DA Refuses to Prosecute Rape Case, Despite Eye Witnesses, DNA
| Wed May. 23, 2007 10:22 AM PDT
What's the penalty for the alleged gangrape of a drunk, 17-year-old girl at a party with 10 of your buddies? Bupkus, said the Santa Clara, California District Attorney's office yesterday.
The alleged rape occurred March 3 at a wild, off-campus party hosted by a member of the DeAnza College men's baseball team in San Jose, California. Three partygoers, members of the school's women's soccer team, said they saw a young girl on a mattress on the floor, clothes around her ankles and vomit on her face, with one man on top of her and approximately 10 more looking on in a dark bedroom. Feeling "something wasn't right," the girls pushed their way into the room and rushed the victim the the hospital.
In the months since the contested rape, a grand jury has taken testimony in the case, DNA samples from some partygoers have been obtained, but an assistant district attorney cited "insufficient evidence" as the reason the DA would not prosecute. The men will not be charged with a crime, not even statutory rape. The only consequences so far have been that eight baseball players were suspended, resulting in the cancellation of three games. At least one of the players brought in by the grand jury thinks justice has been served: "From the beginning, I kind of felt like it was a witch hunt and the De Anza players were victims, and not really this girl," pitcher Chris Knopf told the San Jose Mercury News.
One of the infamous Duke lacrosse players made a similar statement just last month when prosecutors dropped all charges in that case, saying that "this entire experience has opened my eyes up to a tragic world of injustice." He was talking about himself, not the African American stripper hired for the players' party.
Undoubtedly, the Duke case and its rush to judgment is in the minds of those at the Santa Clara DA's office when they say they don't have confidence the case could be proved without a doubt. The District Attorney in the Duke case, Michael Nifong, was removed from the case and now faces ethics complaints from the North Carolina state bar related to the year-long investigation. The Santa Clara DA office may be looking to avoid a similar debacle. But there are essential differences in the two situations: this girl was underage, and three eyewitnesses have come forward.
Granted, eyewitness accounts are not always what they seem, something the media often glosses over, but the Santa Clara sheriff's office says it's not yet done investigating the case. Two of the witnesses have gone to the media to draw attention to the case. "What we saw was rape. It was a crime," one told told a local television station. The other said the lack of charges "makes us think that no girl is ever going to want to come forward and say they were violated as this girl was, because they're going to think it doesn't even matter...But it does."
—Jen Phillips
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
Good Lord! If this case is not even worthy of going to trial what the hell will? I'm assuming the DA will wait for rapists confess to feel evidence is "sufficient." Yes, we should let the justice system rest on the ethics of rapists.
In California they give the defendant all the rights and it is a very difficult sell to get a conviction. Look at OJ Simpson's murder of his X. But the county grand jury is still investigating. The DA wants more evidence to make his job more easy. The case is not over yet.
Let's try a small thought experiment here...if the alleged victim here tracked down on of the alleged perpatrators at a party and shot him before two eyewitnesses, and was later discovered to have powder residue on her hands, would the Da think that was enough evidence to push the trial?
I seem to remember calls for burning (or was it castrating?) the Duke "rapists". Then something went wrong: the witness turned out to be "unreliable", the DNA evidence nonexistent, etc. Could the DA in this case know something we don't? "Innocent until proven guilty" is a good rule, and the established legal procedures are the best way known to determine guilt or innocence - not a perfect one, just the best available. And if the Duke case has made DAs a bit more careful then at least something good has come out of that fiasco.
We should not rush to judgment based upon hearsay and incomplete facts. Let the process work. Give the process a chance. I know that in the southern U.S., in the past, the white folk use to rush to judgment, on occasion, and justice was not done. Don't be a lynch mob like them. "If the glove don't fit, don't convict." This case is not like the Channon Christian case. She was a beautiful person.
Uh sorry but let me get this straight Jen, it seems you have some "evidence" that the cops must have missed. The DA yesterday said that they have NO EVIDENCE that ANY crime took place. Better turn over what you have and save the day. If not I hope you and your paper get sued.
You do sound like one of the Duke "pot-bangers" though.
However I'll try to lay it out for you...
Drunk 17 year old at a party makes a totally false rape claim for which there is NO evidence. Her enablers have also been found to lack credibility (sound familiar Jen) and to have an axe to grind.
