the person in the wheelchair will tell you they didn't consent to being run over.

You or your insurance should be on the hook for covering that man's medical expenses due to you hitting him. There should be some level of accountability, yes.

Ah, but that's civil... Should he face an attempted murder or battery criminal charge?

Even if I broke no laws and the accident was a complete fluke?

No.

Did you meant to reply to someone else? Or are you saying that you can't be monetarily liable for an accident if it was, in your opinion, a "complete fluke"?


Should he face an attempted murder or battery criminal charge?

I would call into your reading comprehension but you wrote it.
 
2013-01-04 01:36:45 PM

KatjaMouse: chairmenmeow47: some of you are farking insane. she was in bed asleep. how on earth is that consent for any man who comes waltzing by to come and have sex with her?!?! "oh look, a sleeping woman, she must want to have sex with me".

Sometimes within couples there is a concept known as "implied consent". Usually, a pretty healthy couple would lay out boundaries like "well, if you feel frisky and I'm out cold it's totally cool. But only if it isn't that time of the month because I don't want to be stuck with the laundry." In the case laid out in TFA the boyfriend agreed, in advance, that there would be no sex that night and left after she went to bed. When she woke up, probably pissed thinking that her boyfriend ignored her request, of course she was shocked that it was some other dude entirely.


You just explained the woman's (within the relationship) side of it.  Now justify how it is legal for random dude see's sleeping woman = free, surprise sex
 
2013-01-04 01:38:50 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: Theaetetus: Holocaust Agnostic: Theaetetus: CapeFearCadaver: ElBarto79: CapeFearCadaver: Theaetetus: CapeFearCadaver: Magorn: IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?

For the twin's horror alone, regardless of the fact of his confusion... yes, he's a rapist.
Did he know GF had a twin who would stay over sometimes? Or that she had a twin?

Still, with what the girl went through, she deserves some accountability taken.

You can't place liability on someone based solely on how horrific it was for the victim. That's not finding someone guilty, that's finding a scapegoat.

Of course. But she didn't consent. The whole situation is a big pile of confusion... but, she still did not consent.

If I accidentally run someone over with my car, putting them in a wheelchair for life, am I guilty of a crime? Even if I broke no laws and the accident was a complete fluke? I can guarantee you the person in the wheelchair will tell you they didn't consent to being run over.

You or your insurance should be on the hook for covering that man's medical expenses due to you hitting him. There should be some level of accountability, yes.

Ah, but that's civil... Should he face an attempted murder or battery criminal charge?

Even if I broke no laws and the accident was a complete fluke?

No.

Did you meant to reply to someone else? Or are you saying that you can't be monetarily liable for an accident if it was, in your opinion, a "complete fluke"?

Should he face an attempted murder or battery criminal charge?

I would call into your reading comprehension but you wrote it.


Uh, bit of pot calling the kettle black there, bub. If you scroll up, you find I was saying he shouldn't face a criminal charge if he didn't break any laws.

Next time, before you fire off an angry reply, take a deep breath and read the post you're replying to.
 
2013-01-04 01:39:31 PM

ElBarto79: I dunno, waking up to your significant other touching you is pretty normal and, most people would say, nice. Certainly not rape. If that's rape then virtually everyone, male or female, is guilty.


Did I walk into a Rapist's Association meeting, or are we all really this confused about what we're talking about?

It's one thing for a significant other to wake you up with sex, someone who has implied consent to have sex with you. This dude was not her significant other. He reportedly did not believe she believed he was her significant other. He shoved his wing-wang up her hoo-hah prior to her awakening, believing she was asleep. His goal was to have non-concensual intercourse with someone who would not have consented if she was awake.

It's not open season when someone is unconscious. It's farking rape, whether the confusion makes it "nice" or not.
 
2013-01-04 01:41:46 PM
note to farkers: never be unconscious around Profedius.
 
2013-01-04 01:43:48 PM

ElBarto79: I dunno, waking up to your significant other touching you is pretty normal and, most people would say, nice. Certainly not rape. If that's rape then virtually everyone, male or female, is guilty.


Again, legally speaking, within couples there is implied consent. However spousal rape is still a problem as well but within the confines of a relationship cases like sleepy sex is for the most part okay and granted. However if a spouse were to wake up and retract consent then, hopefully, the partner performing would have the decency to stop otherwise they find themselves wading into sh*tty raping SOB waters.
 
2013-01-04 01:44:39 PM

ElBarto79: CapeFearCadaver: Theaetetus: CapeFearCadaver: Magorn: IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?

For the twin's horror alone, regardless of the fact of his confusion... yes, he's a rapist.
Did he know GF had a twin who would stay over sometimes? Or that she had a twin?

Still, with what the girl went through, she deserves some accountability taken.

You can't place liability on someone based solely on how horrific it was for the victim. That's not finding someone guilty, that's finding a scapegoat.

Of course. But she didn't consent. The whole situation is a big pile of confusion... but, she still did not consent.

If I accidentally run someone over with my car, putting them in a wheelchair for life, am I guilty of a crime? Even if I broke no laws and the accident was a complete fluke? I can guarantee you the person in the wheelchair will tell you they didn't consent to being run over.


And that would be what separates manslaughter from murder. Intent. It's still a crime to kill someone, even if the circumstances were accidental. We even have accidental death liability law suits, where you were found responsible for the death happening, even if you weren't directly involved and did not intend anyone to die. We've decided as a people that it should be illegal for you to kill someone, and covered a lot of different scenarios and levels and kinds of homicide.

So I think at a minimum he gets aggravated sexual assault, but not rape. She clearly did not consent, however he did not realize the mistake in identity, and proceeded with the implied consent he had from his intended partner. I also think the girlfriend has to get some kind of accessory charge for both not disclosing to her partner she had a twin, and failing to fully inform her twin of the environment she was going to be in.
 
2013-01-04 01:44:59 PM

freewill: ElBarto79: I dunno, waking up to your significant other touching you is pretty normal and, most people would say, nice. Certainly not rape. If that's rape then virtually everyone, male or female, is guilty.

Did I walk into a Rapist's Association meeting, or are we all really this confused about what we're talking about?

It's one thing for a significant other to wake you up with sex, someone who has implied consent to have sex with you. This dude was not her significant other. He reportedly did not believe she believed he was her significant other. He shoved his wing-wang up her hoo-hah prior to her awakening, believing she was asleep. His goal was to have non-concensual intercourse with someone who would not have consented if she was awake.

It's not open season when someone is unconscious. It's farking rape, whether the confusion makes it "nice" or not.


Their reasoning is that "spouses sometimes wake each other up with sex, and that's implied consent and not rape... so significant others can do it too... and therefore, people on a first date can do it also, so when I'm on a date and the girl falls asleep, I can do it, and it's exactly the same as a couple that's been married for twenty years, and therefore I didn't rape that girl that one time."
 
