# Sex Assault Victim Faces Charges for Tweeting Names of Attackers



## Darth inVaders (Jul 22, 2012)

> *Savannah Dietrich, 17-Year-Old Sexual Assault Victim, Faces Charge For Naming Attackers*
> 
> 07/21/12 03:56 PM ET AP
> 
> ...


source: 

Victim gets victimized again - those defense attorneys need their asses kicked, the judge too if he dares to spit in justice's name and re-victimize her in any way, shape, or form such as this


----------



## Tiger (Jul 22, 2012)

> The contempt charge carries a possible sentence of 180 days in jail and a $500 fine.
> -snip-
> Dietrich said she just needed to stand up for herself. "I'm at the point that if I have to go to jail for my rights, I will do it."



*Good for her*. It's worth it, and kudos to her parents for wanting her case made public. The outcry for her will be outstanding.

The judge may have no choice but to hold her in contempt, but he/she also is made to look like a tool for letting it come to this.

Gag orders like this should not exist. It seems like every week the Justice System in that country is shown to be a joke.


----------



## Spock (Jul 22, 2012)

What the actual fuck ? Update the law.


----------



## Mael (Jul 22, 2012)

That has got to be pure retardation right there.  The charge will likely be dismissed and the rule updated though.


----------



## Bishop (Jul 22, 2012)

I careless about the rule; it saddens me that two boys can rape a girl, take pictures of the act, share the pictures, and get a plea deal. THEN, have nerve to go on the offensive after the girl they raped. 

In the future of this thread, someone may say that's what she gets for being a dumbass and passing out drunk at a party; my response is that of the fact that, although this may be true she made a dumb move, rape shouldn't have been the consequence.


----------



## Soca (Jul 22, 2012)

dafuq


----------



## Meia (Jul 22, 2012)

This is the most retarded thing I have heard in a long time .


----------



## ShadowReij (Jul 22, 2012)

Sense this does not make.


----------



## Gunners (Jul 22, 2012)

Decision is understandable.


----------



## Skywalker (Jul 22, 2012)

That's pretty fucking stupid.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jul 22, 2012)

This judge will be toast if she does anything to the victim. Rapists shouldn't get to enjoy anonymity even if they are under 18.


----------



## Gunners (Jul 22, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> This judge will be toast if she does anything to the victim. Rapists shouldn't get to enjoy anonymity even if they are under 18.



Why will the Judge be toast? It really fucks me off when people place the blame on the wrong people.


----------



## Bishop (Jul 22, 2012)

Gunners said:


> Why will the Judge be toast? *It really fucks me off* when people place the blame on the wrong people.



I don't mean to be a prude, but else fucks you off baby?


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jul 22, 2012)

Gunners said:


> Why will the Judge be toast? It really fucks me off when people place the blame on the wrong people.



Because in this country, judges tend not to like publicity. Especially if this judge is elected, which some are. 

People universally will not accept this concept of punishing a rape victim for naming her attackers. There are already petitions calling for her ouster.


----------



## Wilykat (Jul 22, 2012)

Anyone get the name of the 2 rapists?  post em everywhere and since we're not part of the case, we won't be subject to court order at all.


----------



## SaskeKun (Jul 22, 2012)




----------



## Gunners (Jul 22, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Because in this country, judges tend not to like publicity. Especially if this judge is elected, which some are.
> 
> People universally will not accept this concept of punishing a rape victim for naming her attackers. There are already petitions calling for her ouster.


And how is that the Judge's fault? If people don't like the concept of punishing rape victims for naming their attackers complain to the legislators.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jul 22, 2012)

Gunners said:


> And how is that the Judge's fault? If people don't like the concept of punishing rape victims for naming their attackers complain to the legislators.



Contempt of court in this country is based on judicial discretion. The judge can decide to use common sense and dismiss any penalty, or she can enforce a penalty and get people up in arms to see her downfall. This is a community in Kentucky, I wouldn't bet on this judge lasting another year if she punishes the victim. 

The legislatures have little to do with this case as judges are given leeway in instances like this for good reason. That's why good judges are important, because they have so much discretion.


----------



## Kamuto (Jul 22, 2012)

What the hell is Happening to the world?! Don't people know that there's one law that's above all and that's common sense?!!


----------



## impersonal (Jul 22, 2012)

Darth inVaders said:


> source:
> 
> Victim gets victimized again - those defense attorneys need their asses kicked, the judge too if he dares to spit in justice's name and re-victimize her in any way, shape, or form such as this



Just because she was a rape victim doesn't mean she's allowed to do anything she wants. Now I don't know about the specifics -- how "easy" they got off with it etc. But that doesn't grant her the right to do justice herself. 

You can argue that banning her for publishing her attackers' names is excessive. It is my impression that it is standard procedure to not publish the names of minor criminals, though I'm not sure. But if she has a problem with it, she has other ways to fight it than by disrespecting the law.

Now she's broken the law. She's going to get punished. She's not being "victimized". She brought that on herself.

Hopefully the attenuating circumstances (her age, the whole situation) will be taken into account when condemning her.


----------



## Gunners (Jul 22, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Contempt of court in this country is based on judicial discretion. The judge can decide to use common sense and dismiss any penalty, or she can enforce a penalty and get people up in arms to see her downfall. This is a community in Kentucky, I wouldn't bet on this judge lasting another year if she punishes the victim.


There is not much room for discretion when her actions blatantly undermine the court's direction. And I'd hope that a Judge would be experienced enough not to make his/her decision based on the knee jerk reactions of the community. 



> The legislatures have little to do with this case as judges are given leeway in instances like this for good reason. That's why good judges are important, because they have so much discretion.


No the legislators do have everything to do with this case. The law is responsible for the anonymity of minors regarding criminal offences, the courts have a responsibility to uphold that law.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jul 22, 2012)

Gunners said:


> There is not much room for discretion when her actions blatantly undermine the court's direction. And I'd hope that a Judge would be experienced enough not to make his/her decision based on the knee jerk reactions of the community.



The court's direction is seen by many as enabling a rapist to get away anonymously. Hence the outrage. Think about it. She's got a nice, comfy job as a lower level juvenile court judge. She has nice social circles and job security. Those will all dry up as people put a target on her if she punishes the victim. This isn't a Supreme Court justice appointed for life, it's a lower state court official no one will miss. 



> No the legislators do have everything to do with this case. The law is responsible for the anonymity of minors regarding criminal offences, the courts have a responsibility to uphold that law.



Contempt of court isn't what you'd call a normal law with strict guidelines. It's a very loose law that gives full discretion to the judge. She's well within her rights as a judge to dismiss contempt or let the victim off with a warning. There's no law that says she must be punished with x,y and z for disclosing the names of the rapists.


----------



## AuxunauxiaNoname (Jul 22, 2012)

Is there no way to rectify past damages? A monetary compensation, a trinket, a promise of forever after? What do women expect of men right? Always be nice to each other, and if you truly feel your honor is not at stake, then tell it to the court of public opinion. What are these men afraid of anyway, that they'll be accused of being "gay"? Can you face your fears by speaking out? Isn't that what America is suppose to stand for?


----------



## Bishop (Jul 22, 2012)

AuxunauxiaNoname said:


> Is there no way to rectify past damages? A monetary compensation, a trinket, a promise of forever after? What do women expect of men right? Always be nice to each other, and if you truly feel your honor is not at stake, then tell it to the court of public opinion. What are these men afraid of anyway, that they'll be accused of being "gay"? Can you face your fears by speaking out? Isn't that what America is suppose to stand for?



I see your point vividly. So does an employer. Little Johnny and Bill are bad men for sexually abusing that girl, VERY BAD MEN! So bad that 5 years later, after college, when they apply for a job they won't be hired. Well why? A simple search on a certain search engine will pull up all the dirt on anyone (costs only $20 bucks now). Of course, we've all done a little harm here or there- a little smoking, some speeding and possibly a DUI- but sexual abuse?! Well, that's like rape right? Who wants rapists working in their organization? Not me, and really, not anyone.

Let's not be linear minded here, a victim can also be mischievous; very few people are permitted to disregard the law simply because they were done wrong, which she was, but let us admit, she's not rich, nor famous.


----------



## Mithos (Jul 22, 2012)

Way to go American "Justice" System 

And shame on the few posters here supporting her punishment because she broke the law. Not all laws are reasonable. This is completely unreasonable and to punish her for naming her attackers is downright draconian.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Jul 22, 2012)

Would anyone care if she was ugly?


----------



## Bishop (Jul 22, 2012)

Unlosing Ranger said:


> Would anyone care if she was ugly?



No. Neither would we care if she were black or hispanic, now keep it on topic.


----------



## T7 Bateman (Jul 22, 2012)

You shouldn't get to rape someone and get upset if people know you a rapist. Wish we know what they would be looking at with the sentence but not surprised if it is a slap on the wrist. You don't rape someone take pics of it share it like you some big man and then get upset when your name is put out to for the crime you did. They didn't have problems sharing the photos.


----------



## Nihonjin (Jul 22, 2012)

*Girl gets raped*
*Order her to shut the fuck up about it*
*If she doesn't, fine her and send her ass to jail*

Yet you have some people going.. "Yeah, that sounds about fair.."

Seriously, they should have their fucking brains examined,.. You can't lack this much sense and still be allowed to make decisions that affect other people's lives..


----------



## Bishop (Jul 22, 2012)

T7 Bateman said:


> You shouldn't get to rape someone and get upset if people know you a rapist. Wish we know what they would be looking at with the sentence but not surprised if it is a slap on the wrist. You don't rape someone take pics of it share it like you some big man and then get upset when your name is put out to for the crime you did.



Why of course you can, you're being absurd. This is America we're talking about; a place where people are too incompetent to be responsible for their own actions so they blame their misfortunes on everyone else and rely on the government for their well-being. In this case, these two boys are doing nothing out of the ordinary by simply justifying what they did to feel good; in America everyone can justify everything no matter how bad it was, and shame on you if you try to implant values and principles which circumvents grey areas and structures logic over emotion. 

These two boys sexually abused this girl, and will be damned if they won't be able to laugh about it over drinks many years from now. The law told her to keep her trap shut and she decided to break it. Now, of course (like a true American) she has a great justification, and she uses it to gain the mass of illogical, overly emotional observers to her side- but, this time, the law is on the other side.


----------



## eHav (Jul 22, 2012)

so she only learned their names after being told not to tell anyone about it?


----------



## Cthulhu-versailles (Jul 22, 2012)

impersonal said:


> Just because she was a rape victim doesn't mean she's allowed to do anything she wants. Now I don't know about the specifics -- how "easy" they got off with it etc. But that doesn't grant her the right to do justice herself.



She wasn't trying to do anything she wants. She didn't physically or mentally attack the rapists. All she did was give them back a modicum of the mental anguish she experienced by being violated. She was violated, and now it's their turn to be violated by an unforgiving public. 



impersonal said:


> You can argue that banning her for publishing her attackers' names is excessive. It is my impression that it is standard procedure to not publish the names of minor criminals, though I'm not sure. But if she has a problem with it, she has other ways to fight it than by disrespecting the law.



No, I'd rather argue the anguish of having been raped led her to commit a petty crime on the level of shop lifting, but that's upheld as some big grievance because it violates "Daddy Court procedures". 



impersonal said:


> Now she's broken the law. She's going to get punished. She's not being "victimized". She brought that on herself.
> 
> Hopefully the attenuating circumstances (her age, the whole situation) will be taken into account when condemning her.



They most likely won't. The rules and order you cling to so much (without even caring for the specifics) contort with but the easiest gesture. Young men run rampant, beating, raping, and killing at in their "tender youth" and at the age of 21 are totally set free by the juvenile system with sealed records. That is no kind of justice. The victim should be allowed to take from their wages for life in addition to shaming them for as long as they serve in prison. 

let her do what she wants. everything burns...

ps: incidentally, i think your response was pretty rational. however, i don't like the smell of this. why plea when they had pictures? pathetic. still, not sure what to think as i'm pretty pro-rehab in general...


----------



## Rashou (Jul 22, 2012)

Was it rape? All rapes are sexual assaults, but not all sexual assaults are rapes. Granted, this varies by district, and I'm not familiar with the classification in Kentucky. Don't get me wrong; I don't mean to belittle her ordeal or somehow suggest that "No penetration? No problem!", but the degree of her assault makes a difference as to how this should have been handled. If this was two dumbass kids at a party stripping a girl and taking pictures of her, it's still a heinous act, but it's hardly going to evoke the same feelings as a pure-ID rapist who forces himself onto a woman. 

Either way, the victim should be given leniency given her emotional state (I hope she brings a civil suit forth for infliction of emotional distress), but at the same time, we shouldn't just condone breaking the law- she should have tried to use the system _before_ breaking the court order.


----------



## josh101 (Jul 22, 2012)

So if these boys took pictures of the sexual assault and spread them out isn't that production and distribution of child pornography? The victim was only 17 years old right? I guess maybe the victims didn't involve nudity, but they were charged for voyeurism right? I thought that had to include nudity.


----------



## Karsh (Jul 22, 2012)

The punishment is worth every minute as long as those wastes of oxygen get all the contempt from the world that they deserve


----------



## Yachiru (Jul 22, 2012)

Unless we hear the boys' side, I consider this case flawed - how did the girl find out the boys' details, respectively their names? It sounds a lot like she knew those two. Secondly, why would the boys take pictures of a rape? It's disgusting and a rapist doesn't want any kind of attention to his case. 

These two questions make one believe that the girl was willing, but tried to mask it as rape when she found out about the pictures as a way to divert from her humiliation. Not seldomly do you hear of cases of women crying "rape! rape!" as a way to get revenge.

The prosecutor probably dismissed her case because it was weak; why would any sane person dismiss a rape case this lightly unless there was significant doubt?


----------



## drache (Jul 22, 2012)

unforunately the judge's hands might be tied in this but good for her


----------



## soulnova (Jul 22, 2012)

Yachiru said:


> Unless we hear the boys' side, I consider this case flawed - how did the girl find out the boys' details, respectively their names? It sounds a lot like she knew those two. Secondly, *why would the boys take pictures of a rape?* It's disgusting and a rapist doesn't want any kind of attention to his case.
> 
> These two questions make one believe that the girl was willing, but tried to mask it as rape when she found out about the pictures as a way to divert from her humiliation. Not seldomly do you hear of cases of women crying "rape! rape!" as a way to get revenge.
> 
> The prosecutor probably dismissed her case because it was weak; *why would any sane person dismiss a rape case this lightly unless there was significant doubt?*




Because, they are stupid.


----------



## Terra Branford (Jul 22, 2012)

Wish I knew the names of the attackers. I have a feeling these sick bastards will claim another victim sometime in their life.

If it was me, I would do the same thing. **



> Unless we hear the boys' side, I consider this case flawed - how did the girl find out the boys' details, respectively their names? It sounds a lot like she knew those two. Secondly, why would the boys take pictures of a rape? *It's disgusting and a rapist doesn't want any kind of attention to his case.*



She probably did know them. How does that make this suspicious? Rapists/SAers can be people you know. They could have been boys at her school. Lastly, she most likely found their names out, if she didn't know them, because of the trial and sentencing.

@thebolded:

Rape/SA is disgusting, yet they did that anyway. And rapists/SAers and killers have taken pictures of their crime before because of two reasons 1) they are stupid 2) because they are sick fuckers.


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Jul 22, 2012)

T7 Bateman said:


> You shouldn't get to rape someone and get upset if people know you a rapist. Wish we know what they would be looking at with the sentence but not surprised if it is a slap on the wrist. You don't rape someone take pics of it share it like you some big man and then get upset when your name is put out to for the crime you did. They didn't have problems sharing the photos.



This. 

What assholes.


----------



## Terra Branford (Jul 23, 2012)

I checked all my local stations just in case they talked about the names/attackers after the tweet. Found nothing.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 23, 2012)

All we have here is the girl's word for it that they got off with a slap on the wrist, which all of you seem to readily believe for no reason.

It's not even clear if she was raped at all. Again, we only have her word for it and neither the media nor the court seems to believe that, hence they refer to it as sexual abuse, sexual assault, or molestation, not rape.


----------



## ninjaneko (Jul 23, 2012)

> Dietrich says she was unaware of a plea agreement until just before it was announced in court.


 You'd think a lawyer would discuss the possibility of a plea bargain with his client and whether they want to go that route or not beforehand...?


----------



## Spirit (Jul 23, 2012)

Yachiru said:


> Unless we hear the boys' side, I consider this case flawed -



If you read the article, it says the boys pleaded guilty:
*The boys pleaded guilty* on June 26 to first-degree sexual abuse and misdemeanor voyeurism.



Yachiru said:


> how did the girl find out the boys' details, respectively their names? It sounds a lot like she knew those two.



What if she does? If she knows them, they cannot rape her?



Yachiru said:


> Secondly, why would the boys take pictures of a rape?



Because some people think it's cool, it's a trophy,it's evident you sexed a hot babe, it's a tool to force victim to shut up.



Yachiru said:


> It's disgusting and a rapist doesn't want any kind of attention to his case.



You really think a *rapist* had a proper train of thought?



Yachiru said:


> These two questions make one believe that the girl was willing, but tried to mask it as rape when she found out about the pictures as a way to divert from her humiliation. Not seldomly do you hear of cases of women crying "rape! rape!" as a way to get revenge.



No. The case is pretty much what it is. What's being discussed here is the underage victim telling the public the names of the underage rapists.



Yachiru said:


> The prosecutor probably dismissed her case because it was weak; why would any sane person dismiss a rape case this lightly unless there was significant doubt?



???


----------



## drache (Jul 23, 2012)

Yachiru said:


> Unless we hear the boys' side, I consider this case flawed - how did the girl find out the boys' details, respectively their names? It sounds a lot like she knew those two. Secondly, why would the boys take pictures of a rape? It's disgusting and a rapist doesn't want any kind of attention to his case.
> 
> These two questions make one believe that the girl was willing, but tried to mask it as rape when she found out about the pictures as a way to divert from her humiliation. Not seldomly do you hear of cases of women crying "rape! rape!" as a way to get revenge.
> 
> The prosecutor probably dismissed her case because it was weak; why would any sane person dismiss a rape case this lightly unless there was significant doubt?



you realize something like half of all rapes are commited by someone known to the victim?


----------



## Rashou (Jul 23, 2012)

ninjaneko said:


> You'd think a lawyer would discuss the possibility of a plea bargain with his client and whether they want to go that route or not beforehand...?


They're talking about the girl, who was the victim. She wouldn't require a lawyer and would not be apart of the discussion between the defense counsel for these boys and the prosecution.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 23, 2012)

ninjaneko said:


> You'd think a lawyer would discuss the possibility of a plea bargain with his client and whether they want to go that route or not beforehand...?



She's the victim, she doesn't decide anything as far as sentences or plea bargains go.


----------



## AmigoOne (Jul 23, 2012)

lol what is this

first degree sexual assault = rapist.

Am I missing something here?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 23, 2012)

AmigoOne said:


> lol what is this
> 
> first degree sexual assault = rapist.
> 
> Am I missing something here?



It was first degree sexual abuse, not assault. 

If they had sex with her while she was out, it would've been first degree rape.


----------



## Hwon (Jul 23, 2012)

So these evil rapist get off easy and protected by an evil judge placing a gag order while she is the heroine who refuses to be silenced about naming those who assaulted her.  This story can totally be taken at face value and people should immediately without hesitation condemn the attackers, the judge, the system, etc... and most importantly spread and re-post this story as much as possible to inform others and consequently increasing site traffic to the media outlets reporting it. 

