Post by basilosaurus on Aug 23, 2012 15:13:53 GMT -5
OK, so I legitimately missed that there is a different charge than 1st degree assault for rape. I thought that unwanted sexual contact was inclusive of rape, so I was thinking that if they "just" groped her, why wouldn't they try to plea down?
So, I'll just go ahead and agree with dev.
And if KY doesn't define oral penetration as rape, then they're fucktarded and not in line with the federal definition.
"The new definition, which was drafted with input from local and state law enforcement agencies based on more modernized rape laws, encompasses a broader range of such circumstances. Specifically, it covers the “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
I have all the books I could need, and what more could I need than books? I shall only engage in commerce if books are the coin. -- Catherynne M. Valente
I have all the books I could need, and what more could I need than books? I shall only engage in commerce if books are the coin. -- Catherynne M. Valente
This thread makes my head want to explode. There are so many assumptions flying it is ridiculous.
This is what we know. The girl was sexually assaulted while passed out. We do not know if that included rape or not. The girl says it did, the court did not issue that specific conviction. Just because they were not convicted of rape does not mean that rape did not occur - but it also does not mean that it did. They then sent the pics around to all their buds - hence the voyerism conviction. This is what we know.
To call the girl a lying lier who lies is fucking ridiculous, since know one has a fucking clue if she is lying. In addition, she is a young kid, and her definition of rape might not be the precise legal one. Maybe they penatrated her vaginally or anally with other objects, and she feels that is rape. Maybe they fingered her and she feels that was rape. I am honestly a bit sick to my stomach reading that people are automatically assuming she used the "wrong" word. I mean, the fuck? i feel like we are playing a game of legitimate rape here.
And yeah, it would have been wrong of her to use the word rape if they did not rape her in any shape or form, but I can't drum up any sympothy for those raging assholes to give a shit. She was sexually assulted whatever way you look at it, so I don't think it diminishes p in v rape.
NO! The girl DOES NOT say it did. She is calling the removal of her clothing and the touching of her body without any penetration "rape." And that is wrong.
If someone has a quote to dispute that, please show it to me. I'm having a hard time following all of the various "news outlets'" coverage of this issue, but it seems consistently from article to article that the one thing that is missing is anything even remotely suggesting this woman was actually raped, forcibly, cooercively, "dately" or otherwise. There was no penetration of either her vagina or her anus by any body part of any defendant.
ETA: Also, I think that it is extremely important that this girl may not be using the legal definition of rape. That word has a legal meaning. If she says they raped her, she better know what that means. If she thinks she "could have been raped" she should say that. If she thinks it "felt like a rape" she should have said that. But to say, "I was raped" when there was no penetration of any of your body parts by any of *their* body parts and then for us to sit around and try to say, "Well, but we know what she meant." No, huh-uh. You put that shit on facebook and it has consequences. Particularly when it's untrue and in violation of a direct court order.
"I cannot clarify the details of the story right now, not that I particularly want the public to know. I refer to what they've done to me as sexual assault since that's what they did to me. There's a fine line between assault and rape in the eyes of the law. I cannot lie to me it feels like rape.. But, according to the law it's assault. Which is what I refer it to and I stay to the truth."
Also, every news story I have read says that she did not file charges until after she found out the pictures had been cirulated - so there was no way for a rape kit to be collected if there was a rape.
AGAIN - I am not saying she WAS raped by the legal def in KY (which per the statute I just looked up, is definied as sexual intercourse ONLY - very very very limited). She feels it was rape, which is why she used the term. But I am not saying she was NOT raped either. We don't know.
This thread makes my head want to explode. There are so many assumptions flying it is ridiculous.
This is what we know. The girl was sexually assaulted while passed out. We do not know if that included rape or not. The girl says it did, the court did not issue that specific conviction. Just because they were not convicted of rape does not mean that rape did not occur - but it also does not mean that it did. They then sent the pics around to all their buds - hence the voyerism conviction. This is what we know.
To call the girl a lying lier who lies is fucking ridiculous, since know one has a fucking clue if she is lying. In addition, she is a young kid, and her definition of rape might not be the precise legal one. Maybe they penatrated her vaginally or anally with other objects, and she feels that is rape. Maybe they fingered her and she feels that was rape. I am honestly a bit sick to my stomach reading that people are automatically assuming she used the "wrong" word. I mean, the fuck? i feel like we are playing a game of legitimate rape here.
And yeah, it would have been wrong of her to use the word rape if they did not rape her in any shape or form, but I can't drum up any sympothy for those raging assholes to give a shit. She was sexually assulted whatever way you look at it, so I don't think it diminishes p in v rape.