The DA knowing that Post Duke" it takes more to ruin the lives of innocent people that the word of a lying drunkard, chose to not lose his job trying to railroad them.
Let me know if I've missed something...
Watch the interview with the two brave, articulate women who witnessed the gang-rape and rescued the girl... These are two of the most credible witnesses you could imagine. As the article points out, if this isn't indictable and prosecutable, what the heck is?:
http://www.ktvu.com/news/13370961/detail.html
Submitted by nurse ratchett (not verified) on Thu May. 24, 2007 7:27 AM PDT.
maybe the [slur deleted by moderator] should have been home studying and not getting piss drunk with a bunch of college athletes? to the victor goes the spoils, only the fittest survive.
I don't know anything about this case and if what was written above is true, than everyone of those guys should be sent to prison with a max sentence. However, I think it is completely irresponsible to equate this to the Duke case.
First of all, there was only 1 witness in the Duke case and she was also the "victim." Second of all, there was no DNA evidence, in fact there was evidence, but it matched no one at the party. Finally, Nifong assumed guilt before he had checked all the facts and outed 3 innocent kids who have had their lives irrevocably altered.
You do this case an incredible injustice by citing the outcome of the Duke case as having an impact on this one. I initially felt these guys should be fried for what they did to this girl, but then you made me doubt the truth of your statement by making the outcome of the Duke case a fraud.
Submitted by Kelly (not verified) on Thu May. 24, 2007 7:39 AM PDT.
As a lawyer, I want to scream when I read about this kind of injustice.
As a mother, I want to lock my girls up. We can talk until we're blue in the face about the victim and how nobody ever deserves to be treated in that manner (I agree). BUT.
I believe very strongly in a woman's right not to be attacked no matter what she's wearing, etc. But as a mom, we also need to educate our girls to be smart. It is not a safe world. And despite how many times that we want to say that bad things should not happen, they do. And as women, we need to think before we act and we need to have support (where were the friends of this girl?).
And of course, we need justice.
This article pointed out several circumstances. It did not answer two critical questions: Can the eye-witnesses actually pick the perpetrators from a line up? Can those eye-witnesses provide sworn testimony incriminating SPECIFIC persons? If the witnesses can not make one or both of these determinations, any criminal case would be a travesty; a plain old witch hunt.
Kelly as a lawyer, an officer of the court, you should support the process. The Supreme Court rules upon the process, not the facts(Superior Court is the trier of the facts). If the process is correct, the innocent man has hung. You should be appalled at the lynch mob attitude. Some of these posters remain me of the southern lynch mobs. I guess that you can take the Southerner out of the South, but not the South out of the Southerner.
I've yet to hear from the victim who was probably at this party willingly. Perhaps she didn't want to have sex with multiple partners, but perhaps she shouldn't have been at a college party "nearly unconscious". And by 'nearly unconscious' does that mean she was ALMOST unable to say no? From being in the health care field, I've seen way too many rape cases that were only called rape after the victim had time to think about it later and decide they shouldn't have done it. Not a troll, just offering an alternate opinion. Flame away, I won't be checking back anyway.
"One of the infamous Duke lacrosse players made a similar statement just last month when prosecutors dropped all charges in that case, saying that "this entire experience has opened my eyes up to a tragic world of injustice." He was talking about himself, not the African American stripper hired for the player's party."
OF COURSE he was talking about himself. She made the whole thing up! Not only were the charges dropped by the players were proclaimed INNOCENT. You ruined any sympathy by bringing that up. Horrible post.
Jen,
I tried to post some of the actual facts last night but you didn't allow my comment ot post. Your article was dishonest and not factual, you owe us a correction.
You are a coward with an agenda that is simple: injustice.
You failed to print my honest rebuttal of your contrived story. But printed a bunch of the lynch mob ones.
You make my point well though: You are just like the "Duke 88". You don't want the facts unless they fit your desire to lynch someone you don't like.
Read the actual facts of the case in the San Jose Mercury News:
1) No evidence of a crime.
2) DA says there is no eveidence of a crime.
3) Grand Jury does not recommend the case for prosecution.
4) The accuser is identified by authorities as : NOT Credible.
5) Police want to move forward without evidence relying on a drunken erratic accuser that has given several versions and has trouble recalling events. The Durham police would be proud as they manufactured evidence and arrested defence witnesses in an attempt to cover up the truth. Much as you are doing.
6) There clearly was no crime.