2013-01-04 01:45:20 PM

Endive Wombat: You just explained the woman's (within the relationship) side of it. Now justify how it is legal for random dude see's sleeping woman = free, surprise sex


Oh, no, not at all. Free/surprise sex from random dude should never be okay.

Take note, dudes.
 
2013-01-04 01:46:26 PM

Theaetetus: Ah, but that's civil... Should he face an attempted murder or battery criminal charge?


Ok, so I just realized you were talking about the hypothetical guy hits wheelchair guy with car. In that situation, without laws broken, of course not. If laws were broken, then yes. Did wheelchair guy pop a wheelie and end up in the path of oncoming car who had no time to stop? Or was driver simply not paying attention?

In the previous response I was going on twin rapey guy.

TFA guy, get that damn law off the books and he should not have charges dismissed. By all accounts she was asleep and could not have offered consent.
 
2013-01-04 01:47:29 PM

chairmenmeow47: note to farkers: never be unconscious around Profedius.


Dude, I came to that conclusion a couple of years ago.
 
2013-01-04 01:47:52 PM

chairmenmeow47: note to farkers: never be unconscious around Profedius.


Learned that one the hard way myself.
 
2013-01-04 01:48:24 PM

bittermang: And that would be what separates manslaughter from murder. Intent. It's still a crime to kill someone, even if the circumstances were accidental.


Manslaughter still requires reckless behavior. If you're driving at a reasonable speed down the street and a kid runs out from behind a truck and splats on your bumper, if you weren't being reckless, you're not guilty of manslaughter. You may not even have any civil liability if you weren't at all negligent and it really was a freak accident.
 
2013-01-04 01:49:01 PM

Theaetetus: Holocaust Agnostic: Theaetetus: Holocaust Agnostic: Theaetetus: CapeFearCadaver: ElBarto79: CapeFearCadaver: Theaetetus: CapeFearCadaver: Magorn: IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?

For the twin's horror alone, regardless of the fact of his confusion... yes, he's a rapist.
Did he know GF had a twin who would stay over sometimes? Or that she had a twin?

Still, with what the girl went through, she deserves some accountability taken.

You can't place liability on someone based solely on how horrific it was for the victim. That's not finding someone guilty, that's finding a scapegoat.

Of course. But she didn't consent. The whole situation is a big pile of confusion... but, she still did not consent.

If I accidentally run someone over with my car, putting them in a wheelchair for life, am I guilty of a crime? Even if I broke no laws and the accident was a complete fluke? I can guarantee you the person in the wheelchair will tell you they didn't consent to being run over.

You or your insurance should be on the hook for covering that man's medical expenses due to you hitting him. There should be some level of accountability, yes.

Ah, but that's civil... Should he face an attempted murder or battery criminal charge?

Even if I broke no laws and the accident was a complete fluke?

No.

Did you meant to reply to someone else? Or are you saying that you can't be monetarily liable for an accident if it was, in your opinion, a "complete fluke"?

Should he face an attempted murder or battery criminal charge?

I would call into your reading comprehension but you wrote it.

Uh, bit of pot calling the kettle black there, bub. If you scroll up, you find I was saying he shouldn't face a criminal charge if he didn't break any laws.

Next time, before you fire off an angry reply, take a deep breath and read the post you're replying to.


No, you asked if he should. Theres a question mark and everything. I said no and you started sledging about civil liability for some reason.
 
2013-01-04 01:49:10 PM
Yes but what does the law say about ducks having to wear long pants?
 
2013-01-04 01:50:17 PM

CapeFearCadaver: Theaetetus: Ah, but that's civil... Should he face an attempted murder or battery criminal charge?

Ok, so I just realized you were talking about the hypothetical guy hits wheelchair guy with car. In that situation, without laws broken, of course not. If laws were broken, then yes. Did wheelchair guy pop a wheelie and end up in the path of oncoming car who had no time to stop? Or was driver simply not paying attention?

In the previous response I was going on twin rapey guy.

TFA guy, get that damn law off the books and he should not have charges dismissed. By all accounts she was asleep and could not have offered consent.


Ah. It appears that, under the DC statute, twin rapey guy is a rapist. Technically, he's committing rape (or meeting all of the elements of the statute) when he forceably has sex with the masochist twin  but has an affirmative defense of consent, which is under a different statute.
 
2013-01-04 01:50:58 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: Theaetetus: Holocaust Agnostic: Theaetetus: Holocaust Agnostic: Theaetetus: CapeFearCadaver: ElBarto79: CapeFearCadaver: Theaetetus: CapeFearCadaver: Magorn: IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?

For the twin's horror alone, regardless of the fact of his confusion... yes, he's a rapist.
Did he know GF had a twin who would stay over sometimes? Or that she had a twin?

Still, with what the girl went through, she deserves some accountability taken.

You can't place liability on someone based solely on how horrific it was for the victim. That's not finding someone guilty, that's finding a scapegoat.

Of course. But she didn't consent. The whole situation is a big pile of confusion... but, she still did not consent.

If I accidentally run someone over with my car, putting them in a wheelchair for life, am I guilty of a crime? Even if I broke no laws and the accident was a complete fluke? I can guarantee you the person in the wheelchair will tell you they didn't consent to being run over.

You or your insurance should be on the hook for covering that man's medical expenses due to you hitting him. There should be some level of accountability, yes.

Ah, but that's civil... Should he face an attempted murder or battery criminal charge?

Even if I broke no laws and the accident was a complete fluke?

No.

Did you meant to reply to someone else? Or are you saying that you can't be monetarily liable for an accident if it was, in your opinion, a "complete fluke"?

Should he face an attempted murder or battery criminal charge?

I would call into your reading comprehension but you wrote it.

Uh, bit of pot calling the kettle black there, bub. If you scroll up, you find I was saying he shouldn't face a criminal charge if he didn't break any laws.

Next time, before you fire off an angry reply, take a deep breath and read the post you're replying to.

No, you asked if he should. Theres a question mark and everything. I said no and you started sledging about civil liabil ...


Rhetorical question, bucko. Look it up. Also scroll up and see the bolded part.
 
2013-01-04 01:51:05 PM

miss diminutive: Yes but what does the law say about ducks having to wear long pants?


Jesus Christ, there are just some things you don't talk about in public, Missy.
 
2013-01-04 01:53:13 PM

Profedius: Unmitigated derp


You are too stupid to have a penis. Please stop by your nearest medical center and have it swapped out with something less potentially damaging, like a throw pillow or an egg timer.
 
2013-01-04 01:54:07 PM

FarkinHostile: miss diminutive: Yes but what does the law say about ducks having to wear long pants?

