DescentBB

Ahh you know, If Kilarins question had been :\"When should a intercourse stop if somebody says stop\" then I venture to guess everybody here would have said immediately. Does anyone here miss the point that the girl was of age and the boys minors? Is'nt that also a criminal offense. If it is then I do question her motives at that point. Remember, I'm not debating whether the woman has a right to stop at whatever point she decides to. Were debating whether this particular kid got a fair shake.

The more I read over the 2 articles I'm starting to feel sorry for him. His trial, instead of seeking the truth and justice in the PARTICULAR case, instead got turned into a trial of womens rights. Let's sacrifice the 1 for the 99. That totally goes against Jesus's heart where he said he would \"leave the 99 to find the 1\".

Also, if your argument has any validity at all. At the point in time it was consensual it was ok and right at the point( the very instance even) she said stop it became rape, then the whole time it was consensual she is guilty of sex with minors.

Poor kid. Instead of getting a fair trial, he got swooped on by a bunch of extremist feminists who would do anything to get this precedent signed into law.

Also if she is guilty of underage sex, and she is. Then I do wonder about her credibility. She, outta of the very fear of prosecution, contrived this whole story just to protect herself. Is that an unreasonable suspicion?

girl: \"strmph\"
guy: \"uh..what?\"
girl: \"stop\"
<guy pauses thrusting>
guy: \"what, am I hurting you?\"
girl: \"yea, just stop!\"
guy: \"OK, sorry!\"
<guy pulls out>
elapsed time: 5 seconds

Just an example of how it might take more than a split second to \"withdraw\" from an intimate situation. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but I do think it's unreasonable to assume an instantaneous response time in all cases.

Anyway, having not read the stories I have one question unrelated to the 5 second thing. How was he tried twice for the same crime, having been found innocent the first time? If they're giving him 15 years, I assume these are criminal cases?

Question her motives, and deny that the case fits a coercion scenario... Fine, you can certainly believe what you want.

Question whether the trial was fair... Go ahead, though I think you'll find that the jury knows a whole lot more than you or I.

Question whether the sentence was reasonable... I may even agree with you to some extent.

------

But make comments that imply it was okay (\"Because he was young... she changed her mind... but it was only a few seconds...\"), and you've just crossed the ethical line.

So if she was 18 and they were 15-16, how come she is not in jail for rape herself? See how f*cked the system is. She knew more than they did she was having sex with minors.

The first trial ended up as a mistrial. It got picked up by the media and the political war started. Also, like many others have said in this thread, 5 seconds is a pretty immediate withdrawal. To make a decision in 5 seconds is fast and in any other instance would be called impetuous.

It’s called the ole double standard.

I think if he stopped in .5 seconds, Foil would still feel the same.

Foil wrote:Raging teenage hormones or not, [edit: immaturity or not,] what he did was wrong. He's old enough to know that, and yet chose otherwise.

I'm in complete agreement with you on this point. Although I admit there is some room for confusion here. We don't know really how long it took him to stop, guestimates from people who were involved are going to be pretty inaccurate, could have been longer, could have been shorter. AND, we don't have enough details to know for certain whether the kid just ignored her, or whether he really withdrew as soon as he realized she was asking him too. From what little we have, it appears to me that he just didn't want to stop. He DID, but it took him a little bit to decide. Still wrong. Still a lot of guesswork on our parts. I HOPE the jury had more to go on.

CDN_Merlin wrote:So if she was 18 and they were 15-16, how come she is not in jail for rape herself?

got to admit that this one baffles me as well. How could the 15 year old boy be charged with second degree rape, which from what I can find appears to be defined as sex with a minor under 16, but the 18 year old woman is not? Either the justice system is just really bad (very possible) or we are missing some big hunks of the story (almost certain)

<edit>

Spidey wrote:I think if he stopped in .5 seconds, Foil would still feel the same.

I don't think this is fair. Realize that we are dealing with a SERIOUS problem in the legal system in Maryland. The rule of law before this decision was that once a woman had consented to sex, it could NOT be rape. For example, if she said ok, then saw that the guy had running sores and refused to wear a condom, she could not say NO. The guy could hold her down, force sex, and walk away without worrying about a rape charge.