Sarcasm aside I am not trying to diminish sexual assault on women or anything like that, but lets face it this story seems to have everything going against this girl, which should immediately make one suspicious as to whether it has just been slanted that way to make it a graver injustice than it perhaps might be.  

First, a gag order for the accused wouldn't be set unless they were minors who have committed a first time or less egregious offense.  It is a hint that the crime isn't as vicious as it may seem.  Second, the story says she is 17, but it also says the assault was in Aug. 2011 making her presumably 16 at the time.  This is important because many state laws are more sensitive as to what constitutes a first-degree sexual assault when dealing with victims 16 or younger especially when pictures are involved.  This and the voyeurism charge is another hint that they could have done something along the lines of touch her, expose her, and/or something masturbatory on or near her.  Finally, she is a teenager who was publicly humiliated by the pictures being shared while her attacker's privacy gets protected by the gag order ultimately denying any retribution as they wouldn't face the same level of humiliation she did.  So what does a teenager do?  She tweets their names.

It just sounds more in character with a 16-17 not unattractive girl who is popular enough to go to parties with alcohol and to have twitter followers.


----------



## SammyTehDuckie (Jul 23, 2012)

Ah, just a note, *first degree* sexual abuse is not rape.
It means they probably fondled her or whacked off on her while she was passed out.
This doesn't make the case any less serious, just, she wasn't raped.
She was violated in a sexual matter.


----------



## Roman (Jul 23, 2012)

SammyTehDuckie said:


> Ah, just a note, *first degree* sexual abuse is not rape.
> It means they probably fondled her or whacked off on her while she was passed out.
> This doesn't make the case any less serious, just, she wasn't raped.
> She was violated in a sexual matter.



To me, this doesn't change anything. They didn't rape her, but they still abused her in a sexual manner, and this isn't something that should be taken so lightly that they perpetrators should be let off scot-free just because they took a plea deal.



Gunners said:


> Why will the Judge be toast? It really fucks me off when people place the blame on the wrong people.



The judge should be toast because she placed a gag order on everyone involved while the abusers were let off with a slap on the wrist. The entire situation was made to look as if it never happened, essentially. How is the victim supposed to pretend nothing happened when pictures of her were passed around? She was violated but the system will pretend that she wasn't simply because the abusers accepted a plea deal.

This is why I don't agree without plea bargaining is approached. The crime is made to be less than what it is if the criminals can offer something to the system. It disgusts me.


----------



## SammyTehDuckie (Jul 23, 2012)

Freedan said:


> To me, this doesn't change anything. They didn't rape her, but they still abused her in a sexual manner, and this isn't something that should be taken so lightly that they perpetrators should be let off scot-free just because they took a plea deal.



Absolutely! I agree. I was simply just correcting some people.


----------



## Roman (Jul 23, 2012)

SammyTehDuckie said:


> Absolutely! I agree. I was simply just correcting some people.



You're not the first, but some people used your same argument before to make their crime seem less than what it actually is.


----------



## SammyTehDuckie (Jul 23, 2012)

Freedan said:


> You're not the first, but some people used your same argument before to make their crime seem less than what it actually is.



I saw some people question, but not actually sure of it.
Sexual crimes should be taken very seriously. All on counts and all genders.


----------



## strongarm85 (Jul 23, 2012)

ninjaneko said:


> You'd think a lawyer would discuss the possibility of a plea bargain with his client and whether they want to go that route or not beforehand...?



The Lawyer representing the victim was most likely the city's prosecuting attorney.

That being the case, the prosecuting attorney is in the employment of the city, and has no obligation to protect the interest of the victims of any crimes.


----------



## strongarm85 (Jul 23, 2012)

Yachiru said:


> Unless we hear the boys' side, I consider this case flawed - how did the girl find out the boys' details, respectively their names? It sounds a lot like she knew those two. Secondly, why would the boys take pictures of a rape? It's disgusting and a rapist doesn't want any kind of attention to his case.
> 
> These two questions make one believe that the girl was willing, but tried to mask it as rape when she found out about the pictures as a way to divert from her humiliation. Not seldomly do you hear of cases of women crying "rape! rape!" as a way to get revenge.
> 
> The prosecutor probably dismissed her case because it was weak; why would any sane person dismiss a rape case this lightly unless there was significant doubt?



I love pointing things like this out!

Everything you just said is wrong.

The boys plead guilty to first degree sexual assault. The guilt or innocence of the boys is not in question. They have admitted their guilt.


----------



## dummy plug (Jul 23, 2012)

man that sucks, they cant be named because they are 17...if they turned 18 would these rapists be fair game?


----------



## Roman (Jul 23, 2012)

dummy plug said:


> man that sucks, they cant be named because they are 17...if they turned 18 would these rapists be fair game?



Probably not, even if they were 16 but the case was made public after they turned 18


----------



## Jake CENA (Jul 23, 2012)

Law: its the most retarted thing on the planet.


----------



## impersonal (Jul 23, 2012)

Cthulhu-versailles said:


> She wasn't trying to do anything she wants. She didn't physically or mentally attack the rapists. All she did was give them back a modicum of the mental anguish she experienced by being violated. She was violated, and now it's their turn to be violated by an unforgiving public.


It's my impression that they have been condemned already. They have been judged and condemned. And then this girl decided _"it's not enough, so I'm going to add something else on top"._ And she doesn't understand why the judge won't let her.



Cthulhu-versailles said:


> No, I'd rather argue the anguish of having been raped led her to commit a petty crime on the level of shop lifting, but that's upheld as some big grievance because it violates "Daddy Court procedures".


That's ridiculous. The whole point of keeping the attackers' names hidden is to give them a second chance. Now whenever they look for a job, their future employers, now and anytime in the future, will find out that at one point they were convicted rapists. This could destroy their lives. This is not _"on the level of shop lifting"_.

So, sure, you're going to tell me "they should have thought about this before committing a crime". However, they got convicted and they'll most likely serve a sentence of some sort, that was deemed comparable to their crime. I don't know how lengthy, but the point is: they're already getting punished. Then the victim decided that it wasn't enough, and that she'd inflict the extra punishment _herself_. That is not tolerable in any country based on the rule of law. She had legal means to try and do the same; she should have used them.



Cthulhu-versailles said:


> They most likely won't. The rules and order you cling to so much (without even caring for the specifics) contort with but the easiest gesture.


You don't know much about the specifics either, because they are _not given in the article_.



Cthulhu-versailles said:


> Young men run rampant, beating, raping, and killing at in their "tender youth" and at the age of 21 are totally set free by the juvenile system with sealed records. That is no kind of justice. The victim should be allowed to take from their wages for life in addition to shaming them for as long as they serve in prison.


Young men usually run upstraight; only babies and the elderly run rampant... But after reading this, I'm not sure whether you were serious in the rest of  the post. Was it all sarcasm?


----------



## impersonal (Jul 23, 2012)

strongarm85 said:


> I love pointing things like this out!
> 
> Everything you just said is wrong.
> 
> The boys plead guilty to first degree sexual assault. The guilt or innocence of the boys is not in question. They have admitted their guilt.


Here's what a plea deal sounds like:
"Here's the deal: either (a) you try to prove your innocence; you can either get off free, or take 25 years to life. Or (b) you admit guilt in a plea deal; you take 5 years." Many innocents will take the 5 years. Plea deals do not prove anything; they're just an economical way to deliver pseudo-justice.

That said, there is no reason to particularly doubt this particular plea deal, as far as I know. I'm just annoyed at the fact that people take plea deals as admissions of guilt. Plea deals are very similar to torture or at the very least the threat of torture: _"either you admit guilt, or we'll make you suffer much more."_



			
				Freedan said:
			
		

> To me, this doesn't change anything. They didn't rape her, but they still abused her in a sexual manner, and this isn't something that should be taken so lightly that they perpetrators should be let off *scot-free* just because they took a plea deal.


How do you know?


----------



## Roman (Jul 23, 2012)

impersonal said:


> Here's what a plea deal sounds like:
> "Here's the deal: either (a) you try to prove your innocence; you can either get off free, or take 25 years to life. Or (b) you admit guilt in a plea deal; you take 5 years." Many innocents will take the 5 years. Plea deals do not prove anything; they're just an economical way to deliver pseudo-justice.
> 
> That said, there is no reason to particularly doubt this particular plea deal, as far as I know. I'm just annoyed at the fact that people take plea deals as admissions of guilt. Plea deals are very similar to torture or at the very least the threat of torture: _"either you admit guilt, or we'll make you suffer much more."_



Not torture. A more appropriate term would be black-mailing, and most people would admit to their crime just to get a lesser sentence. And that's how rapists are let off after a few years only to do it again more often than not. It's that, or innocent people are the ones sent off to prison due to false testimony during the plea bargaining.

You're making it sound as if not taking the plea deal means they should get more than they deserve when it's really a situation of them getting less than they deserve if they do take it.



impersonal said:


> How do you know?



Refer to the above. They get less than what they should because the system allows for such a thing to happen.



			
				Gunners said:
			
		

> Ignorance



Would you be willing to point out exactly what I said is ignorant or are you just gonna leave it at a neg-rep and not bother to explain?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 23, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Refer to the above. They get less than what they should because the system allows for such a thing to happen.



And why do you feel the need to label "less than what they should get" as "scot-free" instead? Seems like a pretty huge difference.

It's especially ridiculous since you don't know what their sentence turned out to be and I'd say you don't know what the regular, prescribed sentence for their crime is either.


----------



## Roman (Jul 23, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> And why do you feel the need to label "less than what they should get" as "scot-free" instead? Seems like a pretty huge difference.
> 
> It's especially ridiculous since you don't know what their sentence turned out to be and I'd say you don't know what the regular, prescribed sentence for their crime is either.



I chose the wrong wording. Sorry to have confused you. But I would appreciate if you would enlighten me.


----------



## Alicia (Jul 23, 2012)

impersonal said:


> It's my impression that they have been condemned already. They have been judged and condemned. And then this girl decided _"it's not enough, so I'm going to add something else on top"._ And she doesn't understand why the judge won't let her.
> 
> That's ridiculous. The whole point of keeping the attackers' names hidden is to give them a second chance. Now whenever they look for a job, their future employers, now and anytime in the future, will find out that at one point they were convicted rapists. This could destroy their lives. This is not _"on the level of shop lifting"_.
> 
> So, sure, you're going to tell me "they should have thought about this before committing a crime". However, they got convicted and they'll most likely serve a sentence of some sort, that was deemed comparable to their crime. I don't know how lengthy, but the point is: they're already getting punished. Then the victim decided that it wasn't enough, and that she'd inflict the extra punishment _herself_. That is not tolerable in any country based on the rule of law. She had legal means to try and do the same; she should have used them.



Impersonal knows the legal system, you can tell by his/her posts. _I admire you _:33

Many people show a lot compassion for the victim in this case, and I won't lie, I too think she suffered a lot, but justice does not work that way. Justice works with facts, not emotions. Of course, the legal system isn't flawless, but it's trying to be as righteous as possible.

I think the Phoenix Wright games have perfect examples of misleading cases, where innocent people are suspected of guilt because of manipulative evidence and/or witnesses. In such cases, you can't allow yourself to be distracted by emotions, simply because someone's future is on the line. 



> The whole point of keeping the attackers' names hidden is to give them a second chance.



This is the reason behind the whole uproar.


----------



## Golden Circle (Jul 23, 2012)

I'm guessing that it is because of the _plea_ bargain why they _plea_ded guilty to sexual abuse rather than sexual assault. She's upset because the prosecutor is accepting the lesser charge in exchange for a guilty verdict. Gotta keep those stats up.

As for victimizing the victim: silly law, when will you learn that you need a reset button?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 23, 2012)

Rainbow Dash said:


> I'm guessing that it is because of the _plea_ bargain why they _plea_ded guilty to sexual abuse rather than sexual assault. She's upset because the prosecutor is accepting the lesser charge in exchange for a guilty verdict. Gotta keep those stats up.



Not really, just read the article:



> Dietrich told the paper she was assaulted in August 2011 by two boys she knew when she passed out after drinking at a gathering. She learned months later that pictures of the assault were taken and shared with others.
> 
> "For months, I cried myself to sleep. I couldn't go out in public places," she told the newspaper, as her father and attorneys sat nearby. "You just sit there and wonder, who saw (the pictures), who knows?"



I think this is the most telling part. What upsets her so much is the pictures that were spread, not the act itself. If she had actually been raped, it would've been the other way round. She doesn't complain about the plea bargain either, just the sentence that resulted from it.


----------



## Roman (Jul 23, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> I think this is the most telling part. What upsets her so much is the pictures that were spread, not the act itself. If she had actually been raped, it would've been the other way round. She doesn't complain about the plea bargain either, just the sentence that resulted from it.



She can't remember it happening, so of course she would be concerned about the pictures. That doesn't mean she's not upset that it happened to begin with, but she probably realizes that it's been done. Don't make it out as if she consented to the abuse.

You also didn't answer my earlier question. How long is a sentence for rapists and sexual abusers supposed to be?


----------



## impersonal (Jul 23, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Not torture. A more appropriate term would be black-mailing, and most people would admit to their crime just to get a lesser sentence. And that's how rapists are let off after a few years only to do it again more often than not. It's that, or innocent people are the ones sent off to prison due to false testimony during the plea bargaining.
> 
> You're making it sound as if not taking the plea deal means they should get more than they deserve when it's really a situation of them getting less than they deserve if they do take it.


Not taking the plea deal means risking punishment even when you're innocent. 



Freedan said:


> Refer to the above. They get less than what they should because the system allows for such a thing to happen.


If the evidence is strong, then the plea deal probably wasn't all that advantageous for them. Besides, as others have pointed out, these guys didn't commit rape; apparently, they fondled her at most, and more importantly took pictures. While this is clearly a very bad thing to do, I don't think it makes any sense whatsoever to ruin someone's life over this.


----------



## Mael (Jul 23, 2012)

TerminaTHOR said:


> Law: its the most retarted thing on the planet.



Speaking of retarded...


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 23, 2012)

Freedan said:


> She can't remember it happening, so of course she would be concerned about the pictures. That doesn't mean she's not upset that it happened to begin with, but she probably realizes that it's been done. Don't make it out as if she consented to the abuse.



There is *nothing* apart from her Twitter ramblings that indicates she was raped. Again, nothing indicates that she disagreed with the charges, only with what she perceives to be a too light sentence.



> You also didn't answer my earlier question. How long is a sentence for rapists and sexual abusers supposed to be?



1st degree sexual abuse carries a sentence from one to five years for *adults*.


----------



## Sedaiv (Jul 23, 2012)

Those boys lost their rights when they raped her. Fuck them, they're lucky I don't drive down and put it on billboards so everyone knows. It might not have been child rape, but if that was two years ago, she was 15 and the age of consent is 16 in Kentucky. They should have to tell people when they first meet "In accordance to Megan's Law, I'm a child rapist." I say take the possible jail time, a REAL judge would overrule the first judges orders, and let her off. I don't understand how she wasn't made aware of the plea deal, her lawyers are shit bags too.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 23, 2012)

What the actual f-- Kentucky

Lol.


----------



## Roman (Jul 23, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> There is *nothing* apart from her Twitter ramblings that indicates she was raped. Again, nothing indicates that she disagreed with the charges, only with what she perceives to be a too light sentence.



Showing you haven't read my posts considering I never referred to it as rape, but abuse, which is something the boys admitted to being guilty of as it is. That was the very first thing I mentioned in this thread. Stop putting words in my mouth. I already got the message that's what you do as a hobby.



Saufsoldat said:


> 1st degree sexual abuse carries a sentence from one to five years for *adults*.



Is this if they don't plead guilty as well?


----------



## Bishop (Jul 23, 2012)

Sedaiv said:


> I say take the possible jail time, a REAL judge would overrule the first judges orders, and let her off.



I don't understand; what makes him a REAL judge? Didn't the other just follow legal proceedings? This isn't dubbed as rape to any extent of the courts, so why would he discredit the law that makes minors anonymous? 

On a personal note, I could see if it was rape, but the courts do not say rape, also, it is voyeurism which excludes heavy nudity and sex (other wise the boys would be faces with distributing child porn)- I just don't see why everyone in this thread is gunning after the judge.


----------



## Roman (Jul 23, 2012)

Bishop said:


> I don't understand; what makes him a REAL judge? Didn't the other just follow legal proceedings? This isn't dubbed as rape to any extent of the courts, so why would he discredit the law that makes minors anonymous?
> 
> On a personal note, I could see if it was rape, but the courts do not say rape, also, it is voyeurism which excludes heavy nudity and sex (other wise the boys would be faces with distributing child porn)- I just don't see why everyone in this thread is gunning after the judge.



First degree sexual abuse is what it is. You can't expect it to be all hush-hush and expect the victim to pretend nothing happened just because. She was humiliated, and the boys won't have to worry about the consequences once they served their sentence. What message is that supposed to send? That they needn't worry about anything if they do it again?


----------



## Darth inVaders (Jul 23, 2012)

Sexual assualt CAN include rape:



> Sexual assault and abuse is any type of sexual activity that you do not agree to, including:
> 
> * Inappropriate touching
> * Vaginal, anal, or oral penetration
> ...


source: 

There is *photo evidence* and *full confessions* - these arguments that she did the perps wrong are terrible, show some compassion for a victim who was violated regardless of how she was violated

And impersonal, you're lucky I don't neg really terrible posts the way you do when you believe a post is "really terrible" just because you disagree - cause you'd be negged here

I love the "alleged 'victim', sarcastic quote end quote, is presumed guilty of being a liar until proven innocent which will never happen" mindset a handful of people have here


----------



## Bishop (Jul 23, 2012)

Freedan said:


> First degree sexual abuse is what it is. You can't expect it to be all hush-hush and expect the victim to pretend nothing happened just because. She was humiliated, and the boys won't have to worry about the consequences once they served their sentence. What message is that supposed to send? That they needn't worry about anything if they do it again?



I believe that's the point,  for the sake of "minors". Adults would have no mercy, but, generally, minors are given more compassion as they are legally in incapacity mentally according to law and society.

That being said, why is any of this put on the judge for enforcing the law?

@Darth Invaders: Rape is sexual assault, but not vice versa, generally speaking, if it was rape, then the charge would have been rape. Also, if rape, the nation would be at odds with the boys getting this treatment.


----------



## Roman (Jul 23, 2012)

Darth inVaders said:


> Sexual assualt CAN include rape



Yes, except that it wasn't sexual assault. It was sexual abuse. They're legally different in terms of definitions, but their punishments shouldn't be any different.



Bishop said:


> I believe that's the point,  for the sake of "minors". Adults would have no mercy, but, generally, minors are given more compassion as they are legally in incapacity mentally according to law and society.
> 
> That being said, why is any of this put on the judge for enforcing the law?



Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the fact that the minors received punishment. My only question with this is how fitting was it and whether they should be made to not worry about anything once they served their sentence, and keeping very quite about it makes it feel as if they don't have to concern themselves with understanding why what they did was wrong, serve their sentence, and act normally when their sentence expires. That's why I'm not big on the gag-ruling and plea bargaining.