Jesus Christ, there are just some things you don't talk about in public, Missy.


Hmm, I guess I put too much stock in that canard.
 
2013-01-04 01:55:39 PM

Profedius: I don't know from the way it sounds it seems that she was asleep and he started messing around with her to which she responded and was awakened. Up until the point she realized it was not her boyfriend I wouldn't consider that rape, because from the man's point of view it would have seemed that she was ok with it. Now if sexual activity continued after she realized it was not her boyfriend and then objected at that point it would become rape. I know that sounds wacky, but it is not clear that the man had any idea he was committing a crime since only she is reporting that he pretended to be her boyfriend.

I have had the experience of this from both sides and I don't consider either one of them rapes nor does the other party even though they are questionable encounters.

The first was with a woman who had fallen asleep next to me at a party and I did not realize she had been asleep since she was laying in front of me on her side with her back against me. I had reached down into her pants and began to play with her to which she responded by opening her legs wider. After a bit I pulled her pants down and mine then started to have sex with her to which she responded like any awake woman would. It was only a bit before she awoke and then I realized she had been sleeping when she asked me what the hell I was doing. I told her that I thought she was awake and asked her if she wanted me to stop to which she told me no.

The second time I had fallen asleep only to awake with a woman on top of me and she asked me if I wanted her to stop and I told her no it was alright.


encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-04 01:58:25 PM

bittermang: So I think at a minimum he gets aggravated sexual assault, but not rape. She clearly did not consent, however he did not realize the mistake in identity, and proceeded with the implied consent he had from his intended partner.


That depends on the relevant statute. Some jurisdictions require that the defendant  intend to commit rape, in which case, if he reasonably believed he had consent, it wouldn't be rape. D.C. however, doesn't appear to require it (at least for 1st or 3rd degree sexual abuse). As a result, his mistake about consent would be irrelevant.
 
2013-01-04 01:59:39 PM

Magorn: IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?


What was the charge you wanted me to find guilty/not guilty on?
 
2013-01-04 02:00:18 PM

Endive Wombat: Magorn: Reminds me of the Inverse case I once saw prosecutted in a DC court:

WOman and her boyfriend reuglarly engage in rough sex with a side of violent rape fantasy.  Much screaming biting , kicking , pleading etc to the intense delight of both partners. Unbeknowst to the BF the Girl has an indentical twin sister who is a stewardess who has a key to the apt and often crashes there unannounced when she has an unexpected layover in town.

 Boyfriend comes home see his girlfriend sleeping on the bed in a sexy stewardess' outfit, thinks it is a signal for some hard-core role play.  Girlfriend doesn't disappoint giving an oscar-worthy performance of unwilling rape victim, fighting back extra hard, screaming at the top of her lungs etc.

In the post-coital quiet, the BF lights up a cigarette, the Girl runs out and calls the cops.  His sex partner turns out to be the unknown twin and not his GF and he is promptly charged with rape.

IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?

Please tell me you have a link for this story


I might be able

CapeFearCadaver: ElBarto79: Yea I see that, though I did specifically ask about criminal accountability. Maybe the answer is the the guy would not face any charges since he truly believed it was his girlfriend but he would have to compensate her for counseling or even just for pain and suffering. If you accidentally burn your neighbors garage down you might not face any charges depending on the circumstances but it would be reasonable to expect that you pay to have it rebuilt.

Agreed, and I just responded to Theaetetus in what I feel would be a good set of terms for that situation.
Not only lesson learned and accountability taken, but no Sex Offender Registry, as long as conditions are met satisfactorily.


What actually happened in the case was similar to your initial analysis.  With the Judge's permission the jury read a statement  saying that they found that as a matter of Fact, the twin was raped, but that as a matter of law the accused was not guilty of rape.  They were doing it just to soother their own cosciences I think, but it ended up having some practical benefits as the judge ws able to word the verdict in such a way that the twin was elgible for assistance from the crime victim's compensation program, and manged to get free therapy IIRC
 
2013-01-04 02:00:32 PM

bittermang: ElBarto79: CapeFearCadaver: Theaetetus: CapeFearCadaver: Magorn: IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?

For the twin's horror alone, regardless of the fact of his confusion... yes, he's a rapist.
Did he know GF had a twin who would stay over sometimes? Or that she had a twin?

Still, with what the girl went through, she deserves some accountability taken.

You can't place liability on someone based solely on how horrific it was for the victim. That's not finding someone guilty, that's finding a scapegoat.

Of course. But she didn't consent. The whole situation is a big pile of confusion... but, she still did not consent.

If I accidentally run someone over with my car, putting them in a wheelchair for life, am I guilty of a crime? Even if I broke no laws and the accident was a complete fluke? I can guarantee you the person in the wheelchair will tell you they didn't consent to being run over.

And that would be what separates manslaughter from murder. Intent. It's still a crime to kill someone, even if the circumstances were accidental. We even have accidental death liability law suits, where you were found responsible for the death happening, even if you weren't directly involved and did not intend anyone to die. We've decided as a people that it should be illegal for you to kill someone, and covered a lot of different scenarios and levels and kinds of homicide.

So I think at a minimum he gets aggravated sexual assault, but not rape. She clearly did not consent, however he did not realize the mistake in identity, and proceeded with the implied consent he had from his intended partner. I also think the girlfriend has to get some kind of accessory charge for both not disclosing to her partner she had a twin, and failing to fully inform her twin of the environment she was going to be in.


I don't know that it's a crime if it's truly accidental. Maybe there could be issues of negligence or something but in the case of a true no-fault accident why would it be a crime? I can give you an example, my friend ran over and killed an elderly man with dementia who wandered into the street. He didn't break any laws, was never charged with any crimes and went home shortly after the accident. He never personally had to compensate the mans family in any way, though I don't know how the insurance issues played out. The guy was killed but no crime was committed, right?
 
2013-01-04 02:05:28 PM

freewill: As far as I'm concerned, whether or not someone's "responding", if you have knowledge that they're asleep or that they are otherwise impaired in such a way that they can't comprehend the situation, it's legitimate rape-rape.


Well, that's 95% of all the people who have ever been in a long term relationship, male or female, gay or straight, going to prison for rape.
 
2013-01-04 02:10:04 PM

Magorn: Reminds me of the Inverse case I once saw prosecutted in a DC court:

WOman and her boyfriend reuglarly engage in rough sex with a side of violent rape fantasy.  Much screaming biting , kicking , pleading etc to the intense delight of both partners. Unbeknowst to the BF the Girl has an indentical twin sister who is a stewardess who has a key to the apt and often crashes there unannounced when she has an unexpected layover in town.

