Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Court Rules Severely Disabled Woman Wasn't Raped Because She Didn't 'Bite, Kick or Scratch' Her

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by smyleegrl
She has the mental capacity of a three year old. Since when is a three year old allowed to give consent?


Best comment on the entire thread.




posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
I'm posting, but i'm really at a loss of what to say...................the mind boggles!
Is there no such thing as common sense any more?
Are the decision makers of our times complete idiots?
she has the mental capacity of a 3 year old this says it all! how can they expect her to fight back or understand whats happening, this is insane.
so he walks off scot free, to find his next victim.
you think you've heard it all, it couldn't get worse, then BAM it got worse



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
Ok, put the fuel in your flamethrowers.

It looks like, under the law, the Court made the right call. The law requires the woman to say "no" in some way, before the man can be convicted of rape, unless she's unconscious (which she wasn't) or was unable to say "no" in some way, through words or actions. The court found that she was able to indicate that she didn't want to do it, but she didn't so indicate.

There doesn't seem to be a requirement that the man determine a woman's mental age prior to having sex. Nor should there be.

Do we require that a woman say "yes" before each sexual move, or it's rape?

I may be missing the points you want to make, but I tried.

Dear AloysiusTheGaul, I just saw your post. No, anyone under the age of (whatever it is there) is protected by statutory rape laws.
edit on 3-10-2012 by charles1952 because: Add


I wonder if there is a lesser charge he could be charged with? I know there are laws regarding the abuse of handicapped people. I guess it wasn't assault if I hit the guy and he didn't complain? I understand what you are saying but I believe it is wrong. Would it make any difference if she was under the influence of medication which made he not fight back? I don't know what meds she might have been on.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Agarta
 

I agree completely (except for the suing part), often terrible results like this are the spurs that bring legislators "back to the drawing board" to clean up their mistakes and oversights. There are, however, elections coming up. Maybe, this case might become an issue.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
Ok, put the fuel in your flamethrowers.

It looks like, under the law, the Court made the right call. The law requires the woman to say "no" in some way, before the man can be convicted of rape, unless she's unconscious (which she wasn't) or was unable to say "no" in some way, through words or actions. The court found that she was able to indicate that she didn't want to do it, but she didn't so indicate.

There doesn't seem to be a requirement that the man determine a woman's mental age prior to having sex. Nor should there be.

Do we require that a woman say "yes" before each sexual move, or it's rape?

I may be missing the points you want to make, but I tried.

Dear AloysiusTheGaul, I just saw your post. No, anyone under the age of (whatever it is there) is protected by statutory rape laws.
edit on 3-10-2012 by charles1952 because: Add


In court she could only move her finger to point to "yes or no" on a piece of paper... I think you and they are wrong...




The woman, now 29, who in court only went by her initials, L.K., has severe cerebral palsy and cannot verbally communicate. She is so physically restricted that she is able to make motions only with her right index finger.

In order for the woman to testify during the trial, a small video camera was placed over her and a tray affixed to her chair. On the tray, the prosecutor placed a board printed with the letters of the alphabet along with the words "yes" and "no" on top.


Read more: www.ctpost.com...



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


UNDER THE LAW ?

REALLY ?

There are no laws that says you can't have sex with a dead body, does that make it ok ?
Think about that when a loved one dies and they are taking the body to the morgue.


www.jud.ct.gov...



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by fnpmitchreturns
 


Wow! Just WOW! Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that the judges are giving sexual predators either very light sentences or no sentencing at all???? OR they get hired by the TSA!!!! Yet, someone who commits a NON violent crime gets the book thrown at them!


The courts and corrections systems are just filled to the brim, maxed-out with mandatory sentencing for pot smokers. We are forced to go light on many crimes so as not to over-burden our system and keep a priority for the truly criminally dangerous to society substance abusers.


edit on 3-10-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)


So what.......shoot the child rapists, abusers of woman and molestors, that should clear out the room and send a signal this won't be tolerated in our society anymore.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by fnpmitchreturns
 





Since the victim in this case was capable of “biting, kicking, scratching, screeching, groaning or gesturing,” the Court ruled that that victim could have communicated lack of consent despite her serious mental deficiencies:"


Doesn't cerebral palsy cause one to jerk and flinch? How do the judges know whether or not she grunted or gestured a "No"? Was the rape caught on camera or are they going by the testimony of the rapist?

I don't see how this woman, who has the mind of a 3 year old, could testify and recount the incident with any clarity. As far as the law goes, this case should be the one that changes the law, making sure that mentally handicap people are protected from predators, sexual or otherwise.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by fnpmitchreturns
 

Dear fnpmitchreturns,

Thanks, I hadn't checked that link, my fault for not looking at them all.

The state had a difficult task. They were asking the Court to reverse an Appeals Court decision. It's doable, but a little trickier. Also from the link:

However, the defense argued that there was evidence the woman could communicate by biting, kicking, screaming and gesturing. They presented testimony at trial from a home health aide who said the woman would kick and groan if she didn't get food she wanted.
That had to hurt the case a lot. It may have been that she was actually capable of more expression than she displayed in court.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
reply to post by charles1952
 


UNDER THE LAW ?

REALLY ?

There are no laws that says you can't have sex with a dead body, does that make it ok ?
Think about that when a loved one dies and they are taking the body to the morgue.


www.jud.ct.gov...