We need to establish that anyone can say NO at any time. That's good. And that, whatever raging hormones you have going on, When someone lets you know they want you to stop, you stop. Right then.

Question her motives, and deny that the case fits a coercion scenario... Fine, you can certainly believe what you want.

This also fits the \"Oh crap I just had sex with 2 minors and I better cover my butt before somebody finds out\" scenario.

We need to establish that anyone can say NO at any time. That's good. And that, whatever raging hormones you have going on, When someone lets you know they want you to stop, you stop. Right then.

I agree Kilarin. But using this dumb 16 year old kid to get it done is downright evil.

Spidey wrote:The court ruled that a woman has a right to say no after giving consent to sex, says nothing about whether pain is involved or not.

She said stop.
He stopped.
Case closed!

To go on about how long it took to stop is just an egregious example of splitting hairs. He Stopped!

Kilarin......Yes it is fair…the question is how long is long.

He did stop “Right Then”…How fkin long do you think 5 seconds is?

What a fine mess of \"splitting hairs\" ...

You know, they could have avoided a mess like this by one simple decision. No sex before marriage.


...

Yeah, some of you are saying \"Oh sure, like that's gonna happen.\" ... It is good advice either way.

And yeah, some of you aren't going to agree with that either. That is the whole reason problems like what we've been talking about are even happening. This society can no longer accept that there is a better way to live. Until this society gets over itself and everyone makes better/smarter choices with their lives, stuff like this will continue to happen.

I agree with you, but I’m sure that wont help your credibility on this board.

I assume that both parties were sober because it wasn't mentioned otherwise? If not, this can put a different spin on how long 5 seconds is.

Kilarin wrote:BUT, that said, she does admit that she explicitly consented to the sex. Her own testimony states that the defendant said, "I don't want to rape you".

He sounds like quite the romantic.

TechPro wrote:You know, they could have avoided a mess like this by one simple decision. No sex before marriage.

So, I see your agenda. But how does having a marriage license prevent this from happening? Marriage has nothing to do with this. It's about having an ounce of respect or care for your partner.

My opinion, after reading the articles.

1. The two boys and one women knew each other.
2. She was the driver and willingly drove them to a secluded residential area for a little fun.
3. She willingly joins them in the back seat
4. They both played around with her.
5. One leaves so she and the other can have sex.
6. Then the first boy leaves and the second one gets back in.
7. When the second boy asks her for sex she says \"Yes, you can do me as long as you stop when I tell you to\".
8. They get it on, maybe he was too rough, she tells him to stop and he did. It probably took him five seconds for his brain to move from the lower part of his body to the upper part but the fact remains...he did stop.

The whole thing is ridiculous. I would never have charged either boy with rape or any other charge for that matter and I agree with Genghis's account of the dialog that most probably happened. Also, when he said \"I don't want to have to rape you\" I doubt very much it was said as a threat because she would have ran.
A rapist would have never stopped once he started.

Just my opinion.

Bettina

TechPro wrote:You know, they could have avoided a mess like this by one simple decision. No sex before marriage.

If you "rape" someone your married to, could they charge you with rape, or does being married make this not rape?

Had it been an 18 yr old boy, having consentual sex with 2 15-16 yr old girls, and he tried to file rape charges against one of them because she didn't stop as quickly as he wanted her to, how would you feel?

And honestly, how do you think the courts would rule?

grizz wrote:Had it been an 18 yr old boy, having consentual sex with 2 15-16 yr old girls, and he tried to file rape charges against one of them because she didn't stop as quickly as he wanted her to, how would you feel?

And honestly, how do you think the courts would rule?

He would of been charged for rape of under age girls and thrown in jail for life.

CDN_Merlin wrote:

grizz wrote:Had it been an 18 yr old boy, having consentual sex with 2 15-16 yr old girls, and he tried to file rape charges against one of them because she didn't stop as quickly as he wanted her to, how would you feel?

And honestly, how do you think the courts would rule?

He would of been charged for rape of under age girls and thrown in jail for life.

