17-Year-Old Sexual Assault Victim, Ruined Attacker's Life Says His Lawyer

Originally posted by ConspiracyBuff
If I, packed my pockets with $100 bills then walked to a random neighborhood in Detroit and then knocked myself out with a baseball, would expect to have empty pockets by the time I came to.

That doesnt mean it wouldnt be a crime by whoever took it. And if you are really comparing pickpocketing to sexual assault, you have issues.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Whoever is defending these boys are sick themselves and most likely predators.

They took pictures of her when she was passed out, removed her clothes, and molested her. They even admitted to felony sexual abuse.

I think you nailed it. I had the same thought that some of the people here are protesting in a way and adding information to article and views that are not there and that makes me think the addons come from projection of their own experiances.

They are trying to convince others to shift blame away from themselves in their minds. This behaviour is unaccaptable and I would probably do unaccaptable things to these persons if I ever saw them doing it before I could get my feelings under control. Hopefully some people will learn before they have to pay a to high price to karma.

i agree and i could never and still can't understand how awful things like this can be ordered to be kept quit especially with rape crimes.. these women have to live with it their entire lives usually getting worse as the woman gets older and begins to fully understand what happened. someone posted if anyone is guilty it should be the judge for ordering it to be kept quit and i definitely, fully agree with that notion. i mean once a perpetrator portrays themselves a victim as a result of committing rape i have to wonder WTF.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


No - I am comparing the lack of decision making with logical fallacies and how our society is a bunch of unaccountable victims. I said nothing about the extent of the crimes, not did I condone or condemn them, but you did and proved my point perfectly.

Bravo.

Originally posted by ConspiracyBuff
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

No - I am comparing the lack of decision making with logical fallacies and how our society is a bunch of unaccountable victims. I said nothing about the extent of the crimes, not did I condone or condemn them, but you did and proved my point perfectly.

Bravo.

Way to ignore the point of my response. "bravo".

You are advocating victim blame. That is sad and pathetic.

I dont know how people can blame this girl for getting sexually assaulted. In doing so you're basicly saying these attackers have no personal responsibility to keep their hands to themselves. As for taking picture's, if they stripped her of her clothing then they are scum, however, if she passed out fully clothed and they took picture's im sure that would only serve as embarrassment on her part.

But my point is simply this, these 16 year olds are old enough to know better, but they're obviously just not expected to act mature. When you allow this type of behaviour, glorify it by defending their actions then you're essentially creating a new social norm. That norm being that if you pass out at a party, you're fair game. Good luck with that.

If you ever get caught up in a mass shooting somewhere, hey, you're fair game not a victim. /sarcasm.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


I think I’m being quite polite making my argument, yet you insist on insults. Go look up Ad Hominem, and Appeal to Emotion – not everyone ignores well known logical fallacies.

Also nice job rewording my posts to suit your argument – I’m done with this thread, have fun attacking my arguments without me here to defend them...

Originally posted by ConspiracyBuff
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

I think I’m being quite polite making my argument, yet you insist on insults. Go look up Ad Hominem, and Appeal to Emotion – not everyone ignores well known logical fallacies.

Also nice job rewording my posts to suit your argument – I’m done with this thread, have fun attacking my arguments without me here to defend them...

What did I say that was an insult? Victim blame is sad and pathetic. Thats not an insult, it is the truth. To blame someone who had something done to them by someone else is wrong in every way.

I suggest you take your own advice and look up "ad Hominem". Nothing I have said falls into that category.

There is no defense for victim blame. So have fun running away from your statement.

I would think if someone attacks you, you have every right to name them.

There are laws that media can't name criminals, but nothing about the VICTIM not naming them, as far as I'm aware.

It's ridiculous that people are more worried about the ruined life of the attacker (who deserves everything he has coming to him) than the ruined life of the victim.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by ConspiracyBuff
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

I think I’m being quite polite making my argument, yet you insist on insults. Go look up Ad Hominem, and Appeal to Emotion – not everyone ignores well known logical fallacies.