Okay? Legally speaking, yes. Morally and ethically, I couldn't care less, a dead body isn't exactly in a position to complain.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by nighthawk1954
This makes me sick..I live in CT. and I am gonna contact my state reps. about this case!


I have sent out 3 E-Mails some top offcials I personaly know... hope to hear from them on Thursday.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by fnpmitchreturns
 

Dear fnpmitchreturns,

Thanks, I hadn't checked that link, my fault for not looking at them all.

The state had a difficult task. They were asking the Court to reverse an Appeals Court decision. It's doable, but a little trickier. Also from the link:

However, the defense argued that there was evidence the woman could communicate by biting, kicking, screaming and gesturing. They presented testimony at trial from a home health aide who said the woman would kick and groan if she didn't get food she wanted.
That had to hurt the case a lot. It may have been that she was actually capable of more expression than she displayed in court.

With respect,
Charles1952



No problem Charles... I just think this is a serious mistake. I have emailed the reporter to find out if this guy worked at the facility; was visiting; or trespassing .... I also think that would figure into the case but I did not see where it has been posted. Also groaning for food was the basic reason they (court) believed she could have resisted... and even if she could groan would she fight back if she felt pleasure from her genitalia being stimulated not understanding what was really going on physically having the mental capacity of a three year old?



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by fnpmitchreturns
 

Dear fnpmitchreturns,


I wonder if there is a lesser charge he could be charged with? I know there are laws regarding the abuse of handicapped people. I guess it wasn't assault if I hit the guy and he didn't complain? I understand what you are saying but I believe it is wrong. Would it make any difference if she was under the influence of medication which made he not fight back? I don't know what meds she might have been on.
That meds idea is a great thought.
Show that she had been medicated to the point of not being able to object, and it looks like it the charge would stick. Unfortunately, that evidence should have been brought up at trial, if it was available. It is really, really, hard to introduce new evidence after trial.

I'm having a tough time coming up with another charge that would fit, and still carry a significant penalty. Wait a minute, was he her caretaker? That would probably do it.

Your example of hitting a guy should work, but the problem there is the law assumes that getting hit over the head with a tire iron is without your consent, no matter whether he complains or not. Physical injury would have been a help in proving this case.

I don't know. I don't like the result, but I think the legislators are the people to fix it. Why not give them a call?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   
I can't believe this. I wonder if the guy would get visitation if he knocked her up!

And another post about a 14 year old killing her baby in Florida.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   
wow, just plain wow

so, sexually assaulting a 3yr old is no longer pedophilia eh ??
/sarcasm

scary thought there folks.
and i've got to wonder, did the judges expect her to poke his eye out or what ?

if someone else has to assist with lifting her arms, just what protest could she have provided with a finger ??



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   
what was this mans mental state? and was he caught in the act? whats his history like whith the woman?



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 

Please forgive me if I allow any frustration to come out in this post, it is not intended.

wow, just plain wow
so, sexually assaulting a 3yr old is no longer pedophilia eh ??
/sarcasm
Someone who is under the calendar age described in each state's statutory rape law is still protected.

scary thought there folks.
and i've got to wonder, did the judges expect her to poke his eye out or what ?

if someone else has to assist with lifting her arms, just what protest could she have provided with a finger ??
Evidence was presented at trial showing that she could kick and scream if she didn't get the food she wanted. There is some evidence that she could do more than she actually did in court.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I just don't see it. Having the learned tactic of throwing a tantrum for something as common as a meal, is not the same as a new and surprising, even shocking, sexual experience that she had no learned mechanism to fend off.

This ruling seems capricious to me. I don't know, but I'm guessing, same situation, different players, would render a guilty verdict another day.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

so, did you miss the "/sarcasm" at the end of my comment ??
point being, if a 3yr old (mentally or by calendar) cannot consent, they cannot consent, period.
also, just how many 3yr olds (by calendar) would put up a fight?? of any kind.

yes charles, i read that too, however, lust or desire do not constitute "consent".
for the judges to determine that such an invasion was under "consent" for the reasons provided is simply ridiculous.

sir, i have been a rape victim 3 separate times and i can assure you, not only was consent withheld, i did not invite a brutal beating by striking out, either, in any of the 3 situations.

so, since i didn't fight back, apparently, i wasn't raped either
??
please say it isn't so.

besides, since when does the court have any authority to define "assault" ??

big deal, she could kick and scream regarding dietary choices.
perhaps she was aroused, does that mean she consented ?? hardly.

sounds more like Sharia creep to me.
it is Connecticut ya know.

ETA: just to note, i do not know the particulars of the case, only the story posted.
it is possible that a prior relationship between these two ppl existed and if so, that does change my perspective of the ruling. however, lacking such details and based on the reasons provided, i stand on the opinion offered.
edit on 4-10-2012 by Honor93 because: ETA



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

Dear windword,

You may very well be right. I wish I had seen the Appellate Court's decision, but I haven't bothered to look it up.

My best understanding of the situation is that the trial court found him guilty, probably for the same reasons everyone here is reacting with horror. (Me too, it was a terrible thing to do.) Then the defense appealed it, probably saying that as the law is written, she had the abilty to express her objection, so there was no rape. The Appeals court agreed and threw out the conviction. Finally the State Supremes said something like, "Yeah, it's a stinky law, but that's what the law is all right."

Sure, you could get another guilty verdict, but unless the law (or the evidence) changes, the conviction will get tossed again.

With respect,
Charles1952






top topics



 
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join