Why don't you just print the truth are you afraid of it? You just want to spread hate from the safety of your "fact free" existence.
How can you possible call that one pitcher a "Possible Rapist?" What evidence do you have besides his being on the baseball team?
I feel terrible about this and I hope something gets done about it, but you are definitely not doing ANYTHING positive by writing such inflammatory crap.
Just a parting thought...
I think it is Calis a nurse above who said: "From being in the health care field, I've seen way too many rape cases that were only called rape after the victim had time to think about it later and decide they shouldn't have done it."
Now comes a Rape Aquittal from the Ise of Man:
http://www.iomonline.co.im/news?articleid=2905100
Essetnaially a drunken, dope smoking, vodka shooting, beer guzzling young woman woke up next to an older man after consensual sex and decided to claim rape out of embarrassment.
These disgusting false allegations have become all too common. What would your response be dear readers if the following were to occur:
A young man (and member of the football team) has a night of hard drinking and drugging and wakes up next to a 60 year old woman fawning over him and grabbing at his crotch. As he exists his bedroom in a shared apartment reeking of booze and pot he's confronted by his wide eyed roomates...They ask him what happened. Embarrassed he claims he was raped.
Okay now tell me what we should do? Should we toss our 60 year old in jail and throw away the key???
Should the police be called? After all he said he was raped.
Jen, I'd dearly appreciate your response to my question and please only respond using the facts that I've provided, no making up stuff, just the facts. :-)
Come on Jen, please tell us
The Santa Clara DA deserves to be recalled from office. The DA's action is not promotion of justice but the prevention of justice. The Santa Clara's shiriff's office deserves praise for saying the case is not yet closed. Anybody who claims this case (where a horrible, witness'ed, DNA supported crime actually occurred) is analogous to the Duke hoax/frame (where no crime occurred) is insane.
men cannot be raped just sodemized.
As for the girl and the rape case the writer of this story has a slant and an agenda. Learn nothing did you from the Duke case.
Without all the facts no one knows but with witnesses and some DNA who knows -but I am sure the DA would not let this go so easily unless there really was nothing to stand on for fear of the backlash. If it is bad enough thier career is over.
Sounds like we have a lot of "rednecks" on this post. Some of them have a rope and want to do a southern style lynching. I did not know that so many "rednecks" read Mother Jones.com. First, you are not all lawyers, Second, you do not have all the facts. So go home with your rope and drink some more Jack Daniels or moonshine. Cases should not be tried in the press, they are tried in court rooms. The rule of law is the hallmark(along with taxes) of a civilized society.
The girl was 17. Who provided the alcohol that this minor got drunk on? That was a crime. Having sex with this minor in California is also a crime. In California a 17 year old has no consent to give to an Adult in order to engage in sex with them, even if she was sober this was rape.
"Sounds like we have a lot of "rednecks" on this post. Some of them have a rope and want to do a southern style lynching"
Uh, no, the rednecks have more sense. It's the flaming rabid liberal feminists that are calling for the lynching of a baseball team without any actual evidence.
that's scary.
Posted by: blahblah on 05/24/07 at 12:29 PM:
"men cannot be raped just sodemized."
In response the falsehood above I say respectfully:
This just isn't legally or factually true. I'm guessing you are just ignorant of the news, anatomy, and the law. Both women and men are charged every year in the US with raping and sodomizing men.
Maybe you missed all those cases involving female teachers being convicted of rape lately...
In the DeAnza case both the DA and the Sheriff are women.
At the end of the day the plain facts just don't show that there was a crime committed here and neither the DA nor the Sheriff dispute that.
What is in dispute are the FEELINGS Sheriff Smith that a crime was committed despite the total lack of evidence to support that there was a crime. To the person who thinks the DA should be recalled please note that the Grand Jury didn't think there was a crime committed either. So should the Grand Jury be recalled for failing to ask the DA to prosecute innocent people?
The Sheriff's desire is to prosecute innocent people based only upon her FEELING. Like Mike Nifong and his henchmen in the Durham Police Office Sheriff Smith is seems to be playing to the mob in this political (not crimminal) theater.
Much like Twana Brawley & her sister in spirit Crystal Magnum: DeAnza's accuser has shifting stories about her drunken party rampage. This is like the Salem Witch Trials. Innocent LOOKING young women making wild false claims wrecking people's lives. The Salem Witch Trials finally ended after the 3 teenage liars moved up the food chain and accused the Governor's wife of being a witch. Instantly the trials all ended but a lot of innocent people had been ruined or killed with the eager assistance of the courts and the police.