----------



## Bishop (Jul 23, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the fact that the minors received punishment. My only question with this is how fitting was it and whether they should be made to not worry about anything once they served their sentence, and keeping very quite about it makes it feel as if they don't have to concern themselves with understanding why what they did was wrong, serve their sentence, and act normally when their sentence expires. That's why I'm not big on the gag-ruling and plea bargaining.



That's the point; serve your time, star anew.

How would you do this? What do you want to happen after jail?


----------



## very bored (Jul 23, 2012)

Darth inVaders said:


> Sexual assualt CAN include rape:
> 
> 
> source:
> ...


----------



## Roman (Jul 23, 2012)

Bishop said:


> That's the point; serve your time, star anew.
> 
> How would you do this? What do you want to happen after jail?



The only thing I would've done differently is to not place the gag-order. That's what I've been saying all along. If the point of it is for them to not reform, which is what the gag-order will lead to, that makes the whole sentence worthless imo.


----------



## Darklyre (Jul 23, 2012)

So what we have is a case where the girl's case wasn't strong enough to avoid the prosecutors having to come up with a plea deal, a standard law that gags the name of all non-capital minor offenders, and a girl who apparently thinks "I AM A WOMAN AND I HAVE RIGHTS" is somehow enough justification to break a law, defy a court ruling, and mess with the plea deal she had a direct hand in accepting.

Excuse me if I'm skeptical.


----------



## Bishop (Jul 23, 2012)

Freedan said:


> The only thing I would've done differently is to not place the gag-order. That's what I've been saying all along. If the point of it is for them to not reform, which is what the gag-order will lead to, that makes the whole sentence worthless imo.



I see. What makes you think they will not reform? As it stands, they WILL do jail time in a prison. They will also have a criminal record of First degree sexual abuse with a minor. I don't think they will be laughing it up as much as we give them credit. What if they are truly sorry? What if they just want to move on with life; I see their flaws but heck, many people do far worse.


----------



## Roman (Jul 23, 2012)

Bishop said:


> I see. What makes you think they will not reform? As it stands, they WILL do jail time in a prison. They will also have a criminal record of First degree sexual abuse with a minor. I don't think they will be laughing it up as much as we give them credit. What if they are truly sorry? What if they just want to move on with life; I see their flaws but heck, many people do far worse.



Just because people do far worse doesn't mean something like this should be taken lightly. But I digress as I do see your point.


----------



## Darth inVaders (Jul 23, 2012)

You're mixing up sexual *abuse* and sexual *assault*
Both sexual abuse and rape are forms of sexual assault, but they are not the same type of sexual assault so of course sex abuse & rape would have different laws governing them


----------



## Romanticide (Jul 23, 2012)

The guys' names are Will Frey  III and Austin Zehnder. I found a picture of each of them.
*Spoiler*: __ 



  This is Will Frey III,
 and this is Austin Zehnder.


----------



## Hwon (Jul 23, 2012)

Darth inVaders said:


> You're mixing up sexual *abuse* and sexual *assault*
> Both sexual abuse and rape are forms of sexual assault, but they are not the same type of sexual assault so of course sex abuse & rape would have different laws governing them



"The boys pleaded guilty on June 26 to first-degree sexual abuse and misdemeanor voyeurism."

These charges indicate that there probably wasn't a rape or penetration, but rather sexual contact and masturbatory behavior.  It really doesn't make it any less humiliating especially to a teenager, but it does differ in the severity and egregiousness of the crime the boys committed.  There is a huge difference between letting rapist off easy and giving boys who did something stupid and foolish while drunk at a party a second chance after fulfilling their sentence.  There is also a difference between fighting injustice by not being silenced and dispensing retribution by marring them sexual offenders to humiliate and ruin their lives.


----------



## Bishop (Jul 23, 2012)

Hollow'd Heart said:


> The guys' names are Will Frey  III and Austin Zehnder. I found a picture of each of them.
> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> ...



Wow man, that's some work you put in to find them. Now, let's incorporate their names in our next Convo title


----------



## Draffut (Jul 23, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> It was first degree sexual abuse, not assault.
> 
> If they had sex with her while she was out, it would've been first degree rape.


From Kentucky's lawbooks:



"A person is guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree when he or she subjects another person to sexual contact who is incapable of consent because he or she is physically helpless."

Both sexual assault and abuse cover forms of rape.


----------



## WraithX959 (Jul 23, 2012)

Injustice system at it's finest.


----------



## Sedaiv (Jul 23, 2012)

Bishop said:


> I don't understand; what makes him a REAL judge? Didn't the other just follow legal proceedings? This isn't dubbed as rape to any extent of the courts, so why would he discredit the law that makes minors anonymous?
> 
> On a personal note, I could see if it was rape, but the courts do not say rape, also, it is voyeurism which excludes heavy nudity and sex (other wise the boys would be faces with distributing child porn)- I just don't see why everyone in this thread is gunning after the judge.



You mean how clients & attornies are present whenever a plea deal is present but in this case the victim wasn't present when her "attorney" made a plea offer and accepted without his client's knowledge? 

I don't understand how this isn't a rape case, when it IS a rape case. Rape is forcing a person to have sex with you. She was passed out, unable to defend herself and those guys forced themselves on her. That's rape right there, brother. No, Voyeurism (to my knowledge, too lazy to find legal defination) is what they did, and watching pornography is also voyeurism. If she was 15, I don't understand weren't hit with it. Unless I'm reading wrong, the victim is 17 now so it would be child pornography and then I STILL don't understand how that charge wasn't slapped on them with them having to sign up on Megan's Law. 

The reason we're gunning for the judge, is because he/she did a really piss poor job of interupting the law, and allowed two rapists get away with a slap on the wrist. The judge should be disbarred for this terrible ruling. Judge's are elected officals who are supposed to interupt the law for those who do not understand. I believe the boys should be retrialed in a higher level court system, as appearently the one they used isn't very good. They pretty much ruined her reputation posting pictures and sharing them.


----------



## Rashou (Jul 23, 2012)

We know so little about this case I don't see how you can actually believe the judge did a piss poor job of *interpreting* the law. The judge actually had a pretty hands off job, here, as the prosecution granted them a plea bargain. I mean, the judge could have rejected the sentence but she probably granted it out of leniency or because there was a greater chance of them actually walking away from all charges. I'm guessing it's leniency, though, and probably leniency coming from the fact that they didn't forcibly penetrate her, but maybe made sexual contact or masturbated to her while she was passed out. 

Some sources are throwing in "rape" but the actual charge appears to be 1st degree sexual abuse, which includes  (not to be confused with ). So the judge probably wanted to make sure she didn't over punish with the gag order and relied on the prosecution's judgment with regards to the jail time and any other punishments. Maybe I'm wrong the the prosecution just didn't want to try and prove actual rape and risk things not going their way at a trial, so they offered a plea of a substantially lesser charge which the judge also accepted, but I'm leaning the other way.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jul 23, 2012)

I am sorry but to keep this case silent is a fucking injustice on its own.


----------



## Archangel Michael (Jul 23, 2012)

1) It's stupid that they are trying to keep their name unavailable for the public to know. They knew what their were doing and they send picture of her to other people while doing the act. 

2) It's good that she told everyone their name so this can possible not happen again.


----------



## Terra Branford (Jul 23, 2012)

Kentucky is shittah a lot of the times. The only thing it has going for it are the lakes—the good, pretty ones. 



Hollow'd Heart said:


> The guys' names are Will Frey  III and Austin Zehnder. I found a picture of each of them.
> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you! How did you find them? I searched everywhere!

Time to get my friends to mass post on Tumblr.


----------



## Bishop (Jul 23, 2012)

Terra Branford said:


> Kentucky is shittah a lot of the times. The only thing it has going for it are the lakes?the good, pretty ones.



Screw You! Kentucky has Liousville, KFC, The Derby, Country Kung-Fu, Red-necks, Humble KKK members, Nascar, and much, much more.

Call your travel agent today and see if you can visit _Kentucky: Where the food taste just right. _


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 23, 2012)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> From Kentucky's lawbooks:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wrong, there is no such thing as "sexual assault" in Kentucky law, there's only sexual abuse and rape. Sexual abuse does not include rape any more than battery includes manslaughter or theft includes robbery.

The girl was *not* raped, stop distorting a crime to make it look more horrible than it already is. This lynch justice and blind trust in one side of the story is disgusting.


----------



## Bishop (Jul 23, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Wrong, there is no such thing as "sexual assault" in Kentucky law, there's only sexual abuse and rape. Sexual abuse does not include rape any more than battery includes manslaughter or theft includes robbery.
> 
> The girl was *not* raped, stop distorting a crime to make it look more horrible than it already is. This lynch justice and blind trust in one side of the story is disgusting.



Many of us have been saying this but I have a feeling people will listen to you because of your high post count and sexy and masculine avatar.


----------



## Rashou (Jul 23, 2012)

It's most def. the extra masculine avatar that's going to sell peeps.


----------



## Terra Branford (Jul 23, 2012)

Bishop said:


> *Screw You!* Kentucky has Liousville, KFC, The Derby, Country Kung-Fu, Red-necks, Humble KKK members, Nascar, and much, much more.
> 
> Call your travel agent today and see if you can visit _Kentucky: Where the food taste just right. _



Why you so mean? 

Pssh, food _used_ to be good. KFC here never cooks right anymore, you find hair in your food, animals are poisoned nearly everyday (there was a massive dog killing spree involving anti-freeze), Derby eh, and Liousville is ugly. And if you went to Lexington, you'd be mugged or attacked, and you also can't leave your car unattended in Lexington.


----------



## Bishop (Jul 23, 2012)

Terra Branford said:


> Why you so mean?
> 
> Pssh, food _used_ to be good. KFC here never cooks right anymore, you find hair in your food, animals are poisoned nearly everyday (there was a massive dog killing spree involving anti-freeze), Derby eh, and Liousville is ugly. And if you went to Lexington, you'd be mugged or attacked, and you also can't leave your car unattended in Lexington.



This whole time I thought you were European...

I once had the best cheap burrito in my life in a Greyhound stationed in Kentucky. You mess with Kentucky, you mess with Amurica


----------



## Hwon (Jul 23, 2012)

Terra Branford said:


> Time to get my friends to mass post on Tumblr.





That would be incredibly stupid.  Try and pay attention to what the few voices of reason are saying in this thread.  Based on the charges there is no indication she was raped.  Calling them rapists and publishing their names in defiance of a gag order not only means she could face contempt charges, but that these boys would have a legitimate defamation of character suit.


----------



## Terra Branford (Jul 23, 2012)

Bishop said:


> This whole time I thought you were European...
> 
> I once had the best cheap burrito in my life in a Greyhound stationed in Kentucky. You mess with Kentucky, you mess with Amurica



Really? Sorry, just an Amurican. 

We have very nice Chinese restaurants though. Seriously the best Chinese food I've ever had. There is a place called the Happy Dragon and their green beans and rice. 



Hwon said:


> That would be incredibly stupid.  Try and pay attention to what the few voices of reason are saying in this thread.  Based on the charges there is no indication she was raped.  Calling them rapists and publishing their names in defiance of a gag order not only means she could face contempt charges, but that these boys would have a legitimate defamation of character suit.



Why don't you try and pay attention? I never once said, in that quote, that I would call them rapists. Assault is assault and their faces need to be seen.



> but that these boys would have a legitimate defamation of character suit.



Yea, because sexually assaulting someone isn't enough reason to defame their character. 

And I really don't give any shits about _their_ character.


----------



## Darth inVaders (Jul 23, 2012)

UPDATE:



> *Louisville teen will not face charges for tweeting names of attackers*
> Posted: Jul 23, 2012 4:24 PM EDT Updated: Jul 23, 2012 4:59 PM EDT
> By Valerie Chinn
> 
> ...


source: 

Thank God - it was pure, indisputable horseshit to begin with


----------



## Bishop (Jul 23, 2012)

If I had two hands I'd clap.


----------



## Terra Branford (Jul 23, 2012)

That is good news! Thought I wonder how they will be punished....



Bishop said:


> If I had two hands I'd clap.



Where are your hands?!


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jul 23, 2012)

Common sense prevails. Thank fuck.


----------



## Romanticide (Jul 23, 2012)

That's good. Though i did get a new from my earlier post..... and people need to brush up on what rape is, not just the state's law on what they think it is. Besides that, she was 15 and they took pics of her naked body, so that's Child Porn distribution.....


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 24, 2012)

Good for her, people need to know the names of these assholes. Maybe they'll have trouble doing anything with their lives in the near future.


----------



## Karsh (Jul 24, 2012)

Good, good, thanks for the update



Bishop said:


> If I had two hands I'd clap.



They must be furiously busy


----------



## Roman (Jul 24, 2012)

Interesting. The article now says it was sexual assault that they pleaded guilty to. Did I miss something since I last posted here?

Anyways, this is good. People need to be made more aware that these things are happening and consequences do need to be paid for. The gag-order was ridiculous to start with.


----------



## abcd (Jul 24, 2012)

Ya lets screw up their lives for a mistake they made when they were drunk juveniles!!!

We should also find everyone who masturbated to her pictures and print their names ( that is also sexual abuse in a way) !!

That will give her true justice for passing out drunk next to some juvenile assholes !


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 24, 2012)

abcd said:


> Ya lets screw up their lives for a mistake they made when they were drunk juveniles!!!


Drunk isn't a fucking excuse. It just lowers inhibitions which means they wanted to rape someone, they just didn't have the balls to do it sober. Fuck their futures, they saw fit to ruin someone else's. Welcome to the real world where we have a thing called consequence.


----------



## drache (Jul 24, 2012)

abcd said:


> Ya lets screw up their lives for a mistake they made when they were drunk juveniles!!!



that's not it at all, actions have consequences and I for one think that any deal made with any felony offender should be public knowledge

maybe the da made a calculated bet and choose what he could convict them on maybe not but these young adults made their own choice here


----------



## abcd (Jul 24, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Drunk isn't a fucking excuse. It just lowers inhibitions which means they wanted to rape someone, they just didn't have the balls to do it sober. Fuck their futures, they saw fit to ruin someone else's. Welcome to the real world where we have a thing called consequence.



I would like you to explain why juvenile cases are handled differently...

@drache can you rephrase your second point ... I cannot understand it :/


----------



## Roman (Jul 24, 2012)

abcd said:


> Ya lets screw up their lives for a mistake they made when they were drunk juveniles!!!



Being drunk is no excuse. People can choose not to get drunk by.......exactly, not drinking. They got drunk and abused (and now possibly raped after all) a girl who had passed out. Don't start saying they only did it because they were drunk and try to make it out as if people have no control when they're drunk. If that's the case, they should've been more responsible about how much they drank, if anything. They should still be held responsible.


----------



## abcd (Jul 24, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Being drunk is no excuse. People can choose not to get drunk by.......exactly, not drinking. They got drunk and abused (and now possibly raped after all) a girl who had passed out. Don't start saying they only did it because they were drunk and try to make it out as if people have no control when they're drunk. If that's the case, they should've been more responsible about how much they drank, if anything. They should still be held responsible.



The legal drinking age in kentucky is 21 , All *three* involved in this case were 16(or 17) when the incident happened.


----------



## Roman (Jul 24, 2012)

abcd said:


> The legal drinking age in kentucky is 21 , All *three* involved in this case were 16(or 17) when the incident happened.



Oh, so you're saying it was ok for them to rape a girl while drunk because they were underage? Are you seriously implying they shouldn't be held responsible because they weren't of legal drinking age? On the contrary, I'm surprised they didn't face charges for getting drunk in the first place.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jul 24, 2012)

abcd said:


> Ya lets screw up their lives for a mistake they made when they were drunk juveniles!!!



They seemed to have no problem fucking up her life when they decided to sexually assault her. 

No one screwed up their lives but themselves. They tried to get a court to hide their crime and failed.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 24, 2012)

Idiocy and media pressure prevails. Yay!



Hollow'd Heart said:


> That's good. Though i did get a new from my earlier post..... and people need to brush up on what rape is, not just the state's law on what they think it is.



That neg was well-deserved. You need to brush up on what rape is, because molesting someone certainly isn't the same thing.



> Besides that, she was 15 and they took pics of her naked body, so that's Child Porn distribution.....



The crime took place in August 2011. She's 17 now.

Please stop making up bullshit.



Freedan said:


> Interesting. The article now says it was sexual assault that they pleaded guilty to. Did I miss something since I last posted here?



There is no such thing as sexual assault in Kentucky law. It's a retarded word to begin with, since sexual assault includes things that don't include assault in any way, shape or form. When people hear it, they automatically think of rape, so using it shows a severe lack of journalistic integrity.



> Anyways, this is good. People need to be made more aware that these things are happening and consequences do need to be paid for. The gag-order was ridiculous to start with.



And by "people" you mean "drunk 16-year-olds", I assume? Yeah, those are known to care deeply about current legal decisions. Surely such a thing will never happen again now that we've set the precedent that victims of a crime can disregard the law to punish criminals the way they see fit.


----------



## abcd (Jul 24, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Oh, so you're saying it was ok for them to rape a girl while drunk because they were underage? Are you seriously implying they shouldn't be held responsible because they weren't of legal drinking age? On the contrary, I'm surprised they didn't face charges for getting drunk in the first place.



You seem to use the word rape with ease, The article calls it a sexual abuse. The boys have been punished for it depending on their age. 

On the other hand you also seem to forget that the girl also got drunk (which is why she passed out in the first place) illegaly.  Unless the drinks were drugged/ She was cheated into getting drunk She also must have had enough common sense to not be there in the first place.


----------



## abcd (Jul 24, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> They seemed to have no problem fucking up her life when they decided to sexually assault her.
> 
> No one screwed up their lives but themselves. They tried to get a court to hide their crime and failed.



Your first point is the reason why they are being sentenced in the first place. Since their life is also screwed because of their names getting out, Their sentence should also be cancelled?


----------



## Mithos (Jul 24, 2012)

abcd said:


> Ya lets screw up their lives for a mistake they made when they were drunk juveniles!!!
> 
> We should also find everyone who masturbated to her pictures and print their names ( that is also sexual abuse in a way) !!
> 
> That will give her true justice for passing out drunk next to some juvenile assholes !



That is no excuse at all. They committed a horrible crime and need to face the consequences. 

Negged.


----------



## abcd (Jul 24, 2012)

Matto-sama said:


> That is no excuse at all. They committed a horrible crime and need to face the consequences.
> 
> Negged.



I wonder why you seem to forget that they have been sentenced by the judge. 

If you think that is not enough then you should try changing the legal system.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jul 24, 2012)

abcd said:


> Your first point is the reason why they are being sentenced in the first place. Since their life is also screwed because of their names getting out, Their sentence should also be cancelled?



No. They are being sentenced because they committed a sex crime, not because they graciously consented to go to jail if only their evil accuser would shut up.

Anonymity should be reserved for the victim, not the offender.


----------



## Roman (Jul 24, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> There is no such thing as sexual assault in Kentucky law. It's a retarded word to begin with, since sexual assault includes things that don't include assault in any way, shape or form. When people hear it, they automatically think of rape, so using it shows a severe lack of journalistic integrity.



There's no such thing as sexual assault? How do people in Kentucky define rape then? Sexual abuse, is it?



Saufsoldat said:


> And by "people" you mean "drunk 16-year-olds", I assume? Yeah, those are known to care deeply about current legal decisions. Surely such a thing will never happen again now that we've set the precedent that victims of a crime can disregard the law to punish criminals the way they see fit.



