Teen alleging rape turns to YouTube

[Trainwreck2100]

So, then, if a girl has been sexually active in the past, it means that she's probably going to say yes every single other time she's propositioned? Seriously?

Nope, but that won't stop the jury from drawing that conclusion. Her past misdeeds shouldn't be excluded, it goes to credibility. `

[MaNuMaNiAc]

So, then, if a girl has been sexually active in the past, it means that she's probably going to say yes every single other time she's propositioned? Seriously?

so what exactly do you propose the questions be? Should we just rely on the accusers' story and convict based on that? Let me ask you something, does not being drunk cause one to make errors in judgment? Could it be possible that a woman got drunk enough to consent to sex, and then regret it?

Those questions you are dismissing go to determine the credibility of the accuser. Credibility, in cases like this, is everything. Unless evidence eliminates the need to rely on the accusers' story, attacking her credibility is the only real method of determining guilt, I think. This is unfortunate, because of the added stress and pain it brings to the legitimate victims out there, but it is nevertheless necessary.

I would also like to add that those questions you're referring to are just as valid as say whether or not the accused has a history of violence, etc. Credibility is key here.

[CuckingFunt]

The legal system you're talking about is not just currently set up that way, its based upon it. "Innocent until proven guilty" is the bases of the American justice system. Which is better? to put an innocent behind bars or to let a guilty person go? That's what it boils down to.

Surely there must be some sort of middle ground between prematurely convicting the accused in the court of public opinion, and blaming the victim by suggesting that she (or he, since that happens, too) acted in a way that she shouldn't have.

I'm a HUGE believer that everyone is/should be innocent until proven guilty, and you'll notice that I haven't mentioned anything about his guilt/her innocence in this particular case, but to suggest that assuming the victim did something wrong is the only other possible option is just asinine.

I see, so what, IYO, should be asked in order to determine whether or not there was consent?

The people investigating the matter should determine whether or not she said yes, and whether or not she was capable of freely making an informed decision at the time -- not drunk/drugged/passed out, being coerced, or having threats made against herself or her family.

[Trainwreck2100]

The people investigating the matter should determine whether or not she said yes, and whether or not she was capable of freely making an informed decision at the time -- not drunk/drugged/passed out, being coerced, or having threats made against herself or her family.

i'll play the role of the accused
Cop: Did she say no
Me: From what i remember and what fellow party goers said she was all over me
Cop: Was she drunk
Me: I don't know i personally passed out next thing i know i wake up feeling dirty near my personal area and i couldn't piss right, you don't think she took advantage of me while i was passed out do you?

[CuckingFunt]

so what exactly do you propose the questions be? Should we just rely on the accusers' story and convict based on that? Let me ask you something, does not being drunk cause one to make errors in judgment? Could it be possible that a woman got drunk enough to consent to sex, and then regret it?

Yes. That is possible. And it would still be rape/sexual assault. If someone is legitimately drunk enough to impair their judgment, anyone who continues with a sexual act is clearly taking advantage of that situation and should know better. In fact, in California, the law is clearly written that if a "yes" is given by someone who is impaired and/or under the influence, it doesn't count as consent.

It's not always followed that way, but that is how the consent laws are written.

Those questions you are dismissing go to determine the credibility of the accuser. Credibility, in cases like this, is everything. Unless evidence eliminates the need to rely on the accusers' story, attacking her credibility is the only real method of determining guilt, I think. This is unfortunate, because of the added stress and pain it brings to the legitimate victims out there, but it is nevertheless necessary.

I would also like to add that those questions you're referring to are just as valid as say whether or not the accused has a history of violence, etc. Credibility is key here.

Nope, but that won't stop the jury from drawing that conclusion. Her past misdeeds shouldn't be excluded, it goes to credibility.

The problem with establishing victim credibility in these cases, as I mentioned previously, is that it implies there are certain situations in which rape/assault are justified. If we're talking about someone with a verifiable history of filing false claims or lying in legal situations, then that should be considered. But actions, style of dress, partying, drinking, even working as a pros ute, do NOT make rape any more understandable or okay. Ever.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Surely there must be some sort of middle ground between prematurely convicting the accused in the court of public opinion, and blaming the victim by suggesting that she (or he, since that happens, too) acted in a way that she shouldn't have.

I'm a HUGE believer that everyone is/should be innocent until proven guilty, and you'll notice that I haven't mentioned anything about his guilt/her innocence in this particular case, but to suggest that assuming the victim did something wrong is the only other possible option is just asinine.

I'm not suggesting that we need to assume the victim did something wrong, I'm suggesting we need to assume that the victim could very well not be a victim at all. I think we all would do well to think of the people involved in cases like this as accuser and accused, not victim and perpetrator. Victim implies that it has already been determined that a crime was commited.