NO! The girl DOES NOT say it did. She is calling the removal of her clothing and the touching of her body without any penetration "rape." And that is wrong.
If someone has a quote to dispute that, please show it to me. I'm having a hard time following all of the various "news outlets'" coverage of this issue, but it seems consistently from article to article that the one thing that is missing is anything even remotely suggesting this woman was actually raped, forcibly, cooercively, "dately" or otherwise. There was no penetration of either her vagina or her anus by any body part of any defendant.
ETA: Also, I think that it is extremely important that this girl may not be using the legal definition of rape. That word has a legal meaning. If she says they raped her, she better know what that means. If she thinks she "could have been raped" she should say that. If she thinks it "felt like a rape" she should have said that. But to say, "I was raped" when there was no penetration of any of your body parts by any of *their* body parts and then for us to sit around and try to say, "Well, but we know what she meant." No, huh-uh. You put that shit on facebook and it has consequences. Particularly when it's untrue and in violation of a direct court order.
Thank you for this post SBP. I was seriously starting to lose my mind.
i thought it was reported they put a penis in her mouth and took photos of it.
Okay, that would cause me to do a screeching halt and a near total 180. All I'm seeing (having read now 4 different articles on it) is that they stripped her down, touched her body, and took pictures of her.
"I cannot clarify the details of the story right now, not that I particularly want the public to know. I refer to what they've done to me as sexual assault since that's what they did to me. There's a fine line between assault and rape in the eyes of the law. I cannot lie to me it feels like rape.. But, according to the law it's assault. Which is what I refer it to and I stay to the truth."
Also, every news story I have read says that she did not file charges until after she found out the pictures had been cirulated - so there was no way for a rape kit to be collected if there was a rape.
AGAIN - I am not saying she WAS raped by the legal def in KY (which per the statute I just looked up, is definied as sexual intercourse ONLY - very very very limited). She feels it was rape, which is why she used the term. But I am not saying she was NOT raped either. We don't know.
None of this makes it a rape. There is plenty to be mad at with what these boys did. She doesn't need to throw around a loaded and very meaningful word to drive the point home. She was violated. It was horrendous. The boys were prosecuted. There is an element of injustice in that their sentences were seeminly quite light.
None of that is a rape. Not knowing what happened is not a rape. Feeling like you were raped even though there was no penetration is not a rape. If one of this fuckwagons put a dick in her mouth THAT is rape, maybe not under KY law, but under federal law and I'm fine with her calling it rape if that's what happened. But I cannot find anything actually saying that that is what happened. And, not to get all martyrish here, but that girl owes it to women who have been actually raped, to not call what happened to her "rape" just because she's really, really, really, really and rightfully pissed off about it.
That is the whole point I am trying to make. Calling her a liar when we don't know WTF actually happened, since those details have not been disclosed, is ridiculous. In KY, they could have shoved shit up her vag and taken pics of it, and that would not be rape under the statutes I posted above. But I can certainly understand why SHE would think that was rape. Maybe none of that happened and she was using rape purposly because she knows its impact. WE DO NOT KNOW. She feels she was raped. KY state law does not agree. That is all we know.
And, not to get all martyrish here, but that girl owes it to women who have been actually raped, to not call what happened to her "rape" just because she's really, really, really, really and rightfully pissed off about it.
I get it. That's why there is a distinction between legal rape and "sexual assault." But like others have pointed out, the legal definition of rape in KY might not be the federal definition, or the definition in another state, or the common definition.
However, I have found several articles/opinion pieces that use the terms "rape" and "sexual assault" interchangeably:
"I think it's rather astonishing how the Internet changes everything," he said. "Look at [Rep. Todd Akin], the politician from Missouri who was on the news a few days ago and made a comment about 'legitimate rape.' Those comments have now gone viral and he is ruined. Twenty years ago it would not have happened like this. These things just stream with enormous speed across the whole country."
OMG, I know, right? It's like, people are like, being held accountable for what they say now! WTF is up with that?
"I cannot clarify the details of the story right now, not that I particularly want the public to know. I refer to what they've done to me as sexual assault since that's what they did to me. There's a fine line between assault and rape in the eyes of the law. I cannot lie to me it feels like rape.. But, according to the law it's assault. Which is what I refer it to and I stay to the truth."
Also, every news story I have read says that she did not file charges until after she found out the pictures had been cirulated - so there was no way for a rape kit to be collected if there was a rape.
AGAIN - I am not saying she WAS raped by the legal def in KY (which per the statute I just looked up, is definied as sexual intercourse ONLY - very very very limited). She feels it was rape, which is why she used the term. But I am not saying she was NOT raped either. We don't know.