 Boyfriend comes home see his girlfriend sleeping on the bed in a sexy stewardess' outfit, thinks it is a signal for some hard-core role play.  Girlfriend doesn't disappoint giving an oscar-worthy performance of unwilling rape victim, fighting back extra hard, screaming at the top of her lungs etc.

In the post-coital quiet, the BF lights up a cigarette, the Girl runs out and calls the cops.  His sex partner turns out to be the unknown twin and not his GF and he is promptly charged with rape.

IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?


Rape by deception on the part of the non-occupant sister.
 
2013-01-04 02:10:40 PM

KatjaMouse: Profedius: I don't know from the way it sounds it seems that she was asleep and he started messing around with her to which she responded and was awakened. Up until the point she realized it was not her boyfriend I wouldn't consider that rape, because from the man's point of view it would have seemed that she was ok with it. Now if sexual activity continued after she realized it was not her boyfriend and then objected at that point it would become rape. I know that sounds wacky, but it is not clear that the man had any idea he was committing a crime since only she is reporting that he pretended to be her boyfriend.

And if you RTFA or any of the previous comments then you would have gotten the bit where she fought him off and screamed for help which prompted him to finally stop.


I didn't see that in the article and I didn't read the one posted in here. From your statements about it yes that is clearly rape at that point and nothing like the encounter I had pictured.
 
2013-01-04 02:11:08 PM

orbister: Well, that's 95% of all the people who have ever been in a long term relationship, male or female, gay or straight, going to prison for rape.


I could phrase that better by stipulating that implied consent can be established prior to the encounter, when the prospective partner can comprehend it.

That is not important to this issue, where the guy was not in a relationship with her and was simply taking advantage of her vulnerability, knowing, by his own admission, that she was asleep. This guy is a rapist, and the idea that it wasn't rape until she woke up and became aware of the attack is completely idiotic.
 
2013-01-04 02:11:43 PM

This text is now purple: Rape by deception on the part of the non-occupant sister.


*slow clap*
 
2013-01-04 02:12:20 PM
Wow, that actually worked? Dude should be given a commendation for Best Idiotic Plan that Succeeded
 
2013-01-04 02:14:56 PM

Magorn: Reminds me of the Inverse case I once saw prosecutted in a DC court:

WOman and her boyfriend reuglarly engage in rough sex with a side of violent rape fantasy.  Much screaming biting , kicking , pleading etc to the intense delight of both partners. Unbeknowst to the BF the Girl has an indentical twin sister who is a stewardess who has a key to the apt and often crashes there unannounced when she has an unexpected layover in town.

 Boyfriend comes home see his girlfriend sleeping on the bed in a sexy stewardess' outfit, thinks it is a signal for some hard-core role play.  Girlfriend doesn't disappoint giving an oscar-worthy performance of unwilling rape victim, fighting back extra hard, screaming at the top of her lungs etc.

In the post-coital quiet, the BF lights up a cigarette, the Girl runs out and calls the cops.  His sex partner turns out to be the unknown twin and not his GF and he is promptly charged with rape.

IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?


*sigh* This is a fine ethical line. I hate rape. The very idea of it sickens me. Rapists are the worst of the worst scum on the planet...but...

Are you serious? She couldn't have thought to said "I am not *insert rape-lover's name here*. My name is *whatever*!" If she just took it and didn't try to make this man aware of who she was or even just trying to explain in a firm way that she isn't who he thinks she is; that he has made a mistake, then I side with the man that this wasn't rape.
However, and I think this infinitely more likely, she screamed that she isn't her sister. She is a twin, and he has them confused. In that case, I say lock the rapist up, because I don't care how "real" your shiat gets when someone is actually telling you that they aren't who you think they are, and you don't being to notice things, you raped her.
 
2013-01-04 02:15:42 PM

Fark Rye For Many Whores: Difficulty: California

Ends in "-a", former Spanish colony. We'll let it slide.


Alaska, Alabama, North Dakota, South Dakota, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia were all Spanish colonies?*

*Note: Louisiana, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana were claimed by Spain for 40 years, I don't know if they were actually colonies
 
2013-01-04 02:16:01 PM

FarkinHostile: chairmenmeow47: note to farkers: never be unconscious around Profedius.

Learned that one the hard way myself.


cache.ohinternet.com
 
2013-01-04 02:16:41 PM

DeathCipris: Are you serious? She couldn't have thought to said "I am not *insert rape-lover's name here*. My name is *whatever*!" If she just took it and didn't try to make this man aware of who she was or even just trying to explain in a firm way that she isn't who he thinks she is; that he has made a mistake, then I side with the man that this wasn't rape.


Facts not in evidence, but hey, what if that was actually a key part of their regular rape role-play, her pretending that she was her sister? What then, huh? Huh? Huh? Giggity.
 
2013-01-04 02:18:00 PM
assnine tag unavailable?
 
2013-01-04 02:20:40 PM

Magorn: What actually happened in the case was similar to your initial analysis. With the Judge's permission the jury read a statement saying that they found that as a matter of Fact, the twin was raped, but that as a matter of law the accused was not guilty of rape. They were doing it just to soother their own cosciences I think, but it ended up having some practical benefits as the judge ws able to word the verdict in such a way that the twin was elgible for assistance from the crime victim's compensation program, and manged to get free therapy IIRC


...

Juries are triers of fact and judges triers of law, correct? So they passed along a sufficiently wishy-washy guilty verdict that it wouldn't have stood up to appeal?
 
2013-01-04 02:23:59 PM

freewill: DeathCipris: Are you serious? She couldn't have thought to said "I am not *insert rape-lover's name here*. My name is *whatever*!" If she just took it and didn't try to make this man aware of who she was or even just trying to explain in a firm way that she isn't who he thinks she is; that he has made a mistake, then I side with the man that this wasn't rape.

Facts not in evidence, but hey, what if that was actually a key part of their regular rape role-play, her pretending that she was her sister? What then, huh? Huh? Huh? Giggity.


As giggity as that maybe...and it is ohh so giggity...you wouldn't notice things were different on your partner? I get they are identical, but they cut their hair exactly the same way? They trim down stairs exactly the same way? Every mole, freckle, beauty mark is the same? They are both scarless? I don't buy it. If things didn't click after her yelling she wasn't who he though she was, that is his bad and he deserves to be punished.
Or maybe she had a ball-gag...that is an interesting twist on the story. She couldn't really form words with a ball-gag in her mouth...

I have a friend that is into some twisted sex shiat. I can tell you that what that man did is reckless, regardless of him having an expectation of her always being sexy ready time.