The people investigating the matter should determine whether or not she said yes, and whether or not she was capable of freely making an informed decision at the time -- not drunk/drugged/passed out, being coerced, or having threats made against herself or her family.

That is exactly what those questions are designed to determine. You don't think her being drunk prevents her from being capable of making an informed decision? By the way, sex is rarely about making an informed decision. More often than not, sexual impulse determines consent, whether informed or not.

How do you propose the people investigating the matter determine whether or not she said yes? If you don't support determining credibility, what other method do you propose?

[Kori Ellis]

One in four American women under the age of 25 report that they have been sexually assaulted, according to the nation's largest rape crisis counseling organization, RAINN, the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network.

1 in 4? Please. What are they deeming sexual assault? I don't think that stat is anywhere close to true. 1 in 40 might even be exaggerating it.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

The problem with establishing victim credibility in these cases, as I mentioned previously, is that it implies there are certain situations in which rape/assault are justified. If we're talking about someone with a verifiable history of filing false claims or lying in legal situations, then that should be considered. But actions, style of dress, partying, drinking, even working as a pros ute, do NOT make rape any more understandable or okay. Ever.

That's not the issue here. I don't see it implying rape is justified. I see it implying there was no rape at all. Now if you're a victim of veritable rape, I imagine you would take it to mean exactly how you've characterized it, but if you're the accused its a whole different story now, isn't it?

How do you determine whether it was rape or not? You question credibility... and just as a verifiable history of filing false claims serves to question that credibility, so does a history of consensual sex with the accuse serve to paint a broader picture of the situation.

Just to clear something up, I would never, EVER say or imply that rape is justifiable. However, I don't think trying to determine the situation and the cir stances by asking what I think are very relevant questions is justifying rape. For example, determining what the accuser was wearing that night doesn't mean that IF she got raped, what she was wearing made it justifiable, it just serves to provide a reasonable analysis of a situation in where consent could very well have been possible... If a girl dresses in skimpy outfits to garner male attention, chances are she COULD have been looking to have sexual intercourse. This "reasonable doubt" about the nature of the intercourse is relevant I think.

[CuckingFunt]

I think we all would do well to think of the people involved in cases like this as accuser and accused, not victim and perpetrator. Victim implies that it has already been determined that a crime was commited.

This much I agree with, actually, as I've never been a big fan of the "victim" term in general.

That is exactly what those questions are designed to determine. You don't think her being drunk prevents her from being capable of making an informed decision? By the way, sex is rarely about making an informed decision. More often than not, sexual impulse determines consent, whether informed or not.

I absolutely think that someone being drunk impairs their ability to make an informed decision. However, I think that far too often the question is asked less as a way of determining whether or not the accused took advantage of someone in an impaired state, and more as a way of determining whether or not the accuser was acting in a way that may have been "asking for it."

As for the suggestion that sexual impulse determines consent... that's easy for a man to say. Unlike men, we don't have to be turned on in order to have sex, and there are plenty of guys who wouldn't be slowed by a lack of physical response if they've got a drunk/passed out girl sprawled out in front of them.

How do you propose the people investigating the matter determine whether or not she said yes? If you don't support determining credibility, what other method do you propose?

Look at physical evidence, if there is any. Investigate any witnesses that may have been available. Have the girl talk to a psychiatrist/counselor that can give an opinion as to whether or not the concern is genuine. I think that all legal channels should be thoroughly explored, I just don't think that the burden should be on the accuser to prove that he/she wasn't acting in a way that would have invited the rape/assault. I don't think that "way" exists.

[CuckingFunt]

That's not the issue here. I don't see it implying rape is justified. I see it implying there was no rape at all. Now if you're a victim of veritable rape, I imagine you would take it to mean exactly how you've characterized it, but if you're the accused its a whole different story now, isn't it?

How do you determine whether it was rape or not? You question credibility... and just as a verifiable history of filing false claims serves to question that credibility, so does a history of consensual sex with the accuse serve to paint a broader picture of the situation.

Just to clear something up, I would never, EVER say or imply that rape is justifiable. However, I don't think trying to determine the situation and the cir stances by asking what I think are very relevant questions is justifying rape. For example, determining what the accuser was wearing that night doesn't mean that IF she got raped, what she was wearing made it justifiable, it just serves to provide a reasonable analysis of a situation in where consent could very well have been possible... If a girl dresses in skimpy outfits to garner male attention, chances are she COULD have been looking to have sexual intercourse. This "reasonable doubt" about the nature of the intercourse is relevant I think.