Also nice job rewording my posts to suit your argument – I’m done with this thread, have fun attacking my arguments without me here to defend them...

What did I say that was an insult? Victim blame is sad and pathetic. Thats not an insult, it is the truth. To blame someone who had something done to them by someone else is wrong in every way.

I suggest you take your own advice and look up "ad Hominem". Nothing I have said falls into that category.

There is no defense for victim blame. So have fun running away from your statement.

edit on 22-8-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)

Yes it is Ad Hominem: you are inferring that my character is sad pathetic because in your words ‘victim blame’ is sad and pathetic. Therefore, you attack my character and not my argument. How do you not see that? I referred to something called unaccountable victims which in no way relates to ‘victim blame’ at all, yet you combine them, hence the Appeal to Emotion.

Secondly, I am not running away from my statement – I was making a polite exit due to the fact that you cannot have a legitimate dialogue with me and resort to having a debate.

Originally posted by ConspiracyBuff

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by ConspiracyBuff
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

I think I’m being quite polite making my argument, yet you insist on insults. Go look up Ad Hominem, and Appeal to Emotion – not everyone ignores well known logical fallacies.

Also nice job rewording my posts to suit your argument – I’m done with this thread, have fun attacking my arguments without me here to defend them...

What did I say that was an insult? Victim blame is sad and pathetic. Thats not an insult, it is the truth. To blame someone who had something done to them by someone else is wrong in every way.

I suggest you take your own advice and look up "ad Hominem". Nothing I have said falls into that category.

There is no defense for victim blame. So have fun running away from your statement.

edit on 22-8-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)

Yes it is Ad Hominem: you are inferring that my character is sad pathetic because in your words ‘victim blame’ is sad and pathetic. Therefore, you attack my character and not my argument. How do you not see that? I referred to something called unaccountable victims which in no way relates to ‘victim blame’ at all, yet you combine them, hence the Appeal to Emotion.

Secondly, I am not running away from my statement – I was making a polite exit due to the fact that you cannot have a legitimate dialogue with me and resort to having a debate.

No, i said it is sad and pathetic to blame victims. Which it is. I never said anything about your character, nor did I even IMPLY anything about your character. Sorry that you are that self-conscious that you took it that way.
Scratch that, im not sorry.

Your example of a man, with money in his pockets, who passes out and gets robbed is EXACTLY the same thing as victim blame. You are saying it is at least in part his fault for getting robbed. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR VICTIM BLAME. If I walk around with a sign that says "my pockets are filled with $100 bills", that still, in no way, makes it my fault if I get robbed. Not smart on my part, sure. But it i am not asking someone to rob me. Just as a teenage girl who gets drunk, dresses provocatively,or acts flirty is IN NO WAY RESPONSIBLE when some degenerate assaults her.

There is only one party choosing to commit the crime. How can YOU not see that?

Could anyone please help me with something I don't quite understand. Several people's reasoning seems to revolve around the assumption, that the girl was being blamed for the doing of the offender, while in reality she's blamed for releasing information that she's not supposed to release.
These replies are basically taking the whole thing completely out of context, adding false information (like rape) to prove their point and using double standards (like completely ignoring the rights of one side, which are still present, even though he's/they're (?) being punished accordingly).

Also captaintyinknots, you seem to be very eager to use "victim blame" in every single one of your replies, while she's being blamed for something entirely different (not for being "assaulted", but for releasing sensitive information). Either my definition is wrong or you're heavily misusing a word to get more attention.

And then these posts get the highest ratings ...

Originally posted by Marsupilami
Could anyone please help me with something I don't quite understand. Several people's reasoning seems to revolve around the assumption, that the girl was being blamed for the doing of the offender, while in reality she's blamed for releasing information that she's not supposed to release.
These replies are basically taking the whole thing completely out of context, adding false information (like rape) to prove their point and using double standards (like completely ignoring the rights of one side, which are still present, even though he's/they're (?) being punished accordingly).