/Giggity-giggity goo
 
2013-01-04 02:28:54 PM

DeathCipris: Magorn: Reminds me of the Inverse case I once saw prosecutted in a DC court:

WOman and her boyfriend reuglarly engage in rough sex with a side of violent rape fantasy.  Much screaming biting , kicking , pleading etc to the intense delight of both partners. Unbeknowst to the BF the Girl has an indentical twin sister who is a stewardess who has a key to the apt and often crashes there unannounced when she has an unexpected layover in town.

 Boyfriend comes home see his girlfriend sleeping on the bed in a sexy stewardess' outfit, thinks it is a signal for some hard-core role play.  Girlfriend doesn't disappoint giving an oscar-worthy performance of unwilling rape victim, fighting back extra hard, screaming at the top of her lungs etc.

In the post-coital quiet, the BF lights up a cigarette, the Girl runs out and calls the cops.  His sex partner turns out to be the unknown twin and not his GF and he is promptly charged with rape.

IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?

*sigh* This is a fine ethical line. I hate rape. The very idea of it sickens me. Rapists are the worst of the worst scum on the planet...but...

Are you serious? She couldn't have thought to said "I am not *insert rape-lover's name here*. My name is *whatever*!" If she just took it and didn't try to make this man aware of who she was or even just trying to explain in a firm way that she isn't who he thinks she is; that he has made a mistake, then I side with the man that this wasn't rape.
However, and I think this infinitely more likely, she screamed that she isn't her sister. She is a twin, and he has them confused. In that case, I say lock the rapist up, because I don't care how "real" your shiat gets when someone is actually telling you that they aren't who you think they are, and you don't being to notice things, you raped her.


She was unaware of the boyfriend's identity according to testimony, or her sister's propensities. She was under the impression that this was a stranger who had broken in and was attacking her, and since the couple played "stranger danger" games, he never once used her name calling her things like "slut" and "whore" instead.

I realize it sounds like a law school problem, but this is how it actually shook out in court.
 
2013-01-04 02:30:13 PM

Magorn: Biness: Magorn: Reminds me of the Inverse case I once saw prosecutted in a DC court:

WOman and her boyfriend reuglarly engage in rough sex with a side of violent rape fantasy.  Much screaming biting , kicking , pleading etc to the intense delight of both partners. Unbeknowst to the BF the Girl has an indentical twin sister who is a stewardess who has a key to the apt and often crashes there unannounced when she has an unexpected layover in town.

 Boyfriend comes home see his girlfriend sleeping on the bed in a sexy stewardess' outfit, thinks it is a signal for some hard-core role play.  Girlfriend doesn't disappoint giving an oscar-worthy performance of unwilling rape victim, fighting back extra hard, screaming at the top of her lungs etc.

In the post-coital quiet, the BF lights up a cigarette, the Girl runs out and calls the cops.  His sex partner turns out to be the unknown twin and not his GF and he is promptly charged with rape.

IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?

sucks for that dude, but there was no consent. he's a rapist.

Indeed. the Physical element of the crime is beyond question: unconsented to penetration.  The question is, however should a "mens rea" defense be allowed here?   While ignorance of the law is not an excuse,  it's generally held that a person must at least knowingly commit a crime before they can be charged with it (the Classic law school example is you point a gun at someone and fire, but you know it only has blanks in it.  However someone has secretly switched your blanks for live rounds.   Can you be charged with murder?  Should the REASON you pointed the gun at the person matter (IE being on stage, vs trying to scare them)? etc etc)


ASSuming the person firing had reasonable knowledge; that blanks are dangerous and not to aim directly at the target, but then chose to not follow that standard safety precaution...
 
2013-01-04 02:35:05 PM

freewill: ElBarto79: I dunno, waking up to your significant other touching you is pretty normal and, most people would say, nice. Certainly not rape. If that's rape then virtually everyone, male or female, is guilty.

Did I walk into a Rapist's Association meeting, or are we all really this confused about what we're talking about?

It's one thing for a significant other to wake you up with sex, someone who has implied consent to have sex with you. This dude was not her significant other. He reportedly did not believe she believed he was her significant other. He shoved his wing-wang up her hoo-hah prior to her awakening, believing she was asleep. His goal was to have non-concensual intercourse with someone who would not have consented if she was awake.

It's not open season when someone is unconscious. It's farking rape, whether the confusion makes it "nice" or not.



img.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-04 02:40:07 PM

Magorn: DeathCipris:
*sigh* This is a fine ethical line. I hate rape. The very idea of it sickens me. Rapists are the worst of the worst scum on the planet...but...

Are you serious? She couldn't have thought to said "I am not *insert rape-lover's name here*. My name is *whatever*!" If she just took it and didn't try to make this man aware of who she was or even just trying to explain in a firm way that she isn't who he thinks she is; that he has made a mistake, then I side with the man that this wasn't rape.
However, and I think this infinitely more likely, she screamed that she isn't her sister. She is a twin, and he has them confused. In that case, I say lock the rapist up, because I don't care how "real" your shiat gets when someone is actually telling you that they aren't who you think they are, and you don't being to notice things, you raped her.

She was unaware of the boyfriend's identity according to testimony, or her sister's propensities. She was under the impression that this was a stranger who had broken in and was attacking her, and since the couple played "stranger danger" games, he never once used her name calling her things like "slut" and "whore" instead.

I realize it sounds like a law school problem, but this is how it actually shook out in court.


I still say the man was reckless (I find it hard to believe that both women have NO telling marks on them. Even if she didn't know the man, he should have recognized that "Wait, something is off here..."), and in light of this fact, I side with the woman. She did not have an expectation to be raped by staying there. Now, I know this is silly, but if there was a sign or she had knowledge ahead of time, then it would be a different situation.
 
2013-01-04 02:42:19 PM

DeathCipris: the planet...but...

Are you serious? She couldn't have thought to said "I am not *insert rape-lover's name here*. My name is *whatever*!" If she just took it and didn't try to make this man aware of who she was or even just trying to explain in a firm way that she isn't who he thinks she is; that he has made a mistake, then I side with the man that this wasn't rape.


Mmmm....because the first thing a woman would think while being raped is that it is a case of mistaken identity with her twin.
 
2013-01-04 02:44:33 PM

Theaetetus: JonPace: Theaetetus: JonPace: Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: Isn't it screamingly illegal to have at someone who is asleep, especially if you have no indication of prior consent? Or are we going with the "women who occasionally fall asleep are totally asking for it" defense?

She didn't sleep through the whole thing. She woke up and consented. It would be nice to know what the guy did in order to deceive her. If his crime is just banging a chick with the lights off, I don't think that should be rape. He'd have to do something extraordinary in order to make her think it was the husband. Really need more details before I can form an opinion on whether this is rape or not.