Not necessarily. A good lawyer could argue the "Romeo and Juliet" law should apply.

http://www.sexcrimedefender.com/romeo_j ... index.html

Bee

I agree that it's strange she didn't get charged with statutory rape (with a minor).

What I don't understand is that no here besides me is giving any credit whatsoever to the girl's testimony that she was coerced:

The woman testified that she didn't feel that she could turn him down.

\"Something just clicked off, and I just did whatever they said,\" she testified.

I know at least two rape/molestation victims who would verify that the tendency for a victim is to 'shut down' in a threatening situation.

This was two guys. If that's not threatening to a young woman, I don't know what is.

-----------

Sure, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe she was lying. But it's equally possible that they were the ones lying.

So without being someone on the jury, I can only go by what I know. And what I know personally is twofold:
1. Guys, especially those who would want to 'share' a girl, can be brutal.
2. Rape victims are often disbelieved (for one girl that I know, her own parents didn't believe her) and sometimes even blamed for causing it.

That's why I tend to believe the girl's story. (Plus, that's the same conclusion the jury came to.)

Foil wrote:That's why I tend to believe the girl's story. (Plus, that's the same conclusion the jury came to.)

I believe the story too, I just think its Bee Ess that a guy got sent to jail for 15 years because of it.

flip wrote:I agree Kilarin. But using this dumb 16 year old kid to get it done is downright evil.

Spidey wrote:the question is how long is long.

I agree. I think we needed to change the law, but I do NOT think that the "five or so seconds" issue should qualify in the same category as someone who raped a person at gun or knife point.

I agree with Foil that going "five or so seconds" beyond the STOP is too long. But I ALSO agree that this is a short enough period that there is a LOT of room for confusion about exactly what happened and how. You could have a deliberate "I don't WANT to stop!", or you could have a "huh, what!?" situation. It's awfully close for a judge and jury to be deciding.

I don't like the setup. The story FEELS like these guys were pressuring the girl. But that wasn't what the case was decided on. And the "5 or so seconds" issue just doesn't seem like something that should have ever gotten into a court room in my opinion.

TechPro wrote:You know, they could have avoided a mess like this by one simple decision. No sex before marriage.

And I am SO with you on that one!

Jeff250 wrote:But how does having a marriage license prevent this from happening? Marriage has nothing to do with this. It's about having an ounce of respect or care for your partner.

Rape happens in marriage to, and I agree with you on the root cause. BUT, this kind of situation is a lot less likely to happen when you are having sex with a committed partner instead of two acquaintances in the back of a car. So waiting for marriage DOES reduce your risk profile.

Bettina wrote:A rapist would have never stopped once he started.

I agree, this is my main objection. By deciding this case the way they did, the seriously devalue the crime of "rape".

Bettina wrote:Just my opinion.

And thank you very much for chiming in. You are the only woman (that I am aware of) joining this discussion so far.

If you "rape" someone your married to, could they charge you with rape, or does being married make this not rape?

In the past, there was no such thing as marital rape. The law has been changing on that, but too slowly. According to Schroedinger's Encyclopedia There are still places in the western world where a spouse can NOT prosecute for rape.

Foil wrote:What I don't understand is that no here besides me is giving any credit whatsoever to the girl's testimony that she was coerced:

I'm willing to give credit to that theory. It's just that that is NOT the decision the courts handed down. If they had decided she was coerced from the beginning, the first guy should have been charged with first degree rape. The courts handed down a decision that said the victim WITHDREW consent, which means they decided she granted it to start with. I don't know if they were RIGHT on that point, but it does mean that the decision they handed down, the one that is going to affect other cases and laws, was based solely on the "five or so seconds" issue. And on THAT decision, I feel justice was misplaced BADLY.

Kilarin wrote:

Foil wrote:What I don't understand is that no here besides me is giving any credit whatsoever to the girl's testimony that she was coerced:

I'm willing to give credit to that theory. It's just that that is NOT the decision the courts handed down.

I certainly agree that the rationale for the ruling is inconsistent, and I also tend to agree that the sentence is too severe in this case.