It's good to see you practicing your favorite hobby of putting words in my mouth again. I was referring to people like you and me, how people like us should be aware that these things happen and there would be consequences paid. I should take a case like this as an example of what not to do.



abcd said:


> You seem to use the word rape with ease, The article calls it a sexual abuse. The boys have been punished for it depending on their age.



And the updated article calls it sexual assault.



abcd said:


> On the other hand you also seem to forget that the girl also got drunk (which is why she passed out in the first place) illegaly.  Unless the drinks were drugged/ She was cheated into getting drunk She also must have had enough common sense to not be there in the first place.



Whoa! Are you blaming the victim for what happened too? Are you serious? Are you actually saying it's her fault for getting raped as much as those boys? What would you do then? Would you put her in jail for 5 years too for being an accomplice?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 24, 2012)

abcd said:


> I would like you to explain why juvenile cases are handled differently...
> 
> @drache can you rephrase your second point ... I cannot understand it :/


I would like you to explain why some heinous juvenile cases are tried as adults? They clearly want to be adults since they're getting drunk, of course being adult doesn't extend to sexual assault and rape or anything else like that.

Don't ask me to fucking define your bullshit argument for you.


----------



## abcd (Jul 24, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Whoa! Are you blaming the victim for what happened too? Are you serious? Are you actually saying it's her fault for getting raped as much as those boys? What would you do then? Would you put her in jail for 5 years too for being an accomplice?




That was the response I was expecting.

The girl was the victim of a sexual abuse. The boys are now victims of performing a sexual abuse for which they would have problems with their entire careers. 



> But they dropped that motion Monday afternoon, with Mejia saying the “whole purpose was to protect her privacy and confidentially and my client and his family and the conduct and actions of juveniles, people under the age of 18.”
> 
> Mejia was obviously angry with Dietrich’s actions, saying his client’s “privacy has been trampled. He’s accused of things he didn’t do. Anybody who looks at (the postings online) believes things about this kid that are false, but there is nothing I can do about that.”
> 
> ...







Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I would like you to explain why some heinous juvenile cases are tried as adults? They clearly want to be adults since they're getting drunk, of course being adult doesn't extend to sexual assault and rape or anything else like that.
> 
> Don't ask me to fucking define your bullshit argument for you.



Stop the ad hominem attacks.

Yes You want to consider the boys adults in this reply. But then there is a discussion of child porn distribution because she is a kid. First we should make up our minds about whether its an  adult or juvenile case. Apparently the court thinks its a juvenile case, So stop with the straw men.


----------



## Roman (Jul 24, 2012)

abcd said:


> That was the response I was expecting.
> 
> The girl was the victim of a sexual abuse. The boys are now victims of performing a sexual abuse for which they would have problems with their entire careers.



They're not victims. They brought it on themselves all along. If you're gonna use that logic, all rapists are victims of being rapists. Or are you trying to say they shouldn't face any consequences?


----------



## Mithos (Jul 24, 2012)

abcd said:


> That was the response I was expecting.
> 
> The girl was the victim of a sexual abuse. *The boys are now victims* of performing a sexual abuse for which they would have problems with their entire careers.



They boys are not victims in any way 

Having problems getting a job is part of the consequences of committing sexual abuse/assault. That doesn't make them victims.


----------



## FleshFailures (Jul 24, 2012)

abcd said:


> *The boys are now victims of performing a sexual abuse* for which they would have problems with their entire careers.



This is really, really...unfortunate and...awkward way of phrasing things.


----------



## abcd (Jul 24, 2012)

Freedan said:


> They're not victims. They brought it on themselves all along. If you're gonna use that logic, all rapists are victims of being rapists. Or are you trying to say they shouldn't face any consequences?




All rapists are not juveniles.

Stop calling it rape because some journal called it sexual assault.



> Dietrich and her parents went to Louisville Metro Police, who eventually charged the two juvenile defendants with first-degree sexual abuse, a felony, and misdemeanor voyeurism, according information contained in the court motion filed by the newspaper.





@others who are enraged at the boys being called victims. You should understand how justice system works. Once a prisoner serves his sentence, He is introduced back into the society and is considered rehabilitated. If he gets additional "justice" , then he becomes a victim.


----------



## Roman (Jul 24, 2012)

abcd said:


> All rapists are not juveniles.
> 
> Stop calling it rape because some journal called it sexual assault.



Call it what you will, it shouldn't be treated any differently. And sure, all rapists are not juveniles, but like I said before, if they were made to not have to face the consequences of their actions, it sends a message that it's ok to abuse anyone in a sexual manner. You only need to serve some time in jail and you're free. That their careers would have repercussions on this  is to be expected.


----------



## abcd (Jul 24, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Call it what you will, it shouldn't be treated any differently. And sure, all rapists are not juveniles, but like I said before, if they were made to not have to face the consequences of their actions, it sends a message that it's ok to abuse anyone in a sexual manner. You only need to serve some time in jail and you're free. That their careers would have repercussions on this  is to be expected.



serving time in jail is not as simple as you have stated.


----------



## Roman (Jul 24, 2012)

abcd said:


> serving time in jail is not as simple as you have stated.



I'm aware of how difficult jails are in the US. In fact, I'm aware they're more difficult than they need to be, and I've argued plenty of times that the treatment prisoners receive doesn't give them a chance to rehabilitate, but only creates more disillusionment, given the US prison system's focus on punishment. Hence the increased likelihood of repeat offenders in the country.


----------



## abcd (Jul 24, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Call it what you will, it shouldn't be treated any differently. And sure, all rapists are not juveniles, but like I said before, if they were made to not have to face the consequences of their actions, it sends a message that it's ok to abuse anyone in a sexual manner. *You only need to serve some time in jail and you're free*. That their careers would have repercussions on this  is to be expected.





Freedan said:


> I'm aware of how difficult jails are in the US. In fact, I'm aware they're more difficult than they need to be, and I've argued plenty of times that the treatment prisoners receive doesn't give them a chance to rehabilitate, but only creates more disillusionment, given the US prison system's focus on punishment. Hence the increased likelihood of repeat offenders in the country.



Arent you contradicting yourself?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 24, 2012)

Freedan said:


> There's no such thing as sexual assault? How do people in Kentucky define rape then? Sexual abuse, is it?



No, that would be rape.

Sexual abuse is not rape and does not include rape, it is a lesser charge that applies to groping and the like.



> It's good to see you practicing your favorite hobby of putting words in my mouth again. I was referring to people like you and me, how people like us should be aware that these things happen and there would be consequences paid. I should take a case like this as an example of what not to do.



So we need to punish children more than the court has decided is fit for them so that people like you and me know not to fondle passed-out chicks? I don't know about you, but I already knew that before.



> And the updated article calls it sexual assault.



Sexual assault is an umbrella term that includes pretty everything unwanted that happens to you and is in any way related to sex. Hell, some organizations even consider catcalling sexual assault.

It's really disgusting considering that many people immediately think of rape when they hear sexual assault. So stretching to defition to include just about anything, makes a lot of people look like rapists.



And it's funny how a few pages ago you complained for me lashing out on you about the whole "rape" thing and now you're back to calling it rape.


----------



## Vladimir Lenin (Jul 24, 2012)

Hmm. Shouldn't they be examining the backgrounds of these kids? This kind of whack is more often than not connected to extremist groups or families with radically aggressive beliefs.

Are they Neo-Nazis or something? Were they possibly influenced by such? Are they religious? Where they abused by homosexuals as children? Are they just lumpen and live in a homophobic and ignorant (redneck) society?


----------



## Roman (Jul 24, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> No, that would be rape.
> 
> Sexual abuse is not rape and does not include rape, it is a lesser charge that applies to groping and the like.





Saufsoldat said:


> Sexual assault is an umbrella term that includes pretty everything unwanted that happens to you and is in any way related to sex. Hell, some organizations even consider catcalling sexual assault.



How does that not include rape?



Saufsoldat said:


> So we need to punish children more than the court has decided is fit for them so that people like you and me know not to fondle passed-out chicks? I don't know about you, but I already knew that before.



What are you even talking about? I'm referring to awareness! Sending them to jail longer is unnecessary for this to be achieved. I'm referring specifically to the gag-order.



Saufsoldat said:


> It's really disgusting considering that many people immediately think of rape when they hear sexual assault. So stretching to defition to include just about anything, makes a lot of people look like rapists.



It could be rape at this point, considering the article mentioned sexual assault. If you find it wrong that I refer to them as rapists, I'll refrain from doing so, but it doesn't erase the possibility.



Saufsoldat said:


> And it's funny how a few pages ago you complained for me lashing out on you about the whole "rape" thing and now you're back to calling it rape.



I didn't "lash out" at you specifically. I said sexual abuse and sexual assault are two different things but shouldn't be treated differently. Now the article is saying "sexual assault" which could mean rape.


----------



## Burke (Jul 24, 2012)

I get it, its that whole "Just shut up about it so that these boys futures arent ruined by something stupid they did as a kid."

yeah fuck that, they knew what they were doing.


----------



## drache (Jul 24, 2012)

abcd said:


> You seem to use the word rape with ease, The article calls it a sexual abuse. The boys have been punished for it depending on their age.
> 
> On the other hand you also seem to forget that the girl also got drunk (which is why she passed out in the first place) illegaly.  Unless the drinks were drugged/ She was cheated into getting drunk She also must have had enough common sense to not be there in the first place.



it's her fault? I only wish I could neg you more then once


----------



## abcd (Jul 24, 2012)

drache said:


> it's her fault? I only wish I could neg you more then once



Yeah lets take stuff out of context.


----------



## drache (Jul 24, 2012)

abcd said:


> Yeah lets take stuff out of context.



Nothing was taken out of context you are the one that suggested that somehow she had earned or deserved this because she got drunk

and I'll gladly take a neg from a coward like you who can not even keep his story straight. Not to mention a piece of trash that suggests being sexually assaulted is ever even remotely okay


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 24, 2012)

Freedan said:


> How does that not include rape?



Sexual *assault* includes rape, sexual *abuse* does not. The former is not even a legal term in the US.



> What are you even talking about? I'm referring to awareness! Sending them to jail longer is unnecessary for this to be achieved. I'm referring specifically to the gag-order.



Releasing their names is additional punishment, which is perhaps even worse than sending them to jail. It is unneeded, illegal and yet they let the girl get away with it.



> It could be rape at this point, considering the article mentioned sexual assault. If you find it wrong that I refer to them as rapists, I'll refrain from doing so, but it doesn't erase the possibility.
> 
> I didn't "lash out" at you specifically. I said sexual abuse and sexual assault are two different things but shouldn't be treated differently. Now the article is saying "sexual assault" which could mean rape.



No, it could not be rape. I don't know how many times I have to explain this, it's really not difficult.

We have three different terms here: rape, sexual assault, and sexual abuse.

Rape is sexing someone without their consent, sexual abuse (in this case) is groping someone without their consent. Both of those are legal terms and crimes in the state of Kentucky.

Sexual assault is an umbrella term, that applies to both of the above scenarios.

The boys were guilty of first degree sexual abuse, that means they are technically guilty of sexual assault. However, the latter is still *not a legal term*. All the news articles refer to it as sexual assault not because it's technically included in the definition, but because sexual assault immediately incurs the thought of rape, violent rape.

It's like saying a criminal who shoots someone's ear off "shot his victim in the head". Technically, the ears are part of the head, but saying they shot him in the head still sounds far more brutal and horrifying than the crime actually was.


----------



## Burke (Jul 24, 2012)

revenge negs are never the answer ck


----------



## Roman (Jul 24, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Sexual *assault* includes rape, sexual *abuse* does not. The former is not even a legal term in the US.



So because it's not a legal term, it's impossible that she could've gotten raped even if people refer to it as sexual assault?



Saufsoldat said:


> Releasing their names is additional punishment, which is perhaps even worse than sending them to jail. It is unneeded, illegal and yet they let the girl get away with it.



Yes, because we shouldn't ruin their lives because of something stupid they did when they were teenagers. I think they should've been more concerned about their future when they did what they did. Letting them completely off the hook isn't going to do that.



Saufsoldat said:


> No, it could not be rape. I don't know how many times I have to explain this, it's really not difficult.
> 
> We have three different terms here: rape, sexual assault, and sexual abuse.
> 
> ...



Fair enough, although like I said earlier, my feelings don't change. Whether it was rape or sexual assault really shouldn't make a difference in how they should be treated.


----------



## abcd (Jul 24, 2012)

drache said:


> Nothing was taken out of context you are the one that suggested that somehow she had earned or deserved this because she got drunk
> 
> and I'll gladly take a neg from a coward like you who can not even keep his story straight. Not to mention a piece of trash that suggests being sexually assaulted is ever even remotely okay



No it was was taken out of context! 

She got drunk and got sexually abused, The guys got sentenced.

She took justice into her own hands because she thought they should be screwed over for life. 

Try arguing without ad hominem attacks.

 negs


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 24, 2012)

Freedan said:


> So because it's not a legal term, it's impossible that she could've gotten raped even if people refer to it as sexual assault?



People can refer to it as anything they want, since when is the media obligated to tell the truth? 

The reason why it's impossible that she got raped is because the court found that she hasn't been raped. Indeed, the question if she got raped wasn't even part of the trial, since the boys were charged with sexual abuse, not rape.

Legally, she has not been raped and she doesn't seem to contest that fact.

What's happening here is this: Someone drew a rhombus and the media reports "person draws quadrangle". Now a rhombus is technically a quadrangle, so it's technically the truth. Then you come along and say "he might have drawn a square and I'll say that it's a square, because the media said he drew a quadrangle, which includes squares".

It's simply annoying and does not serve any purpose.



> Yes, because we shouldn't ruin their lives because of something stupid they did when they were teenagers. I think they should've been more concerned about their future when they did what they did. Letting them completely off the hook isn't going to do that.



Alright then, let's execute every criminal for every crime ever committed. Because hey, they should've thought about that when they were committing the crime, right?

Your "reasoning" here can be applied to *any* crime to justify *any* punishment. When criticized, just say "they should've thought of that when they did it" and just like that the argument is over.



> Fair enough, although like I said earlier, my feelings don't change. Whether it was rape or sexual assault really shouldn't make a difference in how they should be treated.



So you think someone who fucks a passed-out girl should be treated like someone who touches the boobs of a passed-out girl? You have issues, man.


----------



## Chuck (Jul 24, 2012)

what bullshit


----------



## Roman (Jul 24, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Alright then, let's execute every criminal for every crime ever committed. Because hey, they should've thought about that when they were committing the crime, right?
> 
> Your "reasoning" here can be applied to *any* crime to justify *any* punishment. When criticized, just say "they should've thought of that when they did it" and just like that the argument is over.



Will you seriously stop putting words in my mouth? I never said that. Yes, they should've thought about the consequences of their actions. Isn't that what people should be doing? Every action has a reaction. You do something evil, and evil follows you. That's more or less how Karma works and you should know that better than me.

The punishment has to fit the crime, and keeping a gag-order means once they got out of jail, it'll be as if nothing ever happened (hence why I said scot-free earlier). It gives the impression that it's not necessary for them to change their ways, just that they spend some time behind bars where people will treat them like shit and make them disillusioned with how they're being treated. It's a good way to encourage someone to do it again because they're more likely to feel the system is unfair toward them. Like this, they'll have to think about what they do because everyone knows about them now, and it's a good incentive for them to change their ways and be more responsible.



Saufsoldat said:


> So you think someone who fucks a passed-out girl should be treated like someone who touches the boobs of a passed-out girl? You have issues, man.



It's violation of a person's dignity nonetheless.


----------



## Rashou (Jul 24, 2012)

does actually have statues defining it in some states of the US. I'm not sure if Saufsoldat meant that it wasn't a federal offense or not, but just to be clear there is technically a legal definition for the term in the US (though I don't know about in Kentucky). Not that it changes the validity of his/her argument, just FYI.



			
				Freedan said:
			
		

> The punishment has to fit the crime, and keeping a gag-order means once they got out of jail, it'll be as if nothing ever happened (hence why I said scot-free earlier). It gives the impression that it's not necessary for them to change their ways, just that they spend some time behind bars where people will treat them like shit and make them disillusioned with how they're being treated. It's a good way to encourage someone to do it again because they're more likely to feel the system is unfair toward them. Like this, they'll have to think about what they do because everyone knows about them now, and it's a good incentive for them to change their ways and be more responsible.


Spending time behind bars where people treat them like shit (and where they may be sexually abused themselves) IS the incentive to change. Otherwise they'd go right back. Shaming them and letting everyone in the world think they're a degenerate rapist who will never change is what negates that incentive. I mean, it'll already be an uphill battle since every job application, loan application, college application etc. will require them to list their crimes, and even juveniles have to register as sex offenders in most cases. They're not close to getting off "scott-free" or even maintaining a semblance of anonymity as it is. Releasing their names just ups the difficulty of doing anything without being seen and decried as "those guys that Twitter said raped a girl".


----------



## Roman (Jul 24, 2012)

Rashou said:


> Spending time behind bars where people treat them like shit (and where they may be sexually abused themselves) IS the incentive to change. Otherwise they'd go right back. Shaming them and letting everyone in the world think they're a degenerate rapist who will never change is what negates that incentive. I mean, it'll already be an uphill battle since every job application, loan application, college application etc. will require them to list their crimes, and even juveniles have to register as sex offenders in most cases. They're not close to getting off "scott-free" or even maintaining a semblance of anonymity as it is. Releasing their names just ups the difficulty of doing anything without being seen and decried as "those guys that Twitter said raped a girl".



That's the theory behind the US prison system, but in practice, you have a lot more repeat offenders there than you do in larger parts of Europe and countries where the prison system isn't so severe. Punishment for the sake of punishing someone just because they did something wrong does more harm than it does good. Comparing that to the prison system you have in Scandinavian countries, where crime is only a fraction of what it is in the US, and noticing how their system focuses on rehabilitation rather than punishment for the sake of punishment, and I wonder which system actually works better. The problem with the US prison system is that it simply punishes people for the sake of it. There's no incentive to change being given there, only suffering. I don't expect someone to become good because they're being made to suffer. I would expect them to become angrier.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 24, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Will you seriously stop putting words in my mouth? I never said that.



I didn't say you said that, I just showed you that this faulty logic can be applied to absolutely everything.



> Yes, they should've thought about the consequences of their actions. Isn't that what people should be doing? Every action has a reaction. You do something evil, and evil follows you. That's more or less how Karma works and you should know that better than me.



I don't believe in karma, we're talking about the law here.

Of course they should've thought about what they were doing before doing it, but using that to justify punishment beyond what the law prescribes is frankly idiotic.



> The punishment has to fit the crime, and keeping a gag-order means once they got out of jail, it'll be as if nothing ever happened (hence why I said scot-free earlier).



Just as it should be. You seem to think that crimes should for some reason be punished with eternal sentences. If you want to punish someone forever, give them a life sentence.



> It gives the impression that it's not necessary for them to change their ways, just that they spend some time behind bars where people will treat them like shit and make them disillusioned with how they're being treated.



What?! This has absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand, you seem to doubt the entirity of the judicial and penal system.

So putting someone in jail and then trying to integrate them back into society gives the impression that they should commit the same crime again? What exactly would you do differently?



> It's a good way to encourage someone to do it again because they're more likely to feel the system is unfair toward them. Like this, they'll have to think about what they do because everyone knows about them now, and it's a good incentive for them to change their ways and be more responsible.