Whether you call it justifying rape/assault, or you call it determining whether or not rape/assault was committed, you're still suggesting a procedure that relies on the accuser's behavior to make that determination. That's what I have a problem with.

If someone is murdered, it's very seldom that we start asking whether or not they were acting/dressing in a way that may have made their killing more plausible.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I absolutely think that someone being drunk impairs their ability to make an informed decision. However, I think that far too often the question is asked less as a way of determining whether or not the accused took advantage of someone in an impaired state, and more as a way of determining whether or not the accuser was acting in a way that may have been "asking for it."

Depends on how you characterize "impaired state". A drunk woman is quite capable to having consensual sex. Whether the alcohol in her system is responsible for that misguided consent is a different issue. How is the accused supposed to determine exactly at what point the inebriated person has ceased having control over his/hers ability to make decisions?

Also, let me ask you another question, suppose a man and a woman begin having consensual sexual intercourse, and one of them passes out due to inebriation, is the other person effectively raping him/her if he doesn't immediately stop? Its quite a dilemma, having to ascertain consent, evidence present or not. Now before people here start jumping down my throat, I do believe, if effectively proven, that having sexual intercourse with an unconcious person without clear consent is verifiable rape. I'm not contesting this. I'm just trying to say its not an easy thing to prove, hence why the question of credibility is so prevalent in cases of this nature.

As for the suggestion that sexual impulse determines consent... that's easy for a man to say. Unlike men, we don't have to be turned on in order to have sex, and there are plenty of guys who wouldn't be slowed by a lack of physical response if they've got a drunk/passed out girl sprawled out in front of them.

What I meant to say is, IMO (keep in my I'm not expert) sexual consent is usually more to do with lust than reason. It might be that this is more true with men than it is with women, but let me tell you, I know quite a few women who have let their lust do their thinking when it came to sex.

Look at physical evidence, if there is any. Investigate any witnesses that may have been available. Have the girl talk to a psychiatrist/counselor that can give an opinion as to whether or not the concern is genuine. I think that all legal channels should be thoroughly explored, I just don't think that the burden should be on the accuser to prove that he/she wasn't acting in a way that would have invited the rape/assault. I don't think that "way" exists.

Again, I agree to some extent. First of all, this whole scenario we've been discussing is reliant on the premise that evidence is NOT sufficient to prove guilt, otherwise credibility is a moot point. I agree that there are other things to take into account in cases like this. I don't agree, however, that the accuser's burden here is to prove that she was responsible for her rape. I think her burden is to prove that she was raped in the first place. In order to prove this she has to prove she did NOT give consent. This is done by examining the cir stances around the alleged incident, which includes elements of the situation that could prove useful in determining what both the accuser AND the accused were thinking at that precise moment. The questions you've brought up are relevant in that context I think.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Whether you call it justifying rape/assault, or you call it determining whether or not rape/assault was committed, you're still suggesting a procedure that relies on the accuser's behavior to make that determination. That's what I have a problem with.

Well, since we are trying to determine whether or not she gave consent, which has a lot to do with her frame of mind, I don't see why taking into account her actions is wrong.

If someone is murdered, it's very seldom that we start asking whether or not they were acting/dressing in a way that may have made their killing more plausible.

Not entirely accurate. If a person was acting in a way that would give the accused a reason to believe he/she was a threat to his/her life, the killing now seems quite a bit more plausible, doesn't it. Either way, it does not apply to the scenario we're discussing here IMO.

[monosylab1k]

Is it your assumption that once a girl enters a sexual relationship with someone, it en les him to get some whenever he wants?

No, but a prosecutor apparently agrees with my view since he's not getting charged with rape and she's stuck attention whoring on Youtube.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

No, but a prosecutor apparently agrees with my view since he's not getting charged with rape and she's stuck attention whoring on Youtube.

Yeah, because we all know how infallible those prosecutors can be...

[monosylab1k]

Let's also not forget that she's a 16 year old girl. 16 year old girls are the most mentally unstable beings on earth.

[monosylab1k]

Yeah, because we all know how infallible those prosecutors can be...

Maybe they can get on YouTube and make a response video to hers.

[monosylab1k]

I might have taken her video more seriously if she gave her message as lyrics for a Chocolate Rain parody.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I might have taken her video more seriously if she gave her message as lyrics for a Chocolate Rain parody.

you seem to be exhibiting quite the opposite of what I was referring to in the opening post... Why is it you immediately assume she's lying? you seem quite convinced of that fact, when in reality you know very little about the case.

[monosylab1k]

you seem to be exhibiting quite the opposite of what I was referring to in the opening post... Why is it you immediately assume she's lying? you seem quite convinced of that fact, when in reality you know very little about the case.