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

There are two things I'm primarily objecting to:


1. The tendency to accept the guys' testimony (that they were careful to ask for consent) without question, and assume the girl's testimony (that she was coerced) is a lie without even considering it.

It's a reflection of the inconsistency in Western society regarding the perception of rape between genders. In boys, promiscuity is considered "normal"; but if a girl is promiscuous, then "she gets what she deserves". [For example, a guy I know recently told me that he'd "get a shotgun" if he had a daughter start dating, but if he had a son, he'd let him "sow his wild oats".]

The same tendency is being shown here - people immediately assume the worst about the girl, and think that the guys are "just being guys".


2. The idea that a delay is acceptable, either because there's a "sex inertia" which interferes with human will, or "it's only a few seconds, it's not enough to matter". Wrong is wrong, folks, even if it's only a short time.

Holy ****.

A 16 year old charged with 15 years in prison for not stopping for 5 seconds? Are you kidding me? 1st degree rape? That is not rape. I'm sure the kid was an ass but that is definitely not rape.

If someone wants to stop after consenting, there should simply be some other term given to that.

I DO think that these two boys were absoulte scum aswell, I think the charge should be pressuring her into sex.

However, she was older, legally an adult, and they weren't. But what confuses me on this is that she could have said no, there was nothing physically forcing her to do it, no blackmail, nothing - - - and she said yes. I
don't buy that she actually felt insanley pressured to do it simply because she was willing to charge them with years in prison. (My logic here is that if she was looking for a way to be accepted by them or by some group, saying no would be alot less socially damaging to charging someone for years in prison, haha) So I think to some degree she wanted it. That, or she has really terrible common sense, OR when she told her mom, her mom freaked out and there's some depth to this that we wont know.

Anyways, a year in prison should have been charged for being a douche, but not 15, or 5, or 2.

Kilarin wrote:Rape happens in marriage to, and I agree with you on the root cause. BUT, this kind of situation is a lot less likely to happen when you are having sex with a committed partner instead of two acquaintances in the back of a car. So waiting for marriage DOES reduce your risk profile.

Right, a committed relationship is a way to help avoid this, and marriage is one means to this end. But marriages can promote rape because of the common understanding that a woman surrenders consent upon entering the marriage. Or that consent is just understood. It has only recently been legally recognized that this is not the case (and not completely in most states). Moreover, wives are more likely to stay in their abusive relationships. Marriage introduces new risk factors, and, in most states, by getting married, you are limiting your right to prosecute if you are raped by your partner.

Wouldn't life be a whole lot better if people didn't keep having sex? I mean, the amount of problems it causes is ridiculous!





Heh, yeah right, people giving up sex. That'll be the day!

TIGERassault, why don't you give up breathing for a little bit.

I've pretty much stayed out of the topic, because I find it distasteful and disgusting to argue the finer points of something that is so terribly wrong from the start. I suspect I'll probably get a lot of disagreement on that point.

The law is not for the purpose of protecting us from negative consequences that result from using bad judgment. I could go into detail to elaborate on that thought, but suffice to say that if a girl doesn't want to be taken advantage of, she shouldn't put herself in that kind of situation in the first place.

I say 5 seconds does not equal rape, and they should all be charged with under-age...

Jeff250 wrote:But marriages can promote rape because of the common understanding that a woman surrenders consent upon entering the marriage.

You won't get any argument from me claiming that this was not a shameful situation. It has, thankfully, improved recently, but not enough.

Jeff250 wrote:wives are more likely to stay in their abusive relationships

I'm not denying that this is possible, but can you point to a source? I can't seem to find any numbers that compare abuse between married partners and domestic partners.

BUT, I'm not certain that a debate over "live-together" vs "married" is relevant to the topic. In both cases, rape can occur, but, as we both agree, in both cases, the risks of rape are certainly lower than for those living a promiscuous lifestyle.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The law is not for the purpose of protecting us from negative consequences that result from using bad judgment.

So, you would say that if I get robbed because I walked into a bad part of town wearing expensive jewelry, the police should not prosecute?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:suffice to say that if a girl doesn't want to be taken advantage of, she shouldn't put herself in that kind of situation in the first place.