*WHAT?!* You're going a little insane here. So if person A commits a crime and gets sent to jail for it, that'll make them more likely to commit the same crime afterwards because they believe they've been treated unfairly? I'm sorry, this is too much. You need to think before putting up these hypotheses.

I agree that US jails do very little to combat crime, but you seem to think that jail in general is wrong and that we should instead mark criminals for the rest of their lives so that everyone in society knows who they are. Do you honestly think that's a better way of keeping society running or serving justice?



> It's violation of a person's dignity nonetheless.



Well duh, lots of things violate a person's rights, that doesn't mean they're all punished the same way or punished at all.

If we only went by rights being violated, then we'd have to punish negligent homicide the same way we punish murder.



Rashou said:


> does actually have statues defining it in some states of the US. I'm not sure if Saufsoldat meant that it wasn't a federal offense or not, but just to be clear there is technically a legal definition for the term in the US (though I don't know about in Kentucky). Not that it changes the validity of his/her argument, just FYI.



For some reason I generalized from Kentucky to the entire US. Thanks for correcting that. 

Sexual assault does not have a legal definition in Kentucky, so the term cannot be used to say which crime the boys committed.


----------



## Rashou (Jul 24, 2012)

Freedan said:


> That's the theory behind the US prison system, but in practice, you have a lot more repeat offenders there than you do in larger parts of Europe and countries where the prison system isn't so severe. Punishment for the sake of punishing someone just because they did something wrong does more harm than it does good. Comparing that to the prison system you have in Scandinavian countries, where crime is only a fraction of what it is in the US, and noticing how their system focuses on rehabilitation rather than punishment for the sake of punishment, and I wonder which system actually works better. The problem with the US prison system is that it simply punishes people for the sake of it. There's no incentive to change being given there, only suffering. I don't expect someone to become good because they're being made to suffer. I would expect them to become angrier.



I completely agree the US system kind of blows, but we have more repeat offenders because it becomes impossible to get a job or housing or get into a decent school or even find supportive family members after you've gone to prison. The  study by the DOJ does support that most sex offenders (like most other criminals) reoffend, but it's not necessarily even for the crimes of which they were convicted. The stats say 46% of rapists reoffend within 15 years, so one of these boys should not reoffend in at least a decade and a half, statistically speaking, even with all the stuff that sex offenders have to deal with without having their name plastered all over the Internet. That's also not taking into account that juveniles probably don't reoffend as often as adults. 

The point is that repeat offenders are caused by a lot of the problems I described- needing to put down in practically every correspondence that they were convicted for a crime, leading to a lack of prospects and hope overall, which is a huge problem. But I don't see how it makes sense for you to realize this and then argue that it should be OK to heap more problems on top of people. I understand the emotional response, but intellectually it doesn't compute.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jul 24, 2012)

Considering the University I attended had cases where guys would be labelled sex offenders for far less shit with little evidence to back it up, lose scholarships , kicked out of school and have their name scattered by every form of Media present in the Providence. 



You can see why I have little sympathy for these boys.


----------



## drache (Jul 24, 2012)

abcd said:


> No it was was taken out of context!
> 
> She got drunk and got sexually abused, The guys got sentenced.
> 
> ...



'justice' for tweeting that they got a nice deal?

huh well if that's your position skippy


----------



## impersonal (Jul 24, 2012)

Freedan said:


> They're not victims. They brought it on themselves all along.



Can you go back to this, read it again, think about it for a second or two, and not feel ashamed of yourself? You can be rational when you want to, so how can you say something as flattly and evidently ridiculously wrong as that?


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jul 24, 2012)

Isn't he just saying that the boys who molested the girl aren't victims? That they brought public ridicule on themselves by their own actions?


----------



## Cthulhu-versailles (Jul 24, 2012)

i get so tired of hearing people say someone deserves to have their life forever ruined because of one mistake. Fucking hypocrites like that probably speed when they drive like everyone else. if you want to condemn so minors for life for coping a feel, you need to have your ass thrown in jail for the even greater crime of putting everyone at risk by speeding. fucking law doesn't have it's priorities right. car accidents almost being the leading cause of fucking deaths speaks for itself. get tough on driving laws. lock-up the speeders and violators without mercy.


----------



## Bishop (Jul 24, 2012)

This thread reminds me of Moses and the red sea; it separates the logical and the overly emotional.


----------



## drache (Jul 24, 2012)

impersonal said:


> Can you go back to this, read it again, think about it for a second or two, and not feel ashamed of yourself? You can be rational when you want to, so how can you say something as flattly and evidently ridiculously wrong as that?



they are not victims, the girl is the victim 



Cthulhu-versailles said:


> i get so tired of hearing people say someone deserves to have their life forever ruined because of one mistake. Fucking hypocrites like that probably speed when they drive like everyone else. if you want to condemn so minors for life for coping a feel, you need to have your ass thrown in jail for the even greater crime of putting everyone at risk by speeding. fucking law doesn't have it's priorities right. car accidents almost being the leading cause of fucking deaths speaks for itself. get tough on driving laws. lock-up the speeders and violators without mercy.



who says forever? I find it hilarious that in accusing others of overreacting you also are overreacting.

You know what I condemn? People thinking their shouldn't be consequences and especially that they have a right for people to not know what they did.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 25, 2012)

Tweeting their names is nothing compared to what should have happened. The girl had to take matters into her own hand because the courts won't.


----------



## abcd (Jul 25, 2012)

Its better if you reply on the thread and give a neg so that i can respond to you on the thread :/. 
Anyway here is the response
1) The girl was sexually abused by the 2 guys - She is the victim
2) The guys got sentenced in court for the crime they committed
Now legally they are on the same level.

3) The girls wants to take justice into her own hands and give further sentence to the guys

At this point of time you should consider the case in a more balanced pov since the guys are already sentenced by the court ( if she does not like it I assume she should be able to go through legal procedures)

Now basically she wants revenge not justice so I would not assume it to be wrong to point out that she was illegally drunk with guys she apparently trusted(when drunk illegally) ,

It is analogous to skipping a danger sign and getting into trouble and then forgetting about the fact that you skipped a danger sign.

If it is victim blaming then it is just my perspective of things I guess.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 25, 2012)

drache said:


> they are not victims, the girl is the victim



Would you mind elaborating on that? Are you just irrational about this particular case or do you extend this reasoning to all criminals?



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Tweeting their names is nothing compared to what should have happened. The girl had to take matters into her own hand because the courts won't.



Oh, finally we get someone with in-depth knowledge of the case. Do tell us what the boys' sentence was, because it doesn't say in any news article, but you seem to know the judge's decision.


----------



## drache (Jul 25, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Would you mind elaborating on that? Are you just irrational about this particular case or do you extend this reasoning to all criminals?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, finally we get someone with in-depth knowledge of the case. Do tell us what the boys' sentence was, because it doesn't say in any news article, but you seem to know the judge's decision.




There is nothing irrational about my statement and yes I would. Though by the by most punishments are already public


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 25, 2012)

drache said:


> There is nothing irrational about my statement and yes I would. Though by the by most punishments are already public



So you have a general issue with the idea of integrating former criminals back into society?


----------



## drache (Jul 25, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> So you have a general issue with the idea of integrating former criminals back into society?



wow and you accuse me of being irrational?

just how the hell did we go from 'criminals should not be protected' to 'criminals should not be allowed  to reintegrate'?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 25, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Oh, finally we get someone with in-depth knowledge of the case. Do tell us what the boys' sentence was, because it doesn't say in any news article, but you seem to know the judge's decision.


Part of a sexual predators punishment should be public exposure to warn others, I guess you wouldn't understand that since you seem to be out to just cause a row and argue it up about things that are clearly wrong.


----------



## neko-sennin (Jul 25, 2012)

> "They got off very easy ... and they tell me to be quiet, just silencing me at the end," she said.
> 
> Afterwards Dietrich tweeted, "They said I can't talk about it or I'll be locked up. ....Protect rapist is more important than getting justice for the victim in Louisville."



Laws or no laws, this was the real-world result. 



Wilykat said:


> Anyone get the name of the 2 rapists?  post em everywhere and since we're not part of the case, we won't be subject to court order at all.



If the bastards do just get off with a slap on the wrist, I vote for dropping their names on /b/ and let the internet pick up this judge's slack. The judge's, too, if she decides to make the victim's life any more miserable than it already is right now.


----------



## The World (Jul 25, 2012)

It was wrong for her to do what she did, because it can potentially put the attackers lives in danger. I know some people wouldn't have a problem with that. 

But it's still wrong.

She wasn't charged with anything, as she shouldn't be, because that would be fucking retarded.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jul 25, 2012)

Like I said I have seen cases where people name get drop all over the media, and labelled sex offenders for far less shit than what these guys did. Next thing is from my understanding they posted these pictures online and made it known all over the girl High School. Yeah, like that wont be carried with her in the near future.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 25, 2012)

drache said:


> wow and you accuse me of being irrational?
> 
> just how the hell did we go from 'criminals should not be protected' to 'criminals should not be allowed  to reintegrate'?



You want their names disclosed everywhere, basically branding them as criminals for the rest of their lives. That means they'll never be able to fully integrate back into society. Not sure how that is hard to understand.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Part of a sexual predators punishment should be public exposure to warn others, I guess you wouldn't understand that since you seem to be out to just cause a row and argue it up about things that are clearly wrong.



So you want to tell people "don't party and get shit-faced with these guys, they might grope you once you pass out"? I really don't see the point in that. 

The aim of the judicial system is to rehabilitate offenders, but according to you sex offenders can never ever be rehabilitated, otherwise you wouldn't put them on a big, public list for the rest of their lives.



neko-sennin said:


> Laws or no laws, this was the real-world result.



No, it wasn't, since the boys aren't rapists.


----------



## The Great Oneddd (Jul 25, 2012)

She was not raped. That is clear. Yes what happened to her is very bad.  But this is still not rape. 

However, how many people have done things in their teens they thought was funny but end up being bad?  Quite a few I bet. This is why minors have things seal when it comes to court I believe.  They did something wrong and are being punished for it.

Honestly, if she feels what they got is not enough is fine but that doesn't give her the right to do what ever she wants.  

Let me put it this way.  If you got caught joy riding in a friends car that you took the keys for without him/her knowing cause you thought it would be funny as a joke, would you want your record forever stained as you being a car thief?


----------



## drache (Jul 25, 2012)

neko-sennin said:


> Laws or no laws, this was the real-world result.
> 
> 
> 
> If the bastards do just get off with a slap on the wrist, I vote for dropping their names on /b/ and let the internet pick up this judge's slack. The judge's, too, if she decides to make the victim's life any more miserable than it already is right now.


 
well the charge on the girl was dropped but I am all for their names finding their way to /b 



The World said:


> It was wrong for her to do what she did, because it can potentially put the attackers lives in danger. I know some people wouldn't have a problem with that.
> 
> But it's still wrong.
> 
> She wasn't charged with anything, as she shouldn't be, because that would be fucking retarded.


 
totally disagree and she didn't call for violence or anything like that. The fact is their names should be public domain. They gave up the right to privacy when they decided to assault her. 



Saufsoldat said:


> You want their names disclosed everywhere, basically branding them as criminals for the rest of their lives. That means they'll never be able to fully integrate back into society. Not sure how that is hard to understand.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Rather irrational there after all I never said their names should be 'everywhere' just that they have no right to privacy and certainly should have no right to punish the victim here for deciding to share her story and their names

Let's be clear here not every criminal chooses to or even is capable of reintergration, yes they have a hard road ahead of them but I have no sympathy for them. Their choice their consequences.

And by the by the aim of the judical system is to protect the public, if that means rehabilitation, great but if not then people need to be warned.


----------



## Hiko Seijurou (Jul 25, 2012)

Yachiru said:


> Unless we hear the boys' side, I consider this case flawed - how did the girl find out the boys' details, respectively their names? It sounds a lot like she knew those two. Secondly, why would the boys take pictures of a rape? It's disgusting and a rapist doesn't want any kind of attention to his case.
> 
> These two questions make one believe that the girl was willing, but tried to mask it as rape when she found out about the pictures as a way to divert from her humiliation. *Not seldomly do you hear of cases of women crying "rape! rape!" as a way to get revenge*.
> 
> The prosecutor probably dismissed her case because it was weak; why would any sane person dismiss a rape case this lightly unless there was significant doubt?


This, and there doesn't seem to be any penetration involved. Hell, she doesn't appear to even remember what happened, and those boys' lives are literally ruined because of it.

Also, because she didn't want anyone finding out, she went tweeting her story? Let's talk about _that_ logic.

Sorry, but dress like a whore, drink like a whore, and you will be fucked like a whore.


----------



## Hiko Seijurou (Jul 25, 2012)

Cthulhu-versailles said:


> i get so tired of hearing people say someone deserves to have their life forever ruined because of one mistake. Fucking hypocrites like that probably speed when they drive like everyone else. if you want to condemn so minors for life for coping a feel, you need to have your ass thrown in jail for the even greater crime of putting everyone at risk by speeding.


Because guys are not human. They are just monsters wanting to rape/kill/steal whenever they can. They should be exterminated.


----------



## drache (Jul 25, 2012)

Hiko Seijurou said:


> This, and there doesn't seem to be any penetration involved. Hell, she doesn't appear to even remember what happened, and those boys' lives are literally ruined because of it.
> 
> Also, because she didn't want anyone finding out, she went tweeting her story? Let's talk about _that_ logic.
> 
> Sorry, but dress like a whore, drink like a whore, and you will be fucked like a whore.


 
wow aren't you a rapist in the making or are you already one?


----------



## Hiko Seijurou (Jul 25, 2012)

drache said:


> wow aren't you a rapist in the making or are you already one?


Case in point.


----------



## drache (Jul 25, 2012)

Hiko Seijurou said:


> Case in point.


 
anyone that tells a woman 'they had it coming' has serious issues and is imo either a rapist or one in the making or I suppose wishes he could but doesn't have conviction/fears getting caught.

You want to argue another option go for it sparky


----------



## Darklyre (Jul 25, 2012)

So...let me get this straight.

1. She was passed out and has no first-hand accounts of what happened.
2. The boys took pictures of the act.
3. She likely found out through other people that the boys had pictures of her, thus other people knew something of what happened.

The best the prosecutor could do was get a plea bargain. You know what that suggests to me? 

Either this is the most inept and the laziest prosecutor ever, who cannot use what amounts to a photographed confession to get a conviction, or her case was so incredibly weak that the BEST the prosecutor could've gotten was a plea deal. Considering even a brain-dead troglodyte could have gotten a conviction if the photographs and witness statements had been even close to being incriminating, I'm gonna lean towards the latter.


----------



## Hiko Seijurou (Jul 25, 2012)

drache said:


> blah, blah, blah


What foolish and biased mentality. If you go into a Lion's den, don't be surprised if you get bitten, billy.


----------



## drache (Jul 26, 2012)

Hiko Seijurou said:


> What foolish and biased mentality. If you go into a Lion's den, don't be surprised if you get bitten, billy.


 
wow, do us all a  favor and take a very long walk off a very short pier


----------



## Hiko Seijurou (Jul 26, 2012)

drache said:


> wow, do us all a  favor and take a very long walk off a very short pier


lol I can guess why an idiot who judges someone they never met would be so defensive and incoherent. There is one side to every story, right?


----------



## drache (Jul 26, 2012)

Hiko Seijurou said:


> lol I can guess why an idiot who judges someone they never met would be so defensive and incoherent. There is one side to every story, right?


 
all I am judging is what you are sharing and the idea that she was 'asking for it' is shallow misognyistic bullshit and I will continue to point that out sparky


----------



## Hiko Seijurou (Jul 26, 2012)

^I love that word (even misspelled). You just keep proving my point, kid. Man, are you stupid.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 26, 2012)

drache said:


> Rather irrational there after all I never said their names should be 'everywhere' just that they have no right to privacy and certainly should have no right to punish the victim here for deciding to share her story and their names



Unless you live in the rain forest of the sub-saharan desert, you should be able to understand that your name being somewhere is the same thing as your name being everywhere.

Especially now, after the incident received publicity and the media has done its best to distort the facts, those boys' names will never vanish from the internet and searching their names on google will most likely already yield the result of linking them to a "sexual assault". They can kiss any potential job ever good bye.



> Let's be clear here not every criminal chooses to or even is capable of reintergration, yes they have a hard road ahead of them but I have no sympathy for them. *Their choice their consequences.*



Again, the whole "they chose to commit the crime, so any punishment imaginable by either the judicial system or victim is justified" can be applied to every situation anywhere ever. It's not logical, it's the same shit pro-life nuts say all the time, that one mistake should ruin your life.



> And by the by the aim of the judical system is to protect the public, if that means rehabilitation, great but if not then people need to be warned.



That's not what you advocated, you want their names to be published despite knowing *absolutely nothing* about them or their side of the story. This can be applied to every single crime that happens, so why are you being so hypocritical? Just say that every single crime should be a mark of shame on the criminal's forehead for the rest of their lives.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 26, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Unless you live in the rain forest of the sub-saharan desert, you should be able to understand that your name being somewhere is the same thing as your name being everywhere.
> 
> Especially now, after the incident received publicity and the media has done its best to distort the facts, those boys' names will never vanish from the internet and searching their names on google will most likely already yield the result of linking them to a "sexual assault". They can kiss any potential job ever good bye.



You say all this like we should care.


----------



## drache (Jul 26, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Unless you live in the rain forest of the sub-saharan desert, you should be able to understand that your name being somewhere is the same thing as your name being everywhere.


 
let's just assuem this is true which frankly I don't think so but let's just play  what if. So what if their name is everywhere now? You seem to think the mob is coming for them with pitchforks and torches and yet have not proof or evidence of this.

So really what is your objection here? That criminals should have some expectation of privacy?



Saufsoldat said:


> Especially now, after the incident received publicity and the media has done its best to distort the facts, those boys' names will never vanish from the internet and searching their names on google will most likely already yield the result of linking them to a "sexual assault". They can kiss any potential job ever good bye.


 
Just what facts have been distorted? And frankly they have worse probelms with a job then an internet search as this will be on their record (unless the court chooses to seal it which I am not hugely in favor). And let's be clear here those boys decided to act in a certain way, this is the consequences. I have no sympathy for them in that regard and now it's up to them to choose, do they learn from this and pick themselves up or do they not? It's up to them but I for one find it incredibly dumb to pretend their actions should not have consequences and any deal they cut should be secret. 



Saufsoldat said:


> Again, the whole "they chose to commit the crime, so any punishment imaginable by either the judicial system or victim is justified" can be applied to every situation anywhere ever. It's not logical, it's the same shit pro-life nuts say all the time, that one mistake should ruin your life.


 
wow we've really jumped off the logic rails, first I never said any punishment imaginable. Despite your rather absurd hyperbole I have been quite clear and concise on EXACTLY what I think. If you really still do not understand my position I will explain this on last time.

Those boys lost any expectation of privacy and should have not a shred of it on any deal they cut. Neither should any other criminal. The public has not just a right but a need to know. Both so that we can hold are justice system accountable and so that people can be aware. It's up to them to decide what to do next.

Second don't compare this to pro lifers it's not even close.



Saufsoldat said:


> That's not what you advocated, you want their names to be published despite knowing *absolutely nothing* about them or their side of the story. This can be applied to every single crime that happens, so why are you being so hypocritical? Just say that every single crime should be a mark of shame on the criminal's forehead for the rest of their lives.