None of this makes it a rape. There is plenty to be mad at with what these boys did. She doesn't need to throw around a loaded and very meaningful word to drive the point home. She was violated. It was horrendous. The boys were prosecuted. There is an element of injustice in that their sentences were seeminly quite light.
None of that is a rape. Not knowing what happened is not a rape. Feeling like you were raped even though there was no penetration is not a rape. If one of this fuckwagons put a dick in her mouth THAT is rape, maybe not under KY law, but under federal law and I'm fine with her calling it rape if that's what happened. But I cannot find anything actually saying that that is what happened.
And, not to get all martyrish here, but that girl owes it to women who have been actually raped, to not call what happened to her "rape" just because she's really, really, really, really and rightfully pissed off about it.
Two things:
1) I made this argument about the transvaginal u/s being called rape and no one agreed with me
2) Lots of people in this thread called it rape/called the defendants rapists. Based on nothing at all. It's plausible that the victim could be using the correct word. But there are no sourced facts in this thread for any of us to use that word.
None of this makes it a rape. There is plenty to be mad at with what these boys did. She doesn't need to throw around a loaded and very meaningful word to drive the point home. She was violated. It was horrendous. The boys were prosecuted. There is an element of injustice in that their sentences were seeminly quite light.
None of that is a rape. Not knowing what happened is not a rape. Feeling like you were raped even though there was no penetration is not a rape. If one of this fuckwagons put a dick in her mouth THAT is rape, maybe not under KY law, but under federal law and I'm fine with her calling it rape if that's what happened. But I cannot find anything actually saying that that is what happened.
And, not to get all martyrish here, but that girl owes it to women who have been actually raped, to not call what happened to her "rape" just because she's really, really, really, really and rightfully pissed off about it.
Two things:
1) I made this argument about the transvaginal u/s being called rape and no one agreed with me 2) Lots of people in this thread called it rape/called the defendants rapists. Based on nothing at all. It's plausible that the victim could be using the correct word. But there are no sourced facts in this thread for any of us to use that word.
i actually thought about the use of the word rape in that context too, but thought better of bringing it up. I'm glad you did.
That is the whole point I am trying to make. Calling her a liar when we don't know WTF actually happened, since those details have not been disclosed, is ridiculous. In KY, they could have shoved shit up her vag and taken pics of it, and that would not be rape under the statutes I posted above. But I can certainly understand why SHE would think that was rape. Maybe none of that happened and she was using rape purposly because she knows its impact. WE DO NOT KNOW. She feels she was raped. KY state law does not agree. That is all we know.
Thank you. Jumping to the conclusion that she was definately raped might be a bit much, but jumping to the conclusion that she's a big fat fucking liar who definately WASN'T raped is just as bad. If not worse. Because if she was raped, then you just re-victimized the victim.
I don't think anyone is saying she definitely is lying but based on the following (and granted it is the defendant's lawyer talking here so we can't take it as gospel, but.....):
Mejia said that he and his client were angry about the posts and that Dietrich was not entirely honest.
"The victim, in a fit of anger, tweets my clients name, calls him a rapist -- something he was never accused of -- and said the court system was corrupt and he got away with what he did," Mejia said. "She also said he videotaped her and put it on Internet. There never was a rape, there was no video and there was nothing on the Internet. But he did admit to the conduct as charged which was criminal sexual abuse or touching."
There seems to be atleast a possibility that she is lying.
Thank you. Jumping to the conclusion that she was definately raped might be a bit much, but jumping to the conclusion that she's a big fat fucking liar who definately WASN'T raped is just as bad. If not worse. Because if she was raped, then you just re-victimized the victim.
I don't think anyone is saying she definitely is lying but based on the following (and granted it is the defendant's lawyer talking here so we can't take it as gospel, but.....):
Mejia said that he and his client were angry about the posts and that Dietrich was not entirely honest.
"The victim, in a fit of anger, tweets my clients name, calls him a rapist -- something he was never accused of -- and said the court system was corrupt and he got away with what he did," Mejia said. "She also said he videotaped her and put it on Internet. There never was a rape, there was no video and there was nothing on the Internet. But he did admit to the conduct as charged which was criminal sexual abuse or touching."
There seems to be atleast a possibility that she is lying.
No, there were people that were saying she was lying.
For Example: I just don't thing young girls should be encouraged to lie about rape or SA. And that is exactly what's happening here.
Just as the boys, who in their minds (child's minds, mind you) likely thought they were just playing around with the drunk girl, there are consequences for her actions. She should not be getting a pat on the back for violating the law and lying about what happened to her.