Mike Nifong made much the same mistake. He race baited and pandered to the PC crowd as he'd been doing his whole shoddy career. Fortunately for Lady Liberty though he finally picked on a set of victims that could fight back and end his reign of terror.
Having said all of this, other than the rants and strong FEELINGS no one has any factual evidence that any CRIME was actually committed as much as some of the Witch Hunters here would like.
i don't understand why everyone keeps referring to the duke case. different people, different circumstances. not to say guilty or not, i think most people who have written posts in here are very heated about the duke case. in my opinion the san jose mercury news may not qualify as a valid source for the "facts" and i doubt the two witnesses are making shit up, and the victim isn't credible because she was probably passed out half the party and doesn't remember not a thing. which would make the case hard to prosecute. that doesn't mean a crime has not been committed against a person. i wouldn't be surprised if the team took turns hopping on top of a passed out girl, what the hell would she remember, right? if those witnesses weren't there, there probably wouldn't be any accusation, just a bad hangover for a 17 year old girl.
Submitted by Kelly (not verified) on Thu May. 24, 2007 7:44 PM PDT.
"Shelley" clearly read my blog to ascertain that I am originally from the South. Her comments regarding the South are insulting. I am proud to be from the South, though I have lived in the North for the last 13 years. Being Southern does not equal being ignorant, intolerant or a vigilante and to imply otherwise does a disservice to those who live and work there. There are ignorant, intolerant, vigilante Southerners - just like there are ignorant, intolerant, vigilante mid-westerners, Northerners, etc. It accomplishes nothing to stereotype.
And I do have respect for the process. There are clearly two sides to this story. And clearly those two sides are odds. If it were truly one way or the other, there would be no controversy. I did actually read the accounts and it does appear that there was enough evidence to pursue an initial inquiry. And the fact that the Sheriff's department did not close the case also indicates that there was some level of concern about a crime having been committed - perhaps, as was suggested, statutory rape (I don't know the age and other limits in CA, but the victim in this case was 17). It was also the second allegation of violence at the house, which I am sure heightens suspicions. I didn't say rush to judgment, I didn't say hang 'em high, I said that we should seek justice.
And FYI, if Shelley actually did read my blog, she'd see that I blogged about the Duke story way back when - and from the beginning, I believed that it was an overzealous and inappropriate prosecution, though I did believe that it should be investigated, as any alleged crime would be. I agree with the poster who commented that these cases are distinguishable.
Misogynistic Rape apologists listen up:
1. "insufficient evidence" IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING "NO EVIDENCE". TWO EYE WITTNESSES ARE EVIDENCE. THE RAPE KIT IS EVIDENCE.
2. Women who get drunk and pass out don't deserve to be raped. Women are not your playthings to be brutalized and used whenever you see fit. Your views that its somehow her fault shows a deep level of man-hatred in you. You're basically saying that women shouldn't be around men because men will rape the any chance they get.
(but I bet because a female repeated what you said, it's suddenyl bigotry, right?)
3. SHE IS UNDERAGED. THAT IS RAPE.
4. Another young woman came forward and with the same story, from the same house, with some of the same players.
5. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO BE GAINED FROM MAKING A FALSE RAPE CONVICTION. NEXT TO NO WOMEN MAKE FALSE ACCUSATIONS.
6. FUCK YOU you pathetic, women-hating, rape apologist fuckheads. Die in a fire.
The end.
Hi nat,
It isn't just the Mercury News that says there is no evidence of a crime in the DeAnza case:
The Grand Jury & DA found these facts as well.
Despite what you think about the 2 "witnesses" the Grand Jury didn't seem to believe them & neither does the female Prosecutor. That's a rather damning assessment about the quality of their testimony isn't it?
Regardless of what you believe nat; people do make stuff up all the time. That's why before we put someone on trail for their liberty; we need to make sure we have real evidence and actual facts supporting the testimony of a few wild-eyed teenage drunkards.
To Renali in her screed just above: your point 3 misses the bar for California law. There are more factors to statutory rape than just ebing 17 in California but you neither know nor care. You would just like to make something up I guess.