Also captaintyinknots, you seem to be very eager to use "victim blame" in every single one of your replies, while she's being blamed for something entirely different (not for being "assaulted", but for releasing sensitive information). Either my definition is wrong or you're heavily misusing a word to get more attention.

And then these posts get the highest ratings ...

No, you're simply taking my responses out of context. They are designated at specific wording of the person I replied to.

Your definition isnt wrong, you are just confused about what I was saying. Try reading the whole thread.

Were the boys drunk as well? If being drunk means you legally consent to having sex does that also apply to any action done when drunk?

Originally posted by Diisenchanted
That is complete hogwash. Not only did they rape her when she was drunk out of her head. That would be bad enough... Then the posted a video of their act online.
So who ruined whose life? Those boys deserve whatever they get.....

Unfortunately, they probably won't get what they deserve. They'll get free counseling, a slap on the wrist, and labeled poor little victims, while the girl, the CHILD, that was raped, will forever carry that red A on her shirt, put there by a society that hasn't a clue what it means to be compassionate.

/TOA

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Rockpuck

 

No situatiion ever calls for any guy to be allowed to sexually assualt a girl, even taking her clothes off to take pictures is a violation.



Way to go for supporting sexual offenders.

I look at it in context. If I and a female got drunk together at a party, and at some point she took her shirt off (which, at least the parties I went to was not uncommon!) and ended up in photographs completely plastered with different guys (and girls) posing with her in her various stages of undress..... would I be a "sexual predator?" No.

We apply this double standard because we have some sick antiquated notion that women are these pure, non sexual innocent little creatures of perfection. When one gets drunk and does something stupid that, in this case, ends up with some guys posing with her topless, we blame everyone ........ but her? It's equality for all, stupidity should not be gender exclusive. Had there been violence in the act, a premeditated aim for this to happen, or a forced sexual encounter then I would say yes, lock the boys up. For getting drunk and passing out and ending up embarassed is not cause for accusing anyone of sexual assault.

We have this idiotic stigma in society that as long as a woman screams rape, we automatically have to defend her, regardless of her story. Then men are automatically accused by everyone whether they did it or not. In this case 2 drunk KIDS ended up in a picture with a drunk girl passed out on the floor. Everyone clearly made poor choices, but the boys are the ones with their lives ruined. And if you don't want embarrassing pictures taken .. I suggest not getting so drunk you pass out. I've witnessed some very, very embarrassing situations done to people passed out at parties.

reply to post by Marsupilami


Not out of context.

They boys were charged with taking a picture of her on the floor passed out with physical contact. The only charge they could find to fit was "sexual assault" which means basically unwanted physical contact.

She then accused the boys of rape. Which there was no evidence, no witness no anything to even possibly bring that charge up. Rape and sexual assault are NOT the same thing.. if I walked up to a woman and grabbed her breast, that's sexual assault.

Because she publicly accused the boys of something even the court and DA have explained they never did, and because it's ruined their lives the question is who's at fault?

Personally I blame everyone for the drunken stupidity. Which because it was drunken stupidity I feel going the extra attention seeking mile of publicly accusing boys of "raping" you when all they did was take a stupid drunken picture of you in an excessive state of inebriation, that the harm done to their lives warrants a civil suit against her.

reply to post by Rockpuck


There seems to be a misunderstanding. What I meant to say is that it's out of context to talk about how the girl is being blamed for the doing of the boys (which obviously isn't the case), when the issue is actually about her publicizing accusations.

I fully agree to your posts.

reply to post by nightstalker78

"...touching someone is not rape."

It is if you touch genitals or breasts. You should educate yourself before you touch anyone else without their consent.

In my state that's fourth degree sexual assault.

reply to post by aaaiii


And you....... just need an education.

rape1    [reyp] Show IPA noun, verb, raped, rap·ing.
noun
1.
the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2.
any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3.
statutory rape.
4.
an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
5.
Archaic . the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
verb (used with object)
6.
to force to have sexual intercourse.
7.
to plunder (a place); despoil.
8.
to seize, take, or carry off by force.
verb (used without object)
9.
to commit rape.