I hope you aren't saying what I think you are saying here. Because, especially in combination with the above quote, it sounds like you are saying that a man should not be charged with rape if it can be proven that the woman had behaved improperly, even though she had not consented to sex. For example, if she had dressed seductively, then she was "asking for it", and its not rape. Or, in the above case, even if she had said, "NO" when the second guy asked her, and yet he had held her down and forced sex upon her, it would not have been rape because the woman had put herself into that situation to start with. I find this position reprehensible.

Now, if all you meant was that the woman put herself at risk by doing something stupid, (and I certainly hope thats all you meant!) I absolutely agree! But because you did something stupid does not in any way excuse the crime of someone who took advantage of you.

I agree that I don't feel this case should have been called rape, but I would have found a court decision that it wasn't rape because "she shouldn't have gone out with those kinds of boys anyway" even worse than this ridiculous "5 or so seconds" decision.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I say 5 seconds does not equal rape...

Why not? Because it's 'only a few seconds'? Or for some other reason?

I understand and agree with your point (also made by Kilarin and flip and TechPro, I believe) that as sex outside of marriage it's ethically wrong in the first place. However, I think Jeff250 makes a very valid point about rape within marriage (spousal rape), which is just as real and wrong as any other form.

So, allow me to pose this question:

If a spouse knew they were hurting the other, but intentionally kept forcing themselves on their spouse for five or ten seconds... is that "okay"?

As far as I'm concerned, legally it's the same thing in this case. This guy knew he was hurting the girl, and kept going. It doesn't matter if it was for a few seconds, or a few minutes... it's wrong. Please don't reiterate the B.S. that 'it takes a few seconds to stop' or 'it took him a few seconds to comprehend'. Those are the lamest excuses I've heard in here in a while.

[Note: All the above doesn't even touch the fact that the girl testified that she was coerced from the beginning.]

Kilarin wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:suffice to say that if a girl doesn't want to be taken advantage of, she shouldn't put herself in that kind of situation in the first place.

I hope you aren't saying what I think you are saying here. Because, especially in combination with the above quote, it sounds like you are saying that a man should not be charged with rape if it can be proven that the woman had behaved improperly, even though she had not consented to sex. For example, if she had dressed seductively, then she was "asking for it", and its not rape.

Thank you for addressing that, Kilarin.

I don't think I could have been as diplomatic, because the typical perception that "rape is not the guy's fault if the girl was flirtatious, etc." is one of the things that absolutely pisses me off about this topic.

(I assume that's not what you meant, Thorne. I just felt it needed to be addressed.)

Doesn't the fact still remain she had sex with minors and should be in jail herself? For all we know, she could be usign the excuse of rape so she isn't in jail for 15 years.

CDN_Merlin wrote:Doesn't the fact still remain she had sex with minors and should be in jail herself? For all we know, she could be usign the excuse of rape so she isn't in jail for 15 years.

I agree, it seems strange... unless, as she testified, it was coercion and rape from the beginning.

That's not only consistent with the scenario (two guys vs. one girl), it's consistent with the jury's finding (and we all have to admit that they know considerably more about the case than we do).

Personally I feel this whole case stinks. blame on all sides.

1. She concented by her own addmission. sex with a Minor = Illegal, pressured or not
2. No concent = rape and not a question anymore throw the book at them.
3. The first minor is also being charged. Why? she consented and did not tell him to stop, so why is he now being charged? is it because her case against the second guy falls apart if she doesnt?
4. She said stop. end of story, now the question is, is this really rape because of the initial consent or sexual assault because he was told to stop AFTER intercourse had already began? he did not finish him self off. the question remains if the 5 seconds he took to stop is a reasonable time frame. at 15 maybe not, maybe so. hell I remember when I was 15 I probably wouldnt have lasted 5 seconds

CUDA wrote:1. She concented by her own addmission. sex with a Minor = Illegal, pressured or not
2. No concent = rape and not a question anymore throw the book at them.