From the decision:
According to Jane, she woke up to the sensation of having sex. She was in a different position on the bed, perpendicular to the position she had been in when she fell asleep. She was confused because she and Victor had agreed not to have sex that night. When light coming through a crack in the bedroom door illuminated the face of the person having sex with her, i.e., defendant, she realized it was not Victor and tried to push him away. Defendant grabbed her thighs and pushed his penis back into her vagina. She pushed him away again and began to cry and yell. Defendant left her room; Jane locked her door and called Victor, asking him to come back to her house.

If "pushing away, crying, and yelling" is consent to you, I'm concerned.

Read a different article that didn't have that part in there, which is pretty damn important. It implied she had sex with someone then later out it wasn't who she thought it was.

I honestly don't see how this case isn't a straight up rape and where there controversy is.

Because the prosecution had those two theories- rape of an unconscious person, and rape of someone through fraud- and the jury didn't specify which one they found him guilty on. So, since the judge notes that the latter one doesn't apply, he has to assume that the jury could have meant th ...


I was wondering how long it would take somebody to point out that the guy is going to be re-tried, so it's not as if he's getting off scot-free...
 
2013-01-04 02:45:55 PM

FarkinHostile: DeathCipris: the planet...but...

Are you serious? She couldn't have thought to said "I am not *insert rape-lover's name here*. My name is *whatever*!" If she just took it and didn't try to make this man aware of who she was or even just trying to explain in a firm way that she isn't who he thinks she is; that he has made a mistake, then I side with the man that this wasn't rape.

Mmmm....because the first thing a woman would think while being raped is that it is a case of mistaken identity with her twin.


It was explained later down the thread that the woman had no idea that man was her sister's boyfriend and thought he was a stranger. If she was aware of the aforementioned, then what I said made sense. Alas, she was not aware...
 
2013-01-04 02:46:15 PM

DeathCipris: I still say the man was reckless (I find it hard to believe that both women have NO telling marks on them. Even if she didn't know the man, he should have recognized that "Wait, something is off here..."), and in light of this fact, I side with the woman. She did not have an expectation to be raped by staying there. Now, I know this is silly, but if there was a sign or she had knowledge ahead of time, then it would be a different situation.


Is reckless sex covered by statute? Is her expectation relevant?

Sure, in a lawsuit, but as far as whether or not it's a crime?
 
2013-01-04 02:46:31 PM
Two things:

Gentlemen, your peeners are not the incredibly unique snowflakes that I'm sure you believe they are. Unless there is a huge difference in size or girth, they mostly feel the same. I am sure this true of vagoos, too.

Also, If I woke up to unexpected sex with a person who isn't my husband, I would not lay back and say, "Oh darn, guess you pulled one over on me. You win this round, please continue." That's rape. Rape rape rapey rape.

So if you look at a woman and ask yourself "If she was awake, would she want to have sex with me?" and you don't 100% know the answer is yes because she said so, then keep your pants on, because it's just not worth it.
 
2013-01-04 02:50:51 PM

HTApprovedChick: I am sure this true of vagoos, too.


Nah. Some I can hit easy hit bottom in, others not. Some even have a bit more texture, like a cat's tongue.

/ What?
 
2013-01-04 02:52:31 PM

freewill: DeathCipris: I still say the man was reckless (I find it hard to believe that both women have NO telling marks on them. Even if she didn't know the man, he should have recognized that "Wait, something is off here..."), and in light of this fact, I side with the woman. She did not have an expectation to be raped by staying there. Now, I know this is silly, but if there was a sign or she had knowledge ahead of time, then it would be a different situation.

Is reckless sex covered by statute? Is her expectation relevant?

Sure, in a lawsuit, but as far as whether or not it's a crime?


I am not sure how the statute reads, nor the exact definition of sexual assault/rape. I am not a lawyer.
I was answering the question as if I was on the jury to decide the case with no other information other than what was presented to me and what I know, just as the original question dictated.
 
2013-01-04 02:58:01 PM

HTApprovedChick: Two things:

Gentlemen, your peeners are not the incredibly unique snowflakes that I'm sure you believe they are. Unless there is a huge difference in size or girth, they mostly feel the same. I am sure this true of vagoos, too.

Also, If I woke up to unexpected sex with a person who isn't my husband, I would not lay back and say, "Oh darn, guess you pulled one over on me. You win this round, please continue." That's rape. Rape rape rapey rape.

So if you look at a woman and ask yourself "If she was awake, would she want to have sex with me?" and you don't 100% know the answer is yes because she said so, then keep your pants on, because it's just not worth it.


Poles have more feeling in them than holes, so (at least from my understanding) it's easier for me to identify a different hole, than it is for a female to identify a different pole.
 
2013-01-04 02:59:32 PM
Oh, and if someone's sleeping and you start having sex with them, it's rape unless they otherwise consented to allowing you to have sex with them while they are sleeping.

It doesn't matter if you're married or on a first date. If you start arousing your spouse while they are sleeping, and then they wake up and are okay with it, it's not rape...but if they freak out, you're still on the hook for sexual assault (at minimum).
 
2013-01-04 03:00:53 PM
latewire.com


3 hit C-c-c-c-combo
 
2013-01-04 03:02:25 PM

CrazyCracka420: Oh, and if someone's sleeping and you start having sex with them, it's rape unless they otherwise consented to allowing you to have sex with them while they are sleeping.

It doesn't matter if you're married or on a first date. If you start arousing your spouse while they are sleeping, and then they wake up and are okay with it, it's not rape...but if they freak out, you're still on the hook for sexual assault (at minimum).


Yep. I'll even add one more - consent is not retroactive. You can get consent in advance - "hey, if you're sleeping, can I wake you up in a sexy way?" - but if you're going to rely on an Assange-style "sure, I raped her, but she didn't fight me off and let me finish so therefore her consent traveled back in time like a Tachyon" defense, you're going to lose.
 
2013-01-04 03:03:40 PM

Theaetetus: Yep. I'll even add one more - consent is not retroactive. You can get consent in advance - "hey, if you're sleeping, can I wake you up in a sexy way?" - but if you're going to rely on an Assange-style "sure, I raped her, but she didn't fight me off and let me finish so therefore her consent traveled back in time like a Tachyon" defense, you're going to lose.


Unless, apparently, you're tried by a jury of your Fark peers.
 
2013-01-04 03:04:45 PM

freewill: tried by a jury of your Fark peers.


I really didn't need that nightmare tonight.
 
2013-01-04 03:15:44 PM

This text is now purple: Magorn: What actually happened in the case was similar to your initial analysis. With the Judge's permission the jury read a statement saying that they found that as a matter of Fact, the twin was raped, but that as a matter of law the accused was not guilty of rape. They were doing it just to soother their own cosciences I think, but it ended up having some practical benefits as the judge ws able to word the verdict in such a way that the twin was elgible for assistance from the crime victim's compensation program, and manged to get free therapy IIRC

...