Renali to your point #5 above:
According to the FBI 41% of all rape accusers later recant their accusations. Further in 75% of all eye witness rape suspect identifications there is NO DNA linkage to the suspect they've identified. Meaning mot of the accused are totally innocent but put on trial and convected anyway. If you don't like the facts call the FBI and make them change them to suit your points...
What this means is that most eye witnesses GET IT WRONG and it is public record. We also KNOW from the PUBLIC RECORD that 41% of all accusers RECANT their allegations of rape. Lots and lots of women every year make false rape charges and they up until lately have been getting away with it. Additionally most eye witnesses are wrong and lots and lots of innocent men convicted wrongly are being released from prison after DNA shows their innocence. However the hell they were put through can't be undone. It's time to put an end to these which hunts. If there is no evidence in a case (like there isn't in this one) then we just need to move on.
Also Renali I would say that false rape accusers (of which there are clearly a lot) feel that they have something to gain. Let's examine the list:
1) Attention
2) Control
3) Public absolution for acts they consented to but later felt bad about
4) Revenge
5) Embarrassment
In the case where a real actual rape occured I personally feel that the person(s) who did it should be locked away for a long long time. I feel that false rape accusers who also damage society and are very dangerous should be locked away for exactly as long as the maximum sentence that their false accusations would have cost an innocent person(s).
Finally Renaii your screed is typical of a someone who does not seem to care about facts just an agenda. I hope I'm wrong here but you really sound very gender biased and sexist. Isn't that exactly what you say you deplore?
Of course nothing I can say will stop the mob from throwing a dirty rope over a tree branch and lynching the innocent.
Hi nat,
It isn't just the Mercury News that says there is no evidence of a crime in the DeAnza case:
The Grand Jury & DA found these facts as well.
Despite what you think about the 2 "witnesses" the Grand Jury didn't seem to believe them & neither does the female Prosecutor. That's a rather damning assessment about the quality of their testimony isn't it?
Regardless of what you believe nat; people do make stuff up all the time. That's why before we put someone on trail for their liberty; we need to make sure we have real evidence and actual facts supporting the testimony of a few wild-eyed teenage drunkards.
To Renali in her screed just above: your point 3 misses the bar for California law. There are more factors to statutory rape than just ebing 17 in California but you neither know nor care. You would just like to make something up I guess.
Renali to your point #5 above:
According to the FBI 41% of all rape accusers later recant their accusations. Further in 75% of all eye witness rape suspect identifications there is NO DNA linkage to the suspect they've identified. Meaning mot of the accused are totally innocent but put on trial and convected anyway. If you don't like the facts call the FBI and make them change them to suit your points...
What this means is that most eye witnesses GET IT WRONG and it is public record. We also KNOW from the PUBLIC RECORD that 41% of all accusers RECANT their allegations of rape. Lots and lots of women every year make false rape charges and they up until lately have been getting away with it.
Additionally most eye witnesses are wrong and lots and lots of innocent men convicted wrongly are being released from prison after DNA shows their innocence. However the hell they were put through can't be undone. It's time to put an end to these which hunts. If there is no evidence in a case (like there isn't in this one) then we just need to move on.
Also Renali I would say that false rape accusers (of which there are clearly a lot) feel that they have something to gain. Let's examine the list:
1) Attention
2) Control
3) Public absolution for acts they consented to but later felt bad about
4) Revenge
5) Embarrassment
In the case where a real actual rape occured I personally feel that the person(s) who did it should be locked away for a long long time. I feel that false rape accusers who also damage society and are very dangerous should be locked away for exactly as long as the maximum sentence that their false accusations would have cost an innocent person(s).
Finally Renaii your screed is typical of a someone who does not seem to care about facts just an agenda. I hope I'm wrong here but you really sound very gender biased and sexist. Isn't that exactly what you say you deplore?
Of course nothing I can say will stop the mob from throwing a dirty rope over a tree branch and lynching the innocent.
Now, Ms. Renali, that is what I call a convincing argument! I am sure everyone will immediately agree with you, and we will all be running around lynching every man against whom an accusation of rape has been made, no matter how ridiculous! Reading your message one gets this fear that the kids in this case are being framed by dishonest accusers with some crazy agenda. I am not saying that this is actually the case; it is just a natural reaction to your post. So let us stick with the due process - and keep people like you off the jury.