No, I don't think she willingly consented at all:

According to police, "Baby, then 16, and Michael Wilson, 15, groped the woman and made sexual advances to her,".

Then, she testified that she couldn't turn him down, and "Something just clicked off, and I just did whatever they said,". (Remember, this is two guys; I'd say that's a pretty coercive and threatening situation.)

Considering the above, her supposed 'consent' sounds a lot more like "just please don't hurt me". Besides that, it's the guys who said it started out consensual, not the girl.

Foil, Kilarin, I really don't care to argue the little sub-points of this topic with either of you. You're both so captive to and contorted by your respective complex, semi-artificial view-points and/or pet agendas that in my opinion, in this case, you aren't able to see what's what. This is not a dance.

No offense intended, but I would be surprised if you were not offended. All I can say is that if I knew how to put it more kindly, I would.

Kilarin wrote:So, you would say that if I get robbed because I walked into a bad part of town wearing expensive jewelry, the police should not prosecute?

Rather, it's precisely equivalent to going into a bad part of town in order to get robbed, and then prosecuting because they took more than you wanted, and were rough with you. But in addition to that, this part of town is off-limits--it's illegal to go there.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Kilarin wrote:So, you would say that if I get robbed because I walked into a bad part of town wearing expensive jewelry...?

Rather, it's precisely equivalent to going into a bad part of town in order to get robbed...

Whoa, whoa... wait a minute!

Please tell me that you're not saying that women who get raped want to be raped. That argument implies that the rapist isn't really at fault at all, because "she asked for it".


...I'm having to keep myself calm here, because that view not only personally pisses me off... it's coming from someone who claims to follow Christ's example, yet is demonstrating the completely opposite view.

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

Thorne, there is a big difference between saying:
- "promiscuous women bear some responsibility because they are exposing themselves to a much bigger risk factor".
...and saying:
- "it's entirely the woman's fault, she 'asked for it' by the way she flirted/dressed/etc".

As I have pointed out, there is a cultural/sociological tendency, even in Western society, toward victim blaming, assuming the woman was promiscuous, and letting the rapists off the hook because "men are just that way". I'm sorry, that's a bunch of bull****.

Foil* wrote:... because the typical perception that "rape is not the guy's fault if the girl was flirtatious, etc." is one of the things that absolutely pisses me off about this topic.

Well, that could remind us that we are dealing with the letter of the law--right and wrong, not natural or semi-natural cause and effect, and that the two ought to be separate (if cause justifies the effect, how could God judge sin?).

And to be clear, Foil, and maybe Kilarin, part of my disagreement with you is that I think, based on what I read in the news article, that you are reading things into this that aren't there, and that explains some of the differences there. The article makes it sound like it was consensual gone wrong. If it were otherwise, then it would obviously be dealt with differently. But if it really were otherwise, then she never would have done some of the things she did.

*Edited - my mistake

Edit: fixed, thank you.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The article makes it sound like it was consensual gone wrong. If it were otherwise, then it would obviously be dealt with differently. But if it really were otherwise, then she never would have done some of the things she did.

Yes, the article seems to go great lengths to make it sound that way. And maybe that's the way it was.

But look at the scenario:

- Two guys, one girl.

- She testified that she was coerced, and that she shut down and agreed to anything (this is a typical response for rape victims).

- She tried to tell the guy not to hurt her, and he did anyway.

... Does that sound consensual to you?

McD's afterwards, a hug, and a phone number pretty much sealed the case for me.

Emotions can be complex, but a total lack of consent would have been very different, I think.

And really, if it becomes a matter of divining what really happened from clues in the report, I could take a stab, but I'm really not interested. If I'd have known any of them, personally, I would have done something, but as it is I'd rather concern myself with other things. I'm sure I'll have my share of issues, touching my life, to keep me morally exercised without the degree of distance and associated unknown that we encounter here. I'd just as soon forget about the whole disgusting story.

Feel free to throw one of those \"Thorne, you can't mean...\" bits after me if it amuses you.

Did she not say she she drove them to a parking lot to be alone? This implies she knew what she was doing. So she is as guilty as them and should get 15 yrs herself.