Juries are triers of fact and judges triers of law, correct? So they passed along a sufficiently wishy-washy guilty verdict that it wouldn't have stood up to appeal?


More or less, but I think everyone wanted to wash their hands of the thing by the time it was over so no appeal ever happened.  I was in the courtroom because the Judge was a friend of the judge I was working for, and he mentioned to m judge the facts of the case and knew it would be a unqiue one in the annals of the courthouse.  Since my judge knew I was interesting in going to lawschool, he sent me and his clerk to further our education.   We returned the favor later when we invited his clerk to watch the Paternity case involving a <i> menage-a-trois</i> one-night stand with identical twin brothers
 
2013-01-04 03:21:05 PM

Magorn: More or less, but I think everyone wanted to wash their hands of the thing by the time it was over so no appeal ever happened. I was in the courtroom because the Judge was a friend of the judge I was working for, and he mentioned to m judge the facts of the case and knew it would be a unqiue one in the annals of the courthouse. Since my judge knew I was interesting in going to lawschool, he sent me and his clerk to further our education. We returned the favor later when we invited his clerk to watch the Paternity case involving a menage-a-trois one-night stand with identical twin brothers


HEY EVERYBODY, THIS GUY'S A PHONEY! A BIG FAT PHONEY!

Magorn: "Years ago, a old DC police vet told me the story of the stragest rape case he ever worked..."
 
2013-01-04 03:26:29 PM

freewill: Magorn: More or less, but I think everyone wanted to wash their hands of the thing by the time it was over so no appeal ever happened. I was in the courtroom because the Judge was a friend of the judge I was working for, and he mentioned to m judge the facts of the case and knew it would be a unqiue one in the annals of the courthouse. Since my judge knew I was interesting in going to lawschool, he sent me and his clerk to further our education. We returned the favor later when we invited his clerk to watch the Paternity case involving a menage-a-trois one-night stand with identical twin brothers

HEY EVERYBODY, THIS GUY'S A PHONEY! A BIG FAT PHONEY!

Magorn: "Years ago, a old DC police vet told me the story of the stragest rape case he ever worked..."


O.o
Dun dun DUNNNNNNNN!
 
2013-01-04 03:28:54 PM

KatjaMouse: Oh, no, not at all. Free/surprise sex from random dude should never be okay.


So no more glory holes either I guess
 
2013-01-04 03:31:21 PM
From some of the comments here I'm not sure if people are getting that, no matter how the re-trial goes, the guy already served the three years in prison he was sentenced to for the crime.
 
2013-01-04 03:33:51 PM

freewill: Magorn: More or less, but I think everyone wanted to wash their hands of the thing by the time it was over so no appeal ever happened. I was in the courtroom because the Judge was a friend of the judge I was working for, and he mentioned to m judge the facts of the case and knew it would be a unqiue one in the annals of the courthouse. Since my judge knew I was interesting in going to lawschool, he sent me and his clerk to further our education. We returned the favor later when we invited his clerk to watch the Paternity case involving a menage-a-trois one-night stand with identical twin brothers

HEY EVERYBODY, THIS GUY'S A PHONEY! A BIG FAT PHONEY!

Magorn: "Years ago, a old DC police vet told me the story of the stragest rape case he ever worked..."


Stalker?
 
2013-01-04 03:36:39 PM

Artisan Sandwich: Stalker?


Hah! I was looking for a source for the story. As it turned out, the third result was that thread.
 
2013-01-04 03:37:47 PM

Sybarite: From some of the comments here I'm not sure if people are getting that, no matter how the re-trial goes, the guy already served the three years in prison he was sentenced to for the crime.


You sound like a rapist!

And no, I didn't know that, and it doesn't appear as if anyone who posted here did either (I read every post). Maybe someone did and just didn't mention it?
 
2013-01-04 03:52:14 PM

freewill: Magorn: More or less, but I think everyone wanted to wash their hands of the thing by the time it was over so no appeal ever happened. I was in the courtroom because the Judge was a friend of the judge I was working for, and he mentioned to m judge the facts of the case and knew it would be a unqiue one in the annals of the courthouse. Since my judge knew I was interesting in going to lawschool, he sent me and his clerk to further our education. We returned the favor later when we invited his clerk to watch the Paternity case involving a menage-a-trois one-night stand with identical twin brothers

HEY EVERYBODY, THIS GUY'S A PHONEY! A BIG FAT PHONEY!

Magorn: "Years ago, a old DC police vet told me the story of the stragest rape case he ever worked..."


Yeah, now that this handle and the real name it's associated with is more or less common knowledge, I don;t worry so much about giving biographical details, so I'm not so concerned about obscuring identifying details like I used to be.
 
2013-01-04 04:22:16 PM
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-04 04:30:30 PM

Magorn: Yeah, now that this handle and the real name it's associated with is more or less common knowledge, I don;t worry so much about giving biographical details, so I'm not so concerned about obscuring identifying details like I used to be.


So. Any links to this fascinating and complicated case which aren't claims you've made on Fark?
 
2013-01-04 04:46:56 PM

Magorn: Reminds me of the Inverse case I once saw prosecutted in a DC court:

WOman and her boyfriend reuglarly engage in rough sex with a side of violent rape fantasy.  Much screaming biting , kicking , pleading etc to the intense delight of both partners. Unbeknowst to the BF the Girl has an indentical twin sister who is a stewardess who has a key to the apt and often crashes there unannounced when she has an unexpected layover in town.

 Boyfriend comes home see his girlfriend sleeping on the bed in a sexy stewardess' outfit, thinks it is a signal for some hard-core role play.  Girlfriend doesn't disappoint giving an oscar-worthy performance of unwilling rape victim, fighting back extra hard, screaming at the top of her lungs etc.

In the post-coital quiet, the BF lights up a cigarette, the Girl runs out and calls the cops.  His sex partner turns out to be the unknown twin and not his GF and he is promptly charged with rape.

IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?


i7.photobucket.com

MENS REA! MY GOD! NO!


There was no intent, hence, no crime. Not guilty.
 
2013-01-04 04:59:08 PM
President Merkin Muffley:
There was no intent, hence, no crime. Not guilty.

He intended to have sex and intended to use force to do so, which are the only elements of the statute, hence guilty. This is the specific intent issue.
 
2013-01-04 05:55:58 PM
It's not rape if she ask you "are all nerds as good as you?"
s2.postimage.org
 
2013-01-04 06:08:56 PM
I always yell, "SHAZAAM" before I try and rape a sleeping woman.

/stop looking at me like that.
 
2013-01-04 06:10:21 PM

Theaetetus: President Merkin Muffley:
There was no intent, hence, no crime. Not guilty.

