Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

10227 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Jan 2013 at 12:13 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 174 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report