 
They are welcome to tell their side of the story but by pleading *GUILTY* they are admitting that they did what they were accused of legally. That means either they really did do it or their lawyers convinced them this was better then the alternative. Now as the story indicates the DA was fairly desperate to cut a deal this indicates the first and nto the second.

Now are you done with this mark of shame bullshit? Or are we going to continue the hyperbole?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 26, 2012)

They could always find work in one of those rape-friendly African countries.


----------



## Roman (Jul 26, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Unless you live in the rain forest of the sub-saharan desert, you should be able to understand that your name being somewhere is the same thing as your name being everywhere.
> 
> Especially now, after the incident received publicity and the media has done its best to distort the facts, those boys' names will never vanish from the internet and searching their names on google will most likely already yield the result of linking them to a "sexual assault". They can kiss any potential job ever good bye.


 
Take a look at it this way: even if their names weren't all over the inet, employers would still look at a potential employee's criminal record and decide if they want to hire them later. Also, how would the two explain 5 years of inactivity - no school or job experience - in an interview? Things wouldn't be any harder for them if their names are already on the inet to begin with. It doesn't matter because employers will still find out that they abused, possibly raped, a girl when they were teenagers.

With your logic, it seems you expect criminals shouldn't be made accountable for their past at all after they spent some time in jail.



Saufsoldat said:


> Again, the whole "they chose to commit the crime, so any punishment imaginable by either the judicial system or victim is justified" can be applied to every situation anywhere ever. It's not logical, it's the same shit pro-life nuts say all the time, that one mistake should ruin your life.



Stop pulling this argument, it's stupid and illogical. Maybe I should be glad to see I'm not the only one you put words in his mouth.

What I said and what drache is saying is people who commit a crime should face the consequences of their actions. No one here is suggesting that a criminal deserves death just because they committed a crime, for instance.



Saufsoldat said:


> That's not what you advocated, you want their names to be published despite *knowing absolutely nothing about them or their side of the story*. This can be applied to every single crime that happens, so why are you being so hypocritical? Just say that every single crime should be a mark of shame on the criminal's forehead for the rest of their lives.



They plead guilty to first degree sexual abuse. That's their side of the story, so what are you trying to say?


----------



## Hiko Seijurou (Jul 26, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Unless you live in the rain forest of the sub-saharan desert, you should be able to understand that your name being somewhere is the same thing as your name being everywhere.
> 
> Especially now, after the incident received publicity and the media has done its best to distort the facts, those boys' names will never vanish from the internet and searching their names on google will most likely already yield the result of linking them to a "sexual assault". They can kiss any potential job ever good bye.
> 
> ...


Fucking feminists, man. Reasoning with them is like talking to a brick wall.

'Equality' always feels one-sided, for some reason.


----------



## drache (Jul 26, 2012)

Hiko Seijurou said:


> Fucking femenists, man. Reasoning with them is like talking to a brick wall.
> 
> 'Equality' always feels one-sided, for some reason.


 
you think I am a femenist? 

I am tempted to just tell you there is no such thing (as this isn't) but instead I'll just pretend you meant *feminist* and ask how the hell did we go from debating whether CRIMINALS should have to face the consequences of their actions to being accused of being feminists?


(oh and by the by as most here know I am male meaning that at the very least you are utterly techinically wrong but at least amusingly so)


----------



## Roman (Jul 26, 2012)

drache said:


> you think I am a femenist?
> 
> I am tempted to just tell you there is no such thing (as this isn't) but instead I'll just pretend you meant *feminist* and ask how the hell did we go from debating whether CRIMINALS should have to face the consequences of their actions to being accused of being feminists?
> 
> ...



Stand up for a female rape victim by condemning the rapists: you're a feminist for not having sympathy for the criminals 

Stand up for a male rape victim: you're gay :WOW

That's the just of what he's saying


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 26, 2012)

drache said:


> let's just assuem this is true which frankly I don't think so but let's just play  what if. So what if their name is everywhere now? You seem to think the mob is coming for them with pitchforks and torches and yet have not proof or evidence of this.
> 
> So really what is your objection here? That criminals should have some expectation of privacy?


 
Juvenile criminals? Yes, definitely. Especially if the judge specifically orders it. But noooo, an emotionally involved teenage girl knows better than a mature, trained judge.



> Just what facts have been distorted?



The facts of what actually happened. Just read through this thread, literally more than half of the people that posted here thought the girl was raped.



> And frankly they have worse probelms with a job then an internet search as this will be on their record (unless the court chooses to seal it which I am not hugely in favor).



They're juveniles, so I don't think it'll be on their permanent record. Of course I disagree with the idea of having a permanent record in the first place.



> And let's be clear here those boys decided to act in a certain way, this is the consequences. I have no sympathy for them in that regard and now it's up to them to choose, do they learn from this and pick themselves up or do they not? It's up to them but I for one find it incredibly dumb to pretend their actions should not have consequences and any deal they cut should be secret.


 
What the fuck is wrong with you? They received their punishment, the whole "herpaderp, if we don't plaster their names all over the internet, their actions have no consequence" is simply fucking retarded. They pleaded guilty and they received a sentence, *the extent of which you do not even know*. Yet you and many others here have the audacity to pretend that they got off scot free.

The girl simply thought that the boys' punishment wasn't enough, so she decided to take justice into her own hands.



> wow we've really jumped off the logic rails, first I never said any punishment imaginable. Despite your rather absurd hyperbole I have been quite clear and concise on EXACTLY what I think. If you really still do not understand my position I will explain this on last time.



I know you didn't say it, but it still logically follows from your argument. If I justify an additional punishment by saying "they chose to commit the crime and those are the consequences", then what stops me from saying the exact same phrase after they've been lynched?



> Those boys lost any expectation of privacy and should have not a shred of it on any deal they cut. Neither should any other criminal. The public has not just a right but a need to know. Both so that we can hold are justice system accountable and so that people can be aware. It's up to them to decide what to do next.



For adult criminals, until they're released, yes. Juveniles are different from adults, though. Do you disagree with giving minors different punishments from adults, is that it?



> Second don't compare this to pro lifers it's not even close.


 
It is the *exact same argument*. "Don't want a lifetime of responsibility for one mistake? Well you should've thought about this before."



> They are welcome to tell their side of the story but by pleading *GUILTY* they are admitting that they did what they were accused of legally. That means either they really did do it or their lawyers convinced them this was better then the alternative. Now as the story indicates the DA was fairly desperate to cut a deal this indicates the first and nto the second.
> 
> Now are you done with this mark of shame bullshit? Or are we going to continue the hyperbole?



I never said they were innocent, but I still fail to see how them being guilty of a crime means their rights can be trampled over and court order ignored so that society can give them some extrajudicial punishment.


----------



## Hiko Seijurou (Jul 26, 2012)

Idiots, you were being illogical and biased. Also, don't twist my words.

By the way, you need fucking dictionaries up your asses. At least know capitalization. You desperately need to go back to school.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 26, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Take a look at it this way: even if their names weren't all over the inet, employers would still look at a potential employee's criminal record and decide if they want to hire them later.



They're juveniles. I'm not entirely sure, but I think in the US that means their record vanishes when they turn 21.



> Also, how would the two explain 5 years of inactivity - no school or job experience - in an interview? Things wouldn't be any harder for them if their names are already on the inet to begin with. It doesn't matter because employers will still find out that they abused, possibly raped, a girl when they were teenagers.



What 5 years are you talking about? It's unclear if they received a jail sentence at all.

And what's this bullshit about rape again?



> With your logic, it seems you expect criminals shouldn't be made accountable for their past at all after they spent some time in jail.



That doesn't make any sense. When their sentence has been served, they're no longer criminals, so how can you hold criminals accountable for their past time in jail? After they're out of jail, they are innocents and I don't see why there's so much hatred for them here that people don't want them to lead normal lives again.



> Stop pulling this argument, it's stupid and illogical. Maybe I should be glad to see I'm not the only one you put words in his mouth.



Okay, both you and drache seem to have a little trouble with reading comprehension. Saying "your reasoning could easily be applied to XYZ" is *not* the same as saying "you just said XYZ", yet you happily pretend that I said the latter, when I quite clearly said the former.



> What I said and what drache is saying is people who commit a crime should face the consequences of their actions. No one here is suggesting that a criminal deserves death just because they committed a crime, for instance.



If that's all you two are saying, then it's a genuinely idiotic statement to make, considering that the boys *already received a punishment*.

This has *never* been about committing a crime without any consequences. If the judge had determined that the boys are innocent, then you might have a case. But the way things are, they were found guilty and received a sentence, so please do not pretend for a second that you actually believe your own statement.



> They plead guilty to first degree sexual abuse. That's their side of the story, so what are you trying to say?



That's their side? Well, in that case the girl's side is whatever she testified in court and none of the stuff she told the media is part of her story.


----------



## abcd (Jul 26, 2012)

drache said:


> you think I am a femenist?
> 
> I am tempted to just tell you there is no such thing (as this isn't) but instead I'll just pretend you meant *feminist* and ask how the hell *did we go from debating whether CRIMINALS should have to face the consequences of their actions* to being accused of being feminists?
> 
> ...



They were already sentenced by the court, which is the consequence of their actions.

The discussion is about whether the girl can take further revenge on the guys.


----------



## drache (Jul 26, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Juvenile criminals? Yes, definitely. Especially if the judge specifically orders it. But noooo, an emotionally involved teenage girl knows better than a mature, trained judge.


 
juvie reccords are not unilaterially sealed nor are they sealed absolutely always.



Saufsoldat said:


> The facts of what actually happened. Just read through this thread, literally more than half of the people that posted here thought the girl was raped.


 
First degree sexual assault can include in many states rape. You have offered nothing to reinforce this asseration but when I get home I will look up what exactly is first degree sexual assault in TN (as I am techincally 'working' I really don't want to run 'first degree sexual assault' though the search engine)

Is that all you got?



Saufsoldat said:


> They're juveniles, so I don't think it'll be on their permanent record. Of course I disagree with the idea of having a permanent record in the first place.


 
right because criminals shouldn't have consequences that mugger that used a gun to rob people? Oh he's just harmless and that rapist that brutalized and terrorized his victims? He's just misunderstood.

We're not going to agree on this and that's the politest I will be.



Saufsoldat said:


> What the fuck is wrong with you? They received their punishment, the whole "herpaderp, if we don't plaster their names all over the internet, their actions have no consequence" is simply fucking retarded. They pleaded guilty and they received a sentence, *the extent of which you do not even know*. Yet you and many others here have the audacity to pretend that they got off scot free.


 
holy overreaction batman, you know I still don't know thier names? Kinda of puts a huge hole in that outrage ballon of yours right? We do know the extent of their sentence but I never said they got off scot free.

Let's say it together *criminals have no right or expectation of privacy regarding their sentences or crimes* that's my stance right there. It's not changed one fucking bit. Please stick that and not whatever strawman or irrational though you have.

Thank you



Saufsoldat said:


> The girl simply thought that the boys' punishment wasn't enough, so she decided to take justice into her own hands.


 
and I applaud her courage as I have REPEATEDLY said I don't think they should have any claim, right or expectation of secrecy here. The public has every right to now both for accountiblity and for safety.



Saufsoldat said:


> I know you didn't say it, but it still logically follows from your argument. If I justify an additional punishment by saying "they chose to commit the crime and those are the consequences", then what stops me from saying the exact same phrase after they've been lynched?


 
no it doesn't and if you are going to claim logical extension you have to *show* not tell. Further the fact is that under the law they are going to have to disclose this regardless to employers and even if they didn't they will have explain their jail time. So your theory of 'additional punishment' is rather laughable



Saufsoldat said:


> For adult criminals, until they're released, yes. Juveniles are different from adults, though. Do you disagree with giving minors different punishments from adults, is that it?


 
for sexual crimes I definitely think so I would be more inclined to say no if for example they got caught streaking but that's not what happened.



Saufsoldat said:


> It is the *exact same argument*. "Don't want a lifetime of responsibility for one mistake? Well you should've thought about this before."


 
no it's not one argument revolves around assuming humanity on what is only potential and the other deals with what happened to an actual human

not even close



Saufsoldat said:


> I never said they were innocent, but I still fail to see how them being guilty of a crime means their rights can be trampled over and court order ignored so that society can give them some extrajudicial punishment.


 
you keep concern trollling that way with 'oh we don't know the story' and 'oh it's unfair' etc etc.

To borrow your words *it's the logical extension of waht you said*

And I don't think you understand, I don't think they have a right to privacy not in this regard not once they pleaded guilty. You can't trample what they do not have.



Hiko Seijurou said:


> Idiots, you were being illogical and biased. Also, don't twist my words.
> 
> By the way, you need fucking dictionaries up your asses. At least know capitalization. You desperately need to go back to school.


 
wow just wow, I think your tenure here will be short



Freedan said:


> Stand up for a female rape victim by condemning the rapists: you're a feminist for not having sympathy for the criminals
> 
> Stand up for a male rape victim: you're gay :WOW
> 
> That's the just of what he's saying


 
ah I see yes how dare I express any human feelings and people wonder why i generally dispise my own gender

:sigh 


abcd said:


> They were already sentenced by the court, which is the consequence of their actions.
> 
> The discussion is about whether the girl can take further revenge on the guys.


 
um no but if you want to believe that fine but the *facts* are what is important not what you believe


----------



## impersonal (Jul 26, 2012)

drache said:


> they are not victims, the girl is the victim


Too many hollywood movies leads to a mental disorder known as "you're either a villain or a good guy". The girl is the victim in one case (two guys coping a feel). In the other case she's the defendant and the guys are the victims.

People are not either good guys or villains. There are plenty of shades in between, and sometimes people simply have several roles in different situations. When a former victim commits a crime, she is still liable. When a former offender becomes a victim, he still gets the protection of the law. *What is so difficult to understand?* I know for a fact that everybody here has the cognitive capacities to grasp this, so just use your brains for a second instead of acting like bleeding hearts.


----------



## impersonal (Jul 26, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Isn't he just saying that the boys who molested the girl aren't victims? That they brought public ridicule on themselves by their own actions?



No. He is saying that someone who commits one crime, however small, deserves any and all of the consequences, legal and illegal ones, even after just punishment has already been administered.

For example: I walk on somebody's lawn, I get shot. When the police arrives, I get fined for walking on somebody else's property, but the shooter gets away scot free. After all, he's the victim, and I brought it on myself, according to freedan and drache.

I'm 19 and I have consensual sex with a 15 years old, I go to prison for 5 years and when I get out I get eaten by rabid monkeys unleashed by the girl's father? I brought it on myself, according to freedan and drache and CTK and a bunch of other people.


----------



## abcd (Jul 26, 2012)

drache said:


> um no but if you want to believe that fine but the *facts* are what is important not what you believe



Can you explain where I got my facts wrong?

I gave 2 statements

1) The boys were sentenced by the court - Is this wrong factually?
2) The girl wants further punishment for the guys(against the advice of the court) - is this wrong factually?


----------



## drache (Jul 26, 2012)

impersonal said:


> Too many hollywood movies leads to a mental disorder known as "you're either a villain or a good guy". The girl is the victim in one case (two guys coping a feel). In the other case she's the defendant and the guys are the victims.
> 
> People are not either good guys or villains. There are plenty of shades in between, and sometimes people simply have several roles in different situations. When a former victim commits a crime, she is still liable. When a former offender becomes a victim, he still gets the protection of the law. *What is so difficult to understand?* I know for a fact that everybody here has the cognitive capacities to grasp this, so just use
> your brains for a second instead of acting like bleeding hearts.


 
ah I see it's hollywood's fault now that makes complete and utter nonsense

but please explain the shades of gray in first degree sexual assault I would love to hear you try.

ps I have yet to call anyone involved in thsi story a hero or a villian, why the fucking hell is it so difficult to stick to what I say? 



impersonal said:


> No. He is saying that someone who commits one crime, however small, deserves any and all of the consequences, legal and illegal ones, even after just punishment has already been administered.
> 
> For example: I walk on somebody's lawn, I get shot. When the police arrives, I get fined for walking on somebody else's property, but the shooter gets away scot free. After all, he's the victim, and I brought it on myself, according to freedan and drache.
> 
> I'm 19 and I have consensual sex with a 15 years old, I go to prison for 5 years and when I get out I get eaten by rabid monkeys unleashed by the girl's father? I brought it on myself, according to freedan and drache and CTK and a bunch of other people.


 
actualyl no he was right and you were wrong but hey don't let the guy that actually said it interrupt you and this wonderful fantasy you have going



abcd said:


> Can you explain where I got my facts wrong?
> 
> I gave 2 statements
> 
> ...


 
Actually it wasn't 'advice' it was do this or be in contempt and the girl simply wanted people to know (and at great personal cost I would add). If there's nothing wrong with the deal where's the objection?

If as you and all the others continually assert and the boys 'didn't mean it' or whatever other bullshit framing you want to use just where is the harm in the public knowining the details? One would think under the absurd even laughable senario you've created that this would only help.

And yet you insist it doesn't and then accuse me of being irrational?


----------



## abcd (Jul 26, 2012)

drache said:


> Actually it wasn't 'advice' it was do this or be in contempt and the girl simply wanted people to know (and at great personal cost I would add). If there's nothing wrong with the deal where's the objection?
> 
> If as you and all the others continually assert and the boys 'didn't mean it' or whatever other bullshit framing you want to use just where is the harm in the public knowining the details? One would think under the absurd even laughable senario you've created that this would only help.
> 
> And yet you insist it doesn't and then accuse me of being irrational?



No the point was that you said I was not using facts, On the contrary it seems you are the one spouting BS.

No one said the boys did not mean it. Everyone says that they are being sentenced by the court for their crime. 

Yes I consider you emotional in this case but irrational.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 26, 2012)

drache said:


> First degree sexual assault can include in many states rape. You have offered nothing to reinforce this asseration but when I get home I will look up what exactly is first degree sexual assault in TN (as I am techincally 'working' I really don't want to run 'first degree sexual assault' though the search engine)
> 
> Is that all you got?


 
FFS... The crime took place in *Kentucky* and *in Kentucky there is no such thing as sexual assault*. First degree sexual assault does not exist in Kentucky, it is not a legal term, do you understand this?

Kentucky has sexual abuse (which the boys are guilty of and pleaded guilty to) and rape (which they're not guilty of).



> right because criminals shouldn't have consequences that mugger that used a gun to rob people? Oh he's just harmless and that rapist that brutalized and terrorized his victims? He's just misunderstood.
> 
> We're not going to agree on this and that's the politest I will be.


 
Where did I say this? I merely argued that criminals should not be punished beyond their prescribed sentence, which you disagree with.



> holy overreaction batman, you know I still don't know thier names? Kinda of puts a huge hole in that outrage ballon of yours right? We do know the extent of their sentence but I never said they got off scot free.



You not knowing their names proves nothing. Anyone with the least interest in them will find them in a quick google search.

And you pretended that their crime has no consequences if they don't get their names released. A crime having no consequences sounds like getting off scot free to me.



> Let's say it together *criminals have no right or expectation of privacy regarding their sentences or crimes* that's my stance right there. It's not changed one fucking bit. Please stick that and not whatever strawman or irrational though you have.
> 
> Thank you
> 
> and I applaud her courage as I have REPEATEDLY said I don't think they should have any claim, right or expectation of secrecy here. The public has every right to now both for accountiblity and for safety.