He intended to have sex and intended to use force to do so, which are the only elements of the statute, hence guilty. This is the specific intent issue.


Having sex by force is not rape if the other party is a willing participant. Even if the partner resists and says no repeatedly, if they have agreed beforehand that they both want this then it is consensual. If the sole definition of rape is that the other partner resists then there are probably many thousands of consensual S&M and bondage fans who are rapists. This is basically a tragic case of mistaken identity. The guy should pay something for this but he should not go to jail.
 
2013-01-04 06:34:33 PM

Magorn: Reminds me of the Inverse case I once saw prosecutted in a DC court:

WOman and her boyfriend reuglarly engage in rough sex with a side of violent rape fantasy.  Much screaming biting , kicking , pleading etc to the intense delight of both partners. Unbeknowst to the BF the Girl has an indentical twin sister who is a stewardess who has a key to the apt and often crashes there unannounced when she has an unexpected layover in town.

 Boyfriend comes home see his girlfriend sleeping on the bed in a sexy stewardess' outfit, thinks it is a signal for some hard-core role play.  Girlfriend doesn't disappoint giving an oscar-worthy performance of unwilling rape victim, fighting back extra hard, screaming at the top of her lungs etc.

In the post-coital quiet, the BF lights up a cigarette, the Girl runs out and calls the cops.  His sex partner turns out to be the unknown twin and not his GF and he is promptly charged with rape.

IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?


It was rape. When you have role-playing sex that involves physical or spoken resistance, it's imperative that you talk about it before each and every role-playing session. That, plus a safeword, is the only way to ensure consent.
 
2013-01-04 06:35:32 PM
if people can riot over the beating of Rodney King, they should riot big time over this. From what I've read, they're trying to let a rapist get off scott free.
 
2013-01-04 06:46:11 PM

Panatheist: From what I've read, they're trying to let a rapist get off scott free.


Dude, rape shield laws....don't post her name, even if she does have kind of a weird one.
 
2013-01-04 06:55:26 PM

Why Would I Read the Article: Panatheist: From what I've read, they're trying to let a rapist get off scott free.

Dude, rape shield laws....don't post her name, even if she does have kind of a weird one.


I don't see how I ever implied "scott" was her name? made me chuckle though, I'm not the best writer
 
2013-01-04 09:11:52 PM
I always wondered why the guy from Revenge of the Nerds wasn't worried about going to jail for raping the cheerleader on the moon.
 
2013-01-04 09:59:52 PM

DeathCipris: Magorn: Reminds me of the Inverse case I once saw prosecutted in a DC court:

WOman and her boyfriend reuglarly engage in rough sex with a side of violent rape fantasy.  Much screaming biting , kicking , pleading etc to the intense delight of both partners. Unbeknowst to the BF the Girl has an indentical twin sister who is a stewardess who has a key to the apt and often crashes there unannounced when she has an unexpected layover in town.

 Boyfriend comes home see his girlfriend sleeping on the bed in a sexy stewardess' outfit, thinks it is a signal for some hard-core role play.  Girlfriend doesn't disappoint giving an oscar-worthy performance of unwilling rape victim, fighting back extra hard, screaming at the top of her lungs etc.

In the post-coital quiet, the BF lights up a cigarette, the Girl runs out and calls the cops.  His sex partner turns out to be the unknown twin and not his GF and he is promptly charged with rape.

IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?

*sigh* This is a fine ethical line. I hate rape. The very idea of it sickens me. Rapists are the worst of the worst scum on the planet...but...

Are you serious? She couldn't have thought to said "I am not *insert rape-lover's name here*. My name is *whatever*!" If she just took it and didn't try to make this man aware of who she was or even just trying to explain in a firm way that she isn't who he thinks she is; that he has made a mistake, then I side with the man that this wasn't rape.
However, and I think this infinitely more likely, she screamed that she isn't her sister. She is a twin, and he has them confused. In that case, I say lock the rapist up, because I don't care how "real" your shiat gets when someone is actually telling you that they aren't who you think they are, and you don't being to notice things, you raped her.


I think it's pretty likely that when being awakened from a sound sleep by a stranger trying to have violent sex with you, your first thought might not be "It's important that I identify myself". If the boyfriend, in fact, did not know about the sister it's likely that the sister didn't know about the boyfriend or their sex play. Unless he called her by her sister's name, she may not have known why it was happening.

The whole story sounds improbable as described.

As for the article, this is a case where following the letter of the law leads to a grave injustice.
 
2013-01-04 11:33:19 PM
Seems reasonable to me. What is the issue? If a chick is single and is having sex she is a slut anyway and shouldnt have any complaints about this sort of thing.
 
2013-01-04 11:38:11 PM
Jeez, everything is rape now. There's rape everywhere you turn around every corner. I'm hoping I can avoid raping someone while I walk through the parking lot to my car tonight. Rape.
 
2013-01-04 11:56:29 PM

stiletto_the_wise: Jeez, everything is rape now. There's rape everywhere you turn around every corner. I'm hoping I can avoid raping someone while I walk through the parking lot to my car tonight. Rape.


To the tune of everything is food from the Popeye movie: everything is upside down, everything is poon to go now...

Also, there seem to be some uptight folks who have never enjoyed sleepy sex in this thread.
 
2013-01-05 08:39:55 AM
So a woman can have the state jail a man for having sex with her through deception...yet.....men who get stuck with a kid when the woman they're having sex with tells them they can't get pregnant so don't wear a condom deception still have to pay child support.

Equal rights huh?
 
2013-01-05 09:34:59 AM

CrazyCracka420: Sybarite: From some of the comments here I'm not sure if people are getting that, no matter how the re-trial goes, the guy already served the three years in prison he was sentenced to for the crime.

You sound like a rapist!

And no, I didn't know that, and it doesn't appear as if anyone who posted here did either (I read every post). Maybe someone did and just didn't mention it?



They didn't make that clear in the original article, but it was in the link I posted.
 
2013-01-05 08:03:10 PM
what if the woman u rape is the one your married to
 
2013-01-06 11:17:37 PM

ElBarto79: Having sex by force is not rape if the other party is a willing participant. Even if the partner resists and says no repeatedly, if they have agreed beforehand that they both want this then it is consensual. If the sole definition of rape is that the other partner resists then there are probably many thousands of consensual S&M and bondage fans who are rapists. This is basically a tragic case of mistaken identity. The guy should pay something for this but he should not go to jail.


I know this thread is pretty well DOA, but trippy disconnect there, man: because it's a case of mistaken identity, the other party is not, in fact, a willing participant.

Unless mens rea is an element of the crime (and apparently, in D.C., it is not), his well-intentioned belief that he was forcing a willing participant is irrelevant.
 
Displayed 174 of 174 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report