No I'm just saying if she's putting a video on YouTube, it's better received with a humorous spin. Flip that frown upside down, girl!

[monosylab1k]

Seriously though, I'm not trying to be insensitive to rape. If there was a way to pass a law that rapists be castrated, I'd support it 100%. Rape is de able.

But posting a video on YouTube thinking it's your "last resort" and claiming that you've done everything you can because you contacted Nancy Grace is just stupid.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

No I'm just saying if she's putting a video on YouTube, it's better received with a humorous spin. Flip that frown upside down, girl!

Ever consider that she may be telling the truth? that she may feel that this is her only chance at getting justice? Public opinion is certainly powerful enough to force the hand of a state prosecutor. Specially after the national media picked up the story precisely because she went on youtube. If she is telling the truth, I think she did a very smart and brave thing, and I commend her for it. Will you not consider that she could, in fact, be telling the truth?

[CuckingFunt]

Well, since we are trying to determine whether or not she gave consent, which has a lot to do with her frame of mind, I don't see why taking into account her actions is wrong.

Again, that assumes that someone's state of mind could be ascertained by something as simple as their style of dress. It also assumes that someone's state of mind may not change over the course of an evening.

Not entirely accurate. If a person was acting in a way that would give the accused a reason to believe he/she was a threat to his/her life, the killing now seems quite a bit more plausible, doesn't it. Either way, it does not apply to the scenario we're discussing here IMO.

That's why I specifically said "murder," which is usually defined as an unlwfull killing as an act of malice and, therefore, rules out cases of self defense.

And my analogy is absolutely valid. How many other violent crimes can you think of in which the accuser has to jump through so many hoops to prove that a crime was even committed? For that matter, how many other violent crimes can you think of that are so ambiguously defined as rape and sexual assault? None that I can think of off the top of my head, and probably not many even if I did some research. As a woman, I find that to be incredibly troubling.

Which, by the way, was my initial point: the procedure for filing/pursuing cases of rape and sexual violence is ridiculously convoluted and complicated. Enough so that I don't see a lot of women going through the trouble when there's not at least a nugget of truth at the heart of that accusation.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Seriously though, I'm not trying to be insensitive to rape. If there was a way to pass a law that rapists be castrated, I'd support it 100%. Rape is de able.

But posting a video on YouTube thinking it's your "last resort" and claiming that you've done everything you can because you contacted Nancy Grace is just stupid.

Stupid for whom? She's 16... for all intensive purposes, a child. She might very well think this was her only chance to get her story heard.

Again, I too feel like that video felt more like a performance than anything else, but I'm open to the possibility that it could be true, in which case, its quite a serious matter, and deserves no humorous spin.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I have to go now (going to see the game with some friends) but I want to continue the discussion later CuckingFunt. Its become quite informative, I think.

[JMarkJohns]

For an online generation, the Web offers what traditional counseling does not. It's a chance to communicate without having to face someone or fear their judgment.

attention

...
On one hand, I can't help but feel sympathetic with her. It makes me angry to think a 23 year old dirt bag can do something like this, and get away with it.

On the other, I don't know why, but her plea for help seems... like a performance. That and the fact she posted the video in youtube... I can't help but feel like she might be doing this for attention....

it's pretty sick that she'll use rape to become a Youtube celebrity.

He must have dumped her.

so she supposedly gets "raped" at 15 and 11 months....THEN has an ongoing consensual relationship with the guy.....and now after the fact she wants to accuse him of rape?

tough s. next time don't be such a .

i lol'd

's video only has a rating of 2 stars, that's pretty bad

I also like the name dropping she did for the reporters.

Seems like thw top quote from the article is just a bit inaccurate.

I don't have an opinion on this. It seems like the story makes it clear other legal channels were at least tried, but refused. That lends a bit more credibility to her, but I do agree this seems like a ploy.

I had two friends in high school that were "raped" .. .the first one was as far as I'm concerned. She was drugged by her dip boyfriend and humiliated. I hate that effin' prick!

The other was more of a friend of a friend. She had claimed date rape when she was close to 15. She had a/kept the kid from it (red flag #1). Just over two years later, still in high school, she got pregnant again (red flag #2), and joked about claiming date rape on it (nail in the coffin). I never believed a word that said again.

I just don't don't see how this type of presentation does anything to add credibility to her. Making jokes... taking it to the media in this fashion, I just don't buy it because I saw how a real woman reacted to being date raped, and it was nothing like this, or that other example I gave.

Sure, I think an inappropriate situation occured. Whether or not it was concensual doesn't really matter. A 23 year old shouldn't be having sex with a 15 year old. Seemingly the ball appears to have been dropped on this one from a legal standpoint. However, the fact that it so quickly went from that to this is troubling.