 
Well, the justice system disagree with you assessment when it comes to juveniles, but it considers juveniles to not have the same foresight adults are supposed to have. Apparently the judge did not view them as a menace to society.



> no it doesn't and if you are going to claim logical extension you have to *show* not tell. Further the fact is that under the law they are going to have to disclose this regardless to employers and even if they didn't they will have explain their jail time. So your theory of 'additional punishment' is rather laughable


 
I'm not just talking about employers (and again, they're juveniles, so their record won't show anything later on) but about everything. Anyone can who searches for them for whatever reason, will get this as a result.



> for sexual crimes I definitely think so I would be more inclined to say no if for example they got caught streaking but that's not what happened.


 
Streaking is a sexual crime, which some organizations even include in their definition of sexual assault.

And would you mind elaborating? Why are minors more accountable for sexual crimes than for other crimes?



> no it's not one argument revolves around assuming humanity on what is only potential and the other deals with what happened to an actual human
> 
> not even close


 
It's one argument that you often hear in abortion debates. Of course you can't remember it now, because it doesn't serve your argument, but if you want to check one of the abortion threads, you'll find it there.



> you keep concern trollling that way with 'oh we don't know the story' and 'oh it's unfair' etc etc.
> 
> To borrow your words *it's the logical extension of waht you said*



I have no idea what you're trying to say here.



> And I don't think you understand, I don't think they have a right to privacy not in this regard not once they pleaded guilty. You can't trample what they do not have.



It's a fact that they do have those rights, though. The judge clearly ordered that their names are not to be disclosed. How difficult is it to understand that?

You can disagree with the judge's order, but what the girl did was not some great service to society, she committed a crime and took the law into her own hands in order to punish these criminals beyond their actual sentence. She considers herself above the law and thinks she can administer extrajudicial punishment if the courts aren't punishing enough. If we condone this, how can we condemn lynching?


----------



## drache (Jul 26, 2012)

abcd said:


> No the point was that you said I was not using facts, On the contrary it seems you are the one spouting BS.
> 
> No one said the boys did not mean it. Everyone says that they are being sentenced by the court for their crime.
> 
> Yes I consider you emotional in this case but irrational.



that makes no sense



Saufsoldat said:


> FFS... The crime took place in *Kentucky* and *in Kentucky there is no such thing as sexual assault*. First degree sexual assault does not exist in Kentucky, it is not a legal term, do you understand this?
> 
> Kentucky has sexual abuse (which the boys are guilty of and pleaded guilty to) and rape (which they're not guilty of).



you're right my bad wrong state as  I said I looked up what they were convicted of 

sexual abuse 1st degree: forcible sexual contact  while the victim is *physically helpless or mentally incapacitated.*


but I am sure they are just misunderstood right?




Saufsoldat said:


> Where did I say this? I merely argued that criminals should not be punished beyond their prescribed sentence, which you disagree with.



same place you argued against permament records or do you not remember that?



Saufsoldat said:


> You not knowing their names proves nothing. Anyone with the least interest in them will find them in a quick google search.
> 
> And you pretended that their crime has no consequences if they don't get their names released. A crime having no consequences sounds like getting off scot free to me.



actually no I have repeatedly said my piece if you don't want to believe me or pay attention then that's on you not me



Saufsoldat said:


> Well, the justice system disagree with you assessment when it comes to juveniles, but it considers juveniles to not have the same foresight adults are supposed to have. Apparently the judge did not view them as a menace to society.



actually juveniles are tried as adults all the time and considering they got 5 years out of the max of 5 I think you might want to reconsider



Saufsoldat said:


> I'm not just talking about employers (and again, they're juveniles, so their record won't show anything later on) but about everything. Anyone can who searches for them for whatever reason, will get this as a result.



and? you have yet to show how this is first wrong and second any different then what would happen when they register as sex offenders.



Saufsoldat said:


> Streaking is a sexual crime, which some organizations even include in their definition of sexual assault.



we really gonna play semantics?



Saufsoldat said:


> And would you mind elaborating? Why are minors more accountable for sexual crimes than for other crimes?



never said just sexual but as the topic is sexual crimes let's stick to that



Saufsoldat said:


> It's one argument that you often hear in abortion debates. Of course you can't remember it now, because it doesn't serve your argument, but if you want to check one of the abortion threads, you'll find it there.



considering the number of times I've gone to war in those threads I call bullshit, you're reaching. Stop it's embarrassing.



Saufsoldat said:


> I have no idea what you're trying to say here.



using your own words against you, would you like a map?



Saufsoldat said:


> It's a fact that they do have those rights, though. The judge clearly ordered that their names are not to be disclosed. How difficult is it to understand that?
> 
> You can disagree with the judge's order, but what the girl did was not some great service to society, she committed a crime and took the law into her own hands in order to punish these criminals beyond their actual sentence. She considers herself above the law and thinks she can administer extrajudicial punishment if the courts aren't punishing enough. If we condone this, how can we condemn lynching?



Rights are not absolute not here in the US and I know they are not in Germany. You do not have the right to absolute free speech and in this case the right to absolute privacy.

What you do not grasp is I don't think she did anything illegal or better said wrong and any charges were dropped.

Now if you want to carry on with these irrational comparisons (lynching really?) then I am going to stop taking you seriously and start thinking you are just trolling


----------



## Sedaiv (Jul 30, 2012)

impersonal said:


> Too many hollywood movies leads to a mental disorder known as "you're either a villain or a good guy". The girl is the victim in one case (two guys coping a feel). In the other case she's the defendant and the guys are the victims.
> 
> People are not either good guys or villains. There are plenty of shades in between, and sometimes people simply have several roles in different situations. When a former victim commits a crime, she is still liable. When a former offender becomes a victim, he still gets the protection of the law. *What is so difficult to understand?* I know for a fact that everybody here has the cognitive capacities to grasp this, so just use your brains for a second instead of acting like bleeding hearts.



Although I got more to say, I'll keep this short for now. They didn't just cope a feel, they raped her. There is a difference between someone forcing their penis in your vagina and someones hands feeling up your body.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 30, 2012)

Sedaiv said:


> Although I got more to say, I'll keep this short for now. They didn't just cope a feel, they raped her. There is a difference between someone forcing their penis in your vagina and someones hands feeling up your body.



They didn't rape her, they most likely groped and/or partially undressed her and took pictures.



drache said:


> you're right my bad wrong state as  I said I looked up what they were convicted of
> 
> sexual abuse 1st degree: forcible sexual contact  while the victim is *physically helpless or mentally incapacitated.*
> 
> ...



Your point...? I never said they're innocent. They're not rapists, though.



> same place you argued against permament records or do you not remember that?



So not carrying a crime with you for the rest of your live = no consequences for that crime? Do you really mean that?



> actually no I have repeatedly said my piece if you don't want to believe me or pay attention then that's on you not me



Actually yes and you just repeated that one paragraph ago.



> actually juveniles are tried as adults all the time



Which is an entirely different can of retard worms, but let's not derail the the discussion further than necessary. Those two boys were tried as juveniles, period.



> and considering they got 5 years out of the max of 5 I think you might want to reconsider



Where did you get that number from? None of the article I've read made any further statements about their sentence. Only that the girl feels they're no sufficient, which would be kind of weird if they got the maximum sentence.



> and? you have yet to show how this is first wrong and second any different then what would happen when they register as sex offenders.



Right to privacy. Even if you believe criminals don't have it, people cease to be criminals once they were released from prison. 



> we really gonna play semantics?



What semantics? It's actually kind of funny, because people assume the worst shit when they hear "sexual assault" and now you complain when I tell you that stuff like streaking is sometimes included. Don't complain to me, I wasn't the one who stretched the definition of sexual assault beyond all reasonable boundaries.



> never said just sexual but as the topic is sexual crimes let's stick to that
> 
> considering the number of times I've gone to war in those threads I call bullshit, you're reaching. Stop it's embarrassing.







> using your own words against you, would you like a map?



No, I mean I literally cannot understand what you were trying to say. Could you maybe rephrase it?

This sentence is simply a linguistic mystery to me:



> you keep concern trollling that way with 'oh we don't know the story' and 'oh it's unfair' etc etc.





> Rights are not absolute not here in the US and I know they are not in Germany. You do not have the right to absolute free speech and in this case the right to absolute privacy.
> 
> What you do not grasp is I don't think she did anything illegal or better said wrong and any charges were dropped.



So you think that the judge granted them additional rights, which all other juveniles don't have when he placed the gag order?

She did in fact do something illegal and the only reason why she wasn't punished was because the boys dropped the charges. 



> Now if you want to carry on with these irrational comparisons (lynching really?) then I am going to stop taking you seriously and start thinking you are just trolling



The only difference between this and lynching is that lynching is more severe, the motivation is the exact same. It's the belief that the justice system doesn't dispense enough justice and thus you need to add punishment on top of what the criminals already received.


----------



## impersonal (Jul 30, 2012)

drache said:


> ah I see it's hollywood's fault now that makes complete and utter nonsense


I'm trying to give you the excuse that you've been indoctrinated. I'll let you guess what the alternative is. The general tone of this post should give you a hint.


drache said:


> but please explain the shades of gray in first degree sexual assault I would love to hear you try.


It's first degree sexual abuse, which probably means that the girl was fondled while intoxicated. That's bad, but obviously there are shades of gray. Just because you're a convicted sex offender doesn't make you the most horrible person on earth; in this case, it just means two boys made a few really bad and not very nice decisions. And they have been sentenced for that. But you're insisting that someone who was once the offender can never be the victim, and that someone who was once the victim can never be an offender. This makes no sense whatsoever.

Let's consider your argument again: you claim there are no shades of gray in sexual abuse. Okay. All sexual abusers are perfectly black like the devil himself. Are you drunk? Are you out of your mind?


			
				drache said:
			
		

> actualyl no he was right and you were wrong


I feel like I'm arguing with a 5 years old.





			
				Sedaiv said:
			
		

> Although I got more to say, I'll keep this short for now. They didn't just cope a feel, they raped her. There is a difference between someone forcing their penis in your vagina and someones hands feeling up your body.


Why do people insist on correcting me when they have no clue what they're talking about? No, it wasn't rape.  


> Louisville, Ky. (...)
> The boys pleaded guilty on June 26 to* first-degree sexual abuse* and misdemeanor voyeurism.






> *510.110 Sexual abuse in the first degree.*
> (1) A person is guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree when:
> ...(a) He or she subjects another person to sexual contact by forcible compulsion; or
> ...*(b) He or she subjects another person to sexual contact who is incapable of
> ...



This is not rape, it's fondling. You wrote that you have more to say; considering that your biggest argument is completely worthless, I suggest you keep the rest to yourself.


----------



## Darth inVaders (Jul 30, 2012)

Why is this continuing... the girl is the ONLY victim, she is NOT going to be punished for anything more than the wrongful pains already inflicted on her by the boys (fyi they publicly posted pics of their crime - so her image is already outed being violated), her right to freedom of speech is protected, justice won the day


----------



## TheDestroyer (Jul 30, 2012)

Only in Kentucky


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 30, 2012)

Darth inVaders said:


> Why is this continuing... the girl is the ONLY victim, she is NOT going to be punished for anything more than the wrongful pains already inflicted on her by the boys (fyi they publicly posted pics of their crime - so her image is already outed being violated), her right to freedom of speech is protected, justice won the day



The boys had their rights violated after the court guaranteed that their names wouldn't be released, so they're quite clearly victims as well. The only reason the girl isn't going to be punished for her crime is that the boys dropped the charges.


----------



## Darth inVaders (Jul 30, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> The boys had their rights violated after the court guaranteed that their names wouldn't be released, so they're quite clearly victims as well. The only reason the girl isn't going to be punished for her crime is that the boys dropped the charges.



She's guilty until proven innocent eh? No reason to believe she didn't know she was supposedly not allowed to post their names, no reason to believe the judge would have just tossed it out in favor of her 1st amendment rights, no reason whatsoever to believe she would "get off" scott free for something nobody should be punishing her for anyway?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 30, 2012)

Darth inVaders said:


> She's guilty until proven innocent eh?



Not legally guilty, but the evidence is overwhelming and she gave a full confession, sooo...



> No reason to believe she didn't know she was supposedly not allowed to post their names, no reason to believe the judge would have just tossed it out in favor of her 1st amendment rights, no reason whatsoever to believe she would "get off" scott free for something nobody should be punishing her for anyway?



No reason? She admitted that she was defying the court order, she was fully aware of her crime.

And the first amendment? Are you fucking kidding? The first amendment doesn't cover lots of stuff, like military secrets, medical history, or court orders.

The last part is just silly. She committed a crime and should be punished. The victims simply decided not to press charges. Why would the judge, who sentenced the boys himself and placed the gag order himself, simply let some emotional girl walk all over him and ignore his authority?


----------



## drache (Jul 31, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Your point...? I never said they're innocent. They're not rapists, though.



you certainly seem hell bent on treating them like they are victims when they are not.



Saufsoldat said:


> So not carrying a crime with you for the rest of your live = no consequences for that crime? Do you really mean that?



the public has a right to know if you think that is 'carrying your crime with you' then  I guess I do.  The fact is  that for safety if nothing else if you choose to commit a crime especially a felony the public should know of it.

It's that simple to me



Saufsoldat said:


> Actually yes and you just repeated that one paragraph ago.



I do not think you understand so let me try and say this a different way. I think a *component* of the *consequences of their actions should include that the public has a right to know not only the details of their crimes but any plea deal or sentencing.  The only exception to this should be if you can demonstrate a clear, immediate and direct threat to their lives.



Saufsoldat said:



			Which is an entirely different can of retard worms, but let's not derail the the discussion further than necessary. Those two boys were tried as juveniles, period.
		
Click to expand...


fine




Saufsoldat said:



			Where did you get that number from? None of the article I've read made any further statements about their sentence. Only that the girl feels they're no sufficient, which would be kind of weird if they got the maximum sentence.
		
Click to expand...


i thought the article had included a sentence my bad




Saufsoldat said:



			Right to privacy. Even if you believe criminals don't have it, people cease to be criminals once they were released from prison.
		
Click to expand...


sorry we're not going to agree here in that what you did is still relevant  and you have no right to privacy on that.



Saufsoldat said:



			What semantics? It's actually kind of funny, because people assume the worst shit when they hear "sexual assault" and now you complain when I tell you that stuff like streaking is sometimes included. Don't complain to me, I wasn't the one who stretched the definition of sexual assault beyond all reasonable boundaries.
		
Click to expand...


1st degree sexual abuse is anything less then actual intercourse which is plenty bad and you included nothing to support your assertation about streaking.







Saufsoldat said:



			No, I mean I literally cannot understand what you were trying to say. Could you maybe rephrase it?

This sentence is simply a linguistic mystery to me:
		
Click to expand...


you are acting like you are concern trolling and about the attackers then the victims. Thos boys are not victims they made thier choice all of this are the consequences. And nothing you say in 'concern' will change that

That's about the best I can do as I am not entirely do any better



Saufsoldat said:



			So you think that the judge granted them additional rights, which all other juveniles don't have when he placed the gag order?

She did in fact do something illegal and the only reason why she wasn't punished was because the boys dropped the charges.
		
Click to expand...


I think the boys were granted rights they don't have should not have and that the judge agreed given that he choose not to pursue the matter once there was not a complaint.



Saufsoldat said:



			The only difference between this and lynching is that lynching is more severe, the motivation is the exact same. It's the belief that the justice system doesn't dispense enough justice and thus you need to add punishment on top of what the criminals already received.
		
Click to expand...


no  and this is just as stupid as the abortion analogy lynching is blind hatred and evil. This is not a lynching and the more you do things like this the less crediblity you have



impersonal said:



			I'm trying to give you the excuse that you've been indoctrinated. I'll let you guess what the alternative is. The general tone of this post should give you a hint.
		
Click to expand...


you are a random person on the internet, I don't care what you think. You can think I am an idiot, cool, stupid or whatever it doesn't matter to me.




impersonal said:



			It's first degree sexual abuse, which probably means that the girl was fondled while intoxicated. That's bad, but obviously there are shades of gray. Just because you're a convicted sex offender doesn't make you the most horrible person on earth; in this case, it just means two boys made a few really bad and not very nice decisions. And they have been sentenced for that. But you're insisting that someone who was once the offender can never be the victim, and that someone who was once the victim can never be an offender. This makes no sense whatsoever.
		
Click to expand...


it can mean many things all it really means was there was no intercourse and yet you hurry to defend her attackers. How droll.

And yes when you CHOOSE to sexually assault someone you should expect that to not be kept secret nor any sympathy.



impersonal said:



			Let's consider your argument again: you claim there are no shades of gray in sexual abuse. Okay. All sexual abusers are perfectly black like the devil himself. Are you drunk? Are you out of your mind?
		
Click to expand...


no I asked you to explain the shades of gray here not in some hypothetical senario where in you can make it whatever you want/



impersonal said:



			I feel like I'm arguing with a 5 years old.
Why do people insist on correcting me when they have no clue what they're talking about? No, it wasn't rape.
		
Click to expand...


and I feel like I am talking to an idiot, you ASSUMED my intent, you were wrong. Either accept this or not.*


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 31, 2012)

She won? Freedom of speech for the win.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 31, 2012)

drache said:


> you certainly seem hell bent on treating them like they are victims when they are not.



I said they're not innocent, that doesn't mean they're not victims. Heck, a mass murderer can be a victim, being a criminal does not mean you'll never be the victim.



> the public has a right to know if you think that is 'carrying your crime with you' then  I guess I do.  The fact is  that for safety if nothing else if you choose to commit a crime especially a felony the public should know of it.
> 
> It's that simple to me



That's ridiculous and completely violates the basics of the modern judicial system. Innocent until proven guilty, this also applies to people who have once been convicted of a crime. If you want to break that rule and have stuff like preventive detention, then you should have a damn good reason and a very imminent threat, not just "well they committed that crime once before". Basically you're telling criminals that you're expecting them to reoffend, which would without a doubt lead to higher recidivism rates.



> I do not think you understand so let me try and say this a different way. I think a *component* of the *consequences of their actions should include that the public has a right to know not only the details of their crimes but any plea deal or sentencing.  The only exception to this should be if you can demonstrate a clear, immediate and direct threat to their lives.*


*

But you clearly said that if that component is taken away, then the crime would be without consequences. I assume you concede that obviously wrong statement then?

Furthermore, you agree with breaking the law and ignoring court orders to achieve this "full punishment"?




			sorry we're not going to agree here in that what you did is still relevant  and you have no right to privacy on that.
		
Click to expand...


Same as above, by assuming it's still relevant you're basically defying the very basic idea that humans can change. You'd lose all pretense of rehabilitation and the penal system's only function would be punishment and revenge.




			1st degree sexual abuse is anything less then actual intercourse which is plenty bad and you included nothing to support your assertation about streaking.
		
Click to expand...


Sexual abuse can include pretty much every sexual crime that doesn't involve penetration, that doesn't mean the boys are guilty of all of that. It's bad, but not "you'll never be a normal human again, filthy criminal" bad, like you make it out to be.

And here, just a quick google search:  says streaking is sexual assault. As I said, not every definition of sexual assault includes streaking, but a lot of them do. I guess according to that definition I once sexually assaulted all the girls in my kindergarten group, they should lock me away 




			you are acting like you are concern trolling and about the attackers then the victims. Thos boys are not victims they made thier choice all of this are the consequences. And nothing you say in 'concern' will change that

That's about the best I can do as I am not entirely do any better
		
Click to expand...