OK, rape apologists here: Give me YOUR description of a case where you would believe the victim, or at least think the case deserved to go to trial. Let me guess: It would involve a nun as victim, about ten witnesses, and a black man as rapist. Sound about right? If a rape case with FOUR witnesses, physical evidence, a victim both too young to consent and too drunk to consent isn't credible, what case is? Or should we just go ahead and legalize rape, since it hardly ever gets even reported, let alone prosecuted, because of attitudes like those many of you here have displayed? And keep in mind that we're not even talking about finding the men guilty -- we're simply talking about enough reason to BRING THE CASE TO TRIAL, which requires a lot less evidence than what's necessary for conviction, and many here seem to think that going to trial is the same thing as a guilty verdict, which it ABSOLUTELY IS NOT. And, might I add, there were THREE eyewitnesses -- one is traveling in Europe right now, which is why she hasn't been interviewed in the media. There's also a fourth witness who didn't see as much, the one who alerted the three soccer players to what was going on in the room. (But I'm guessing from the ignorant comments here that most of you haven't read too much about this case. You just think that all women lie about rape.)
And finally, as a rape survivor myself, I find it incredibly disgusting and insensitive that some here would insinuate that because she was drunk she was "asking for it." How many of you have ever been drunk? If you have, then by your own set of beliefs you deserve to be raped. (Note that this isn't what I think -- this is what YOU think if you judge this girl for being drunk.) If any of you had even the slightest clue of the HELL that I've gone through in the last five years since being raped, I think you would think twice before insinuating that a woman can "deserve" rape simply for being drunk. It's such a hideous, horrendous experience that I don't even think rapists deserve to be raped. Yet many of you so-called liberals believe she had it coming simply because she was drunk (and let's think about that -- men drink all the time and don't expect to be raped. Why, then, do we think women deserve to be raped when they're drunk?) How is being drunk such an affront to humanity that the punishment for female drinking should be rape? I mean, really, is seeing a drunk person in your midst at a party such a travesty that we immediately need to rape that person? A drunk female isn't harming anybody. So stop with the bullshit about how she should have been "more responsible." I would expect better from progressives, but then again, it is their misogyny that caused the feminist movement to begin with.
And finally, for those of you who seem to think the DA is some all-knowing deity who SURELY made the right decision (cuz we all know politicians always make the right decisions, especially our alleged president who's killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein) just remember that many other authorities in Santa Clara County disagree with her decision:
"This was unexpected," said sheriff's Cmdr. John Hirokawa, "and we are disappointed with the decision not to file any charges that were reflected in the report. Let me say this, we believe there is enough information warranted to carry the case forward."
We will let 100 guilty men go free before we convict one innocent man. Too bad to all you Fascists out there, but we are a country of laws and process, not of men. We don't try cases in the press. You do not have all the facts that the DA has and you never will have, if the case doesn't go to trial. If you do not agree with the judgment of the DA, like any elected official, you can recall her or vote her out of office at the next election. This Fascist lynch mob mentality is appalling. We are a civilized country with laws and the all important "process". I know the feeling of seeing perceived injustices(e.g. OJ walked) but that is just the price we pay for our Democracy. It is the best system that humans, with all their faults, have come up with. We are not yet the Islamic Republic with their rule of law and system of justice.
Submitted by JT Barrie (not verified) on Sat May. 26, 2007 6:53 AM PDT.
Did I miss something? The article states: a seventeen year old girl. Is the age of consent in California not 18? It was when I had a roommate from California in the early 70s and I don't believe that social currents would be more liberal today. An underage slut is still "jail bait" - drunk, drugged or as sober as a Mormon.
I disagree with the age of majority [should be 16 for drugs and sexual decisions] and the use of drugs as an excuse for irresponsible behavior. Getting drunk is not a legal excuse for stupid acts or illegal ones. You get drunk and sign a contract you are still liable although most large contracts have a waiting period when either party can back out [maybe in testament to the fact that most large business and diplomatic agreements are made under the influence].
Clearly the underage minor had at least one sexual partner in this debacle. The partner was most likely someone over the age of consent constituting "statutory rape". It can just as easily be considered sexual abuse of a minor. Maybe the problem had to do with identification of the perpetrator?
