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
    More: Stupid, retrials, trial courts  
•       •       •

10239 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Jan 2013 at 12:13 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 174 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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