Ect ect ect.
And sure there is a possibility. That is all I was ever saying - i DID NOT understand jumping all over her for using the word rape when we have no idea what really happened. That is it. And jumping all over everyone else on here for using the word rape, when the victim herself used it, is also ridiculous.
This all boils down to semantics, because in the end this young woman is the victim of a heinous crime, and the young men that did it to her are the scum of the earth. Regardless of rape occured, or what rape is defined as, or whether or not either party is lying. (And yeah, I am rolling my eyes big time at that attorney trying to get sympathy for the boys that sexually assaulted her - so I am not apt to believe much of anything that comes out of his mouth.)
And I will be honest here - whether she was raped or not raped based on the definition of KY law (or even Federal Law for that matter), I really don't care. I still think she was brave for doing what she did, because she did end up with a shit deal she never agreed to after having naked pics of herself being touched/fondeled/raped spread around to god knows how many people.
I don't think anyone is saying she definitely is lying but based on the following (and granted it is the defendant's lawyer talking here so we can't take it as gospel, but.....):
Mejia said that he and his client were angry about the posts and that Dietrich was not entirely honest.
"The victim, in a fit of anger, tweets my clients name, calls him a rapist -- something he was never accused of -- and said the court system was corrupt and he got away with what he did," Mejia said. "She also said he videotaped her and put it on Internet. There never was a rape, there was no video and there was nothing on the Internet. But he did admit to the conduct as charged which was criminal sexual abuse or touching."
There seems to be atleast a possibility that she is lying.
No, there were people that were saying she was lying.
For Example: I just don't thing young girls should be encouraged to lie about rape or SA. And that is exactly what's happening here.
Just as the boys, who in their minds (child's minds, mind you) likely thought they were just playing around with the drunk girl, there are consequences for her actions. She should not be getting a pat on the back for violating the law and lying about what happened to her.
After re-reading, I read that as, what was happening here, as her being encouraged to lie about rape or SA. Not that she WAS lying, but was being ENCOURAGED to lie.
It seems you're also mashing separate, partial posts together -which hurts the context, as you know.
No, there were people that were saying she was lying.
For Example: I just don't thing young girls should be encouraged to lie about rape or SA. And that is exactly what's happening here.
Just as the boys, who in their minds (child's minds, mind you) likely thought they were just playing around with the drunk girl, there are consequences for her actions. She should not be getting a pat on the back for violating the law and lying about what happened to her.
After re-reading, I read that as, what was happening here, as her being encouraged to lie about rape or SA. Not that she WAS lying, but was being ENCOURAGED to lie.
It seems you're also mashing separate, partial posts together -which hurts the context, as you know.
Actually, I think the context just makes my point stronger, and I totaly didn't get the vibe that "she is being encouraged to lie". The vibe I got is that our response to her "lie" woudl encourage other girls to do the same.
And I wasn't about to copy and paste full posts - I was just pointing out that there were, in fact, people saying that she was lying.
This is about a group of people making assumptions based on little information and celebrating a teen who has lied about the extent of her sexual abuse (and by lie, I am not even talking about the rape comment. I'm talking about the bit where she claimed the boys distributed video of her naked, which didn't happen). Many posters have said, quite clearly, that these boys shouldn't have fucked her--shouldn't have had non-consensual sex with her---yet there is NO reason to assume that at all happened. That is not semantics. Thats just straight up horse shit.
I see no reason to assume that it didn't happen though.
Why are you so secure that these sexual abusers are not also liars?
They agreed to plead guilty to felonious sexual assault, am I correct? Not a misdemeanor. Why would they agree to that, unless it could have been even worse?
You are correct that the posters here have no grounds to state explicitly that this girl was raped.
But likewise, you really have no way of being sure that she wasn't.
This is about a group of people making assumptions based on little information and celebrating a teen who has lied about the extent of her sexual abuse (and by lie, I am not even talking about the rape comment. I'm talking about the bit where she claimed the boys distributed video of her naked, which didn't happen). Many posters have said, quite clearly, that these boys shouldn't have fucked her--shouldn't have had non-consensual sex with her---yet there is NO reason to assume that at all happened. That is not semantics. Thats just straight up horse shit.
I see no reason to assume that it didn't happen though.
Why are you so secure that these sexual abusers are not also liars?
They agreed to plead guilty to felonious sexual assault, am I correct? Not a misdemeanor. Why would they agree to that, unless it could have been even worse?
You are correct that the posters here have no grounds to state explicitly that this girl was raped.
But likewise, you really have no way of being sure that she wasn't.
I didn't say she wasn't raped. I said there was not reason to assume she was.