Many of you Christian Right wingers are judgmental about a person's sexual desires. Who appointed you to be our judge. Some women like to have sex with a number of men at once. Unless you have tried it, you should not be judgmental. In France, 16 is the age of consent. Only in Christian Right wing America is it 18. I can see that many of the posts are from these Christian Right wing Americans that are probably afraid to experiment in sexual matters and want to dictate to the rest of us. It wasn't long ago that gays were persecuted for their sexual tastes as well. Sex is beautiful with a number of men at once, I found it to be very fulfilling. I understand that some of you Christian Right wingers can't believe this, but this is the 21st century and we are not a Christian nation, but a secular nation. You have no right to tell us what we can't do in sexual matters. Same on you all.
I can't believe how many people are willing to blame the victim here. so, she shouldn't have been drunk at a party... is being gang raped a fit punishment for that? there are NO rape-worthy offenses.
why do we only talk about educating young women that the world is unsafe instead of educating young men to have respect for women? Men, you should hold each other accountable for this type of behavior
"I am sure everyone will immediately agree with you, and we will all be running around lynching every man against whom an accusation of rape has been made, no matter how ridiculous! Reading your message one gets this fear that the kids in this case are being framed by dishonest accusers with some crazy agenda. I am not saying that this is actually the case; it is just a natural reaction to your post. So let us stick with the due process - and keep people like you off the jury."
The natural reaction to your post is a yawn, because it's the same tired anti-feminist and overtly misogynistic nonsense I expect from rape apologists. Hyperbole doesn't make a convicing arguement. I was pointing out the digsuting anti-woman nonsense in the rape apologist posts above mine and you turned it into the "femnazis are coming to kill all males!!" I said nothing about harming anyone accused of rape -but that's a very special fantasy life you've got going there. Now, feel free to stop playing the "if you don't agree with me you're facists" game. It's another yawner.
There is nothing ridiculous about this accusation. Three wittnesses, an underaged, intoxicated girl having to be carried out the house where another woman has already come forward to make the same accusation- seems pretty cut and dry to me. Why would the cowards hold the door shut if they weren't doing anything wrong? Why were they so quickly trying to get away after the door was broken down? Why did they make it a point to proclaim it the girl's fault for getting drunk? These are the behaviors of innocent people to you?
Lame rape apologetics aside - does it bother anyone else that the main accusation being tossed at the girl is "what was she doing getting drunk at a college party with boys?" It implies two things - that males are all rapists that will attack a female at any time given the opportunity, and that women should expect to be raped. That's a frightfully low opinion of males, and yet the rape apologists have decided *I* must hate men. Interesting self-delusion.
Betty - "rochelle" 's post is just another exercise in pornified rape apologetics. No one here is talking about consensual group sex - we're talking about gang rape. Only a man would confuse the two - or pretend too in order to erase rape. Rape is funny to males (see opie and anthony), unless the subject of false accusations comes up and then they're all so concerned with "justice". Because if a man is convicted and sent to prison he might be raped!!! And that's a terrible, horrible, violent crime . . . when it happens to men.
When it happens to women and girls, it's funny and/or sexually arousing.
The victim here was drunk to the point of being comatose and underaged. Under CA law, she couldn't consent when even just one of those two factors were true.
SPQR_US, you seem smart enough, so I'll try engaging you as if you are. it's sort of depressing (in a "too bad for humanity" kinda way) to see assumptions on all parties. I'm curious though: what parts of this story are you trying to refute? that the girl was 17? drunk to the point of vomiting on herself? barely conscious? that intercourse occurred? do you consider any of these to be "facts"?
would you say that any laws have been broken?
Not surprising that the rightwingnuts are defending the rapists. All white rightwingnuts are rapists. They just usually don't have the equipment to do it physically, so they resort to raping psychologically, economically, and socially, and then blame the victims.
There were three highly credible witnesses, willing to put themselves on the line. There were hospital records. There was plenty of identification of the rapists. But there was also one of those whore "attorneys" more interested in paychecks and promotions than in justice or protection of the innocent, so the older rich boys go free, and the poor kid who had no idea what she was getting into is made out to be a slut and a liar.
Here's hoping all of you defending the rapists get dragged into a dark alley and have a filthy something shoved up YOUR hole. You obviously DESERVED it, being out in the dark like that.
Then you'll see just how many "innocent" people go free. Excuse you, before opening your ignorant yap, try reading some ACTUAL FACTS sometime about how many innocent people have been EXECUTED.
"All WHITE rightwingnuts are rapists." This is a racist statement. In the south, they use to say that Black men were raptists according to the FBI stats, especially of white women who have an unrealistic fear of Black maleness, at least based upon my personal experience.