Again, saying they made their choice and whatever follows are the consequences is simply idiotic. The consequences of a crime are whatever the judicial system deems necessary. Any further acion by outside forces, be they the victim, the family of the victim or some third party, are not part of the consequences, they're crimes.




			I think the boys were granted rights they don't have should not have and that the judge agreed given that he choose not to pursue the matter once there was not a complaint.
		
Click to expand...


The judge didn't have to agree or disagree because the charges were dropped. Pretty sure I said that several times now. Many crimes are not prosecuted unless the victim presses charges.




			no  and this is just as stupid as the abortion analogy lynching is blind hatred and evil. This is not a lynching and the more you do things like this the less crediblity you have
		
Click to expand...


You can ignore my arguments as much as you like, but the fact remains that the motivation for lynching is the same that the girl had here. You don't even address that fact.

The belief that the criminals were not punished enough by the legal system, followed by extrajudicial punishment being administered. That's the basis for lynching, this girl's actions and everything inbetween.*


----------



## neko-sennin (Jul 31, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> She won? Freedom of speech for the win.



If the perps were proud enough of their handiwork to show pictures, they should be "proud" enough to have their names attached.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.


----------



## drache (Aug 1, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> I said they're not innocent, that doesn't mean they're not victims. Heck, a mass murderer can be a victim, being a criminal does not mean you'll never be the victim.



no it doesn't work that way those boys violated the law they are not victims here in the slightest.



Saufsoldat said:


> That's ridiculous and completely violates the basics of the modern judicial system. Innocent until proven guilty, this also applies to people who have once been convicted of a crime. If you want to break that rule and have stuff like preventive detention, then you should have a damn good reason and a very imminent threat, not just "well they committed that crime once before". Basically you're telling criminals that you're expecting them to reoffend, which would without a doubt lead to higher recidivism rates.



I never said they are not innocent until proven guilty but that the public has a right to know about their crimes and sentences. And yes there is some expectation of reoffending the statistics back it. That's not 'preventive dentention' or any other hyperbole just the facts.



Saufsoldat said:


> But you clearly said that if that *component* is taken away, then the crime would be *without consequences*. I assume you concede that obviously wrong statement then?
> 
> Furthermore, you agree with breaking the law and ignoring court orders to achieve this "full punishment"?



actually I didn't and I dare you to prove that



Saufsoldat said:


> Same as above, by assuming it's still relevant you're basically defying the very basic idea that humans can change. You'd lose all pretense of rehabilitation and the penal system's only function would be punishment and revenge.



people can change but they don't easily and the statistics on reoffending are high



Saufsoldat said:


> Sexual abuse *can include* pretty much every sexual crime that doesn't involve penetration, that doesn't mean the boys are guilty of all of that. It's bad, but not "you'll never be a normal human again, filthy criminal" bad, like you make it out to be.



you were the one assuming not me



Saufsoldat said:


> And here, just a quick google search:  says streaking is sexual assault. As I said, not every definition of sexual assault includes streaking, but a lot of them do. I guess according to that definition I once sexually assaulted all the girls in my kindergarten group, they should lock me away



wow how utterly silly



Saufsoldat said:


> Again, saying they made their choice and whatever follows are the consequences is simply idiotic. The consequences of a crime are whatever the judicial system deems necessary. Any further acion by outside forces, be they the victim, the family of the victim or some third party, are not part of the consequences, they're crimes.



no it's the way the world works



Saufsoldat said:


> The judge didn't have to agree or disagree because *the charges were dropped*. Pretty sure I said that several times now. Many crimes are not prosecuted unless the victim presses charges.



they didn't have to be and that's the point



Saufsoldat said:


> You can ignore my arguments as much as you like, but the fact remains that the motivation for lynching is the same that the girl had here. You don't even address that fact.



no and it's beyond absurd to insist so but it is indeed your choice to be absurd



Saufsoldat said:


> The belief that the criminals were not punished enough by the legal system, followed by extrajudicial punishment being administered. That's the basis for lynching, this girl's actions and everything inbetween.



and you are missing the entire point by calling this 'extrajudical' until you understand that I do not consider it so you won't get my point and you'll continue this foolish rant


----------



## impersonal (Aug 2, 2012)

drache said:


> it can mean many things all it really means was there was no intercourse and yet you hurry to defend her attackers. How droll.


And you have no idea what they did yet you hurry to blame them as being a hundred percent evil (that is what you wrote: according to you there are "no shades of grey", justifying that their punishment should be maximum). Of course I'm going to defend them against such an assault of barbaric ignorance.



drache said:


> And yes when you CHOOSE to sexually assault someone you should expect that to not be kept secret nor any sympathy.


This has nothing to do with sympathy. It has to do with justice. Get over your feelings: _"I really don't like this guy, he shouldn't benefit from the protection of the law." _ Sorry, we don't do lynching anymore. The law now recognizes that perpetrators can also be victims. For example, even if you're a murderer, the angry mob that lynches you after you're convicted is still guilty. 

Apparently, this is way too difficult for you to comprehend. Perhaps it's time to go back to whichever (a) past century or (b) uncivilized hellhole you came from.


drache said:


> no I asked you to explain the shades of gray here not in some hypothetical senario where in you can make it whatever you want


The shades of gray means some cases can be better than others. Since we don't know the full facts (or any facts at all besides the charges against them), a hypothetical scenario is the only thing I can possibly give as an answer. If you can't handle the answer, keep the question to yourself.


----------



## Jeαnne (Aug 2, 2012)

so they rape her and take pics/make videos(?), using her image, but she is not allowed to say their names? HAHAHAHA this is so retarded


----------



## drache (Aug 2, 2012)

impersonal said:


> And you have no idea what they did yet you hurry to blame them as being a hundred percent evil (that is what you wrote: according to you there are "no shades of grey", justifying that their punishment should be maximum). Of course I'm going to defend them against such an assault of barbaric ignorance.


 
what ignorance? they were convicted of a *felony* period end of discussion what is so hard about that? If you are convicted of a *felony* then you shouldn't have *ANY* right or expectation of privacy. The public has a right to know for it's own protection.

Good fucking gods I am sick of my words being twisted by you, either post me saying they are 100% evil or apology. Your choice



impersonal said:


> This has nothing to do with sympathy. It has to do with justice. Get over your feelings: _"I really don't like this guy, he shouldn't benefit from the protection of the law." _Sorry, we don't do lynching anymore. The law now recognizes that perpetrators can also be victims. For example, even if you're a murderer, the angry mob that lynches you after you're convicted is still guilty.


 
justice is protecting people convicted of felonies? what a fucked up sense of justice you have

And let's be clear here the only one showing emotion here is you. I am neither angry nor sympathetic, frankly they made their choices they face the consequences. Just like anyone else.



impersonal said:


> Apparently, this is way too difficult for you to comprehend. Perhaps it's time to go back to whichever (a) past century or (b) uncivilized hellhole you came from.


 
and apparently it is far too difficult for you to actually stick to what I say, of the 2 I'd rather not comprehend then ignore but hey up to you.



impersonal said:


> The shades of gray means some cases can be better than others. Since we don't know the full facts (or any facts at all besides the charges against them), a hypothetical scenario is the only thing I can possibly give as an answer. If you can't handle the answer, keep the question to yourself.


 
We know enough and hell you've assumed up and down when it suited *you* so why stop now?

And let's be clear it's not about handling the answer it's about *why* your 'answer' is any better then my 'answer'? At least my answer is rooted in facts and reality yours seems to be more about outrage and fantasy


----------



## impersonal (Aug 3, 2012)

drache said:


> what ignorance? they were convicted of a *felony* period end of discussion what is so hard about that? If you are convicted of a *felony* then you shouldn't have *ANY* right or expectation of privacy. The public has a right to know for it's own protection.


*its
Funny how all of a sudden your argument changes. Previously your only point was _"look, they're bad, they can't ever be victims"_. Now your point is _"people committing a crime should be branded for life"_. Probably in order to prevent rehabilitation at any point in the future.



drache said:


> Good fucking gods I am sick of my words being twisted by you, either post me saying they are 100% evil or apology. Your choice


Either take back that there are "no shades of grey" or ... I don't even know what else you could do. Do you realize how silly this is? You say something ("there are no shades of grey in sexual assault") that is obviously false. You try to stick to it in front of overwhelming evidence, like a creationist in Gattaca. And now you're claiming that I'm "putting words in your mouth" when I paraphrase your argument.



drache said:


> justice is protecting people convicted of felonies? what a fucked up sense of justice you have


My sense of justice is pretty simple: people commit a crime, they get punished according to the gravity of their crime. Your sense of justice is pretty simplistic: people commit a crime, you lynch them; fuck the trial, fuck the law, fuck having the punishment fit the crime, etc.


drache said:


> And let's be clear here the only one showing emotion here is you. I am neither angry nor sympathetic, frankly they made their choices they face the consequences. Just like anyone else.


 You  want to lynch them. Either you're doing it out of emotion, or out of ignorance, or out of stupidy. Again, I'm just assuming it's out of emotion. The second best is ignorance, so let's just suppose that's the issue here. What do you know about, say, the rule of law? The opposition between justice and vengeance? The notion of proportionality between punishment and crime? The notion of rehabilitation? Do you know anything related to crime and punishment, and if yes, what? 


drache said:


> And let's be clear it's not about handling the answer it's about *why* your 'answer' is any better then my 'answer'? At least my answer is rooted in facts and reality yours seems to be more about outrage and fantasy


Your answer is rooted in emotion and ignorance. My answer is rooted in hundred of years of the rule of law.


----------



## ImperatorMortis (Aug 3, 2012)

The law just went full retard.

The assaulter's don't deserve privacy.




Jeαnne said:


> so they rape her and take pics/make videos(?), using her image, but she is not allowed to say their names? HAHAHAHA this is so retarded



Pretty much.

This is just so fucked.


----------



## drache (Aug 3, 2012)

impersonal said:


> *its
> Funny how all of a sudden your argument changes. Previously your only point was _"look, they're bad, they can't ever be victims"_. Now your point is _"people committing a crime should be branded for life"_. Probably in order to prevent rehabilitation at any point in the future.


 
*THAT WAS NEVER MY ARGUMENT*

stop lying 

and this is not a branding either you twit

consequence

learn the fucking definition



impersonal said:


> Either take back that there are "no shades of grey" or ... I don't even know what else you could do. Do you realize how silly this is? You say something ("there are no shades of grey in sexual assault") that is obviously false. You try to stick to it in front of overwhelming evidence, like a creationist in Gattaca. And now you're claiming that I'm "putting words in your mouth" when I paraphrase your argument.


 
let's go back to the *full* point,

[QUOTE*]There are absolutely no shades of gray to privacy on a felony, if convicted the public has a right to know both what it was and what the deal was[/*QUOTE]

now go deal with that or go away



impersonal said:


> *
> My sense of justice is pretty simple: people commit a crime, they get punished according to the gravity of their crime. Your sense of justice is pretty simplistic: people commit a crime, you lynch them; fuck the trial, fuck the law, fuck having the punishment fit the crime, etc.


 


thank you for your hyperbolistic bullshit

when you have something besides churlish childish nonsense let me know but I will not lend an air of repectiblity to this by responding 




impersonal said:


> *
> You want to lynch them. Either you're doing it out of emotion, or out of ignorance, or out of stupidy. Again, I'm just assuming it's out of emotion. The second best is ignorance, so let's just suppose that's the issue here. What do you know about, say, the rule of law? The opposition between justice and vengeance? The notion of proportionality between punishment and crime? The notion of rehabilitation? Do you know anything related to crime and punishment, and if yes, what?
> 
> Your answer is rooted in emotion and ignorance. My answer is rooted in hundred of years of the rule of law.


 
I am emotional? i am not the one ranting about lynching and branding either though I have never said anything of the sort

stop projecting it's embarrassing


----------



## Miss Fortune (Aug 4, 2012)

Court order to not say names.

But wanted to get some justice, I suppose.

Hmm... Not sure how to react to this.


----------



## impersonal (Aug 4, 2012)

drache said:


> There are absolutely no shades of gray to privacy on a felony


(a) That doesn't make any sense. 
(b) It's not the quote I was responding to.
(c) At the time I am writing this post, this quote doesn't appear anywhere in the thread. You just made it up, which is quite funny considering that you were accusing me of lying about what you wrote.
(d) The actual quote is below:


			
				drache said:
			
		

> but please explain the shades of gray in first degree sexual assault I would love to hear you try.


I'm starting to think that you have trouble understanding English (where are you from?), to the point that you may not understand your own posts. So, let us analyze this sentence. _*Shades of gray*_ is an idiomatic expression. It suggests that "black" stands for "evil" and "white" for "good". Thus perfect black would be perfectly evil and perfect white would be perfectly good. If there are shades of grey, it means that things are neither perfectly evil nor perfectly good. Thus your sentence means that, in your opinion, "first degree sexual assault" is perfectly evil, and that you are challenging me to show you otherwise.

This isn't a very difficult challenge: for it to not be perfectly evil, I just need to show that some cases are worse (more evil) than others, or that some crimes are worse (more evil) than sexual abuse. For example, if what these "felons" did was to touch her breasts while she was passed-out drunk, then their act is clearly not as evil as, say, murdering babies with an axe. Murdering babies with an axe is a darker crime than groping a drunk girl. Thus, shades of grey.

Let's now look at to two other things you said earlier in this thread, both of which are indefensible (but you keep trying anyway, and you end up looking increasingly crazy as your defense becomes increasingly absurd):
*Number one:*


			
				drache said:
			
		

> they are not victims, the girl is the victim


There are two distinct cases here. In one case, the two guys are guilty of sexual abuse and have been condemned, and the girl is the victim. In another case, the girl is guilty of violating a court order, and the boys are the victims. Easy enough?

*Number two:*


			
				drache said:
			
		

> justice is protecting people convicted of felonies? that a fucked up sense of justice you have


Justice protects everybody who is a victim, even people who have also been criminals in the past (or who still are criminals). This means that, for example, if you rape someone and then somebody else rapes you, justice will protect you. If you kill someone and that person's family tries to kill you, justice will protect you. If you have committed a crime, justice will condemn you for it; but it will not allow others to attack you in any unlawful way. That is not fucked up; that is very simply how justice works in every civilized nation.

By the way, I find it funny that you are now writing that _"this was never [your] argument"_. If you don't mean something, don't write it. If you change your mind, admit it; it's going to go easier than screaming all over the place in all caps with no punctuation.


----------



## Sanity Check (Aug 4, 2012)

The conviction rate of accused rapists is between 1% - 5%, if I remember right.

For every 100 people accused of rape only 1 - 5 of them are convicted.  Its been that way for decades though I s'pose most wouldn't see a problem with that.


----------



## impersonal (Aug 4, 2012)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> The conviction rate of accused rapists is between 1% - 5%, if I remember right.
> 
> For every 100 people accused of rape only 1 - 5 of them are convicted.  Its been that way for decades though I s'pose most wouldn't see a problem with that.



Explain the relevance to that article?


----------



## drache (Aug 4, 2012)

impersonal said:


> (a) That doesn't make any sense.


 
I would think it a simple sentence enough to comphrend, what is so difficult?


impersonal said:


> (b) It's not the quote I was responding to.


 
given  that you've not really been responding to my posts but the caricature you have in your head I really don't care. Strip it all down *that* is my point. Deal with it



impersonal said:


> (c) At the time I am writing this post, this quote doesn't appear anywhere in the thread. You just made it up, which is quite funny considering that you were accusing me of lying about what you wrote.


 
I never said it was a quote, I put in it in quotes and in bold caps so you couldn't miss it. But that *is* my point that *is *what I have been saying. Perhaps not in that phrasing but that means little really.



impersonal said:


> (d) The actual quote is below:
> 
> I'm starting to think that you have trouble understanding English (where are you from?), to the point that you may not understand your own posts. So, let us analyze this sentence. _*Shades of gray*_ is an idiomatic expression. It suggests that "black" stands for "evil" and "white" for "good". Thus perfect black would be perfectly evil and perfect white would be perfectly good. If there are shades of grey, it means that things are neither perfectly evil nor perfectly good. Thus your sentence means that, in your opinion, "first degree sexual assault" is perfectly evil, and that you are challenging me to show you otherwise.


 
I am starting to think you a gaint idiot pr a troll. I perfectly understand the expression. And I stilll want an answer which you are tap dancing around.

So respond to the question so I will assume the answer is yes but you don't want to say it explicitly.



impersonal said:


> This isn't a very difficult challenge: for it to not be perfectly evil, I just need to show that some cases are worse (more evil) than others, or that some crimes are worse (more evil) than sexual abuse. For example, if what these "felons" did was to touch her breasts while she was passed-out drunk, then their act is clearly not as evil as, say, murdering babies with an axe. Murdering babies with an axe is a darker crime than groping a drunk girl. Thus, shades of grey.


 
:rofl

seriosuly?

well  you probably are serious, just because you _might_ be able to 'argue' that x is 'more' evil that does not make y not evil.

And you persist in down playing this crime, frankly I think you are one of those guys that secretly enjoy stories like this. About the only thing you lack is probably the conviction to go offend. There is nothing to support your assertation that this was 'groping a drunk girl'

But whatever I get it, you're an idiot and that's okay. 



impersonal said:


> Let's now look at to two other things you said earlier in this thread, both of which are indefensible (but you keep trying anyway, and you end up looking increasingly crazy as your defense becomes increasingly absurd):
> *Number one:*
> 
> There are two distinct cases here. In one case, the two guys are guilty of sexual abuse and have been condemned, and the girl is the victim. In another case, the girl is guilty of violating a court order, and the boys are the victims. Easy enough?


 
Considering you keep defending felonies I really don't give a flying fuck what you think of me.

And let's be clear here as I have *REPEATEDLY* said you stupid twit I do not think *FELONIES* have a right to privacy there. Ergo the court order has no merit and given that neither the judge nor the proscutor choose to persue the matter I would think they agree.

You have no right to privacy in sentencing when you are convicted of a felony.

What the hell is so hard to understand? Would you like it in german? I could try another language but i'll need a translator.



impersonal said:


> *Number two:*
> 
> Justice protects everybody who is a victim, even people who have also been criminals in the past (or who still are criminals). This means that, for example, if you rape someone and then somebody else rapes you, justice will protect you. If you kill someone and that person's family tries to kill you, justice will protect you. If you have committed a crime, justice will condemn you for it; but it will not allow others to attack you in any unlawful way. That is not fucked up; that is very simply how justice works in every civilized nation.


 
Those boys are not victims they have no right or expectation of 'protection'. The law should *NEVER* protect the attackers period end of discussion. If you don't agree with that fine but don't expect me to buy your bullshit.


And I don't give a damn what you think either way about it especially as you are defending the party that offended here. Those boys choose to act the public has a right to know.



impersonal said:


> By the way, I find it funny that you are now writing that _"this was never [your] argument"_. If you don't mean something, don't write it. If you change your mind, admit it; it's going to go easier than screaming all over the place in all caps with no punctuation.


 
I find it funny you have consistently ignored my argument and now are pathetically trying to undermine it by claiming it never was my argument.

But hey don't listen to me I mean it's not like it is my argument or anything

and by the by, not screaming just figured you might actually see the argument if I used bold and caps. If you don't like that then next time deal with what is said or read more carefully


----------

