It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 11:32 AM

Originally posted by yourmaker

you're assuming they are "people".

perhaps they are not.

posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:07 PM
Every time I think I can't read something more horrendous, it gets topped. I wait for the day this country is tired if being sheep, and become wolves protecting our own

posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 02:05 PM

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by newcovenant

So what does the victim have to say on the subject? Yep, just like I thought. I don't see any sort of testimony, only a heavily biased article that doesn't tell us exactly what happened, only releasing the pieces that incite the most controvery and emotional outrage.

I'm only seeing emotion here, not fact-based conclusions. Sure, rape is rape; but do we have all the facts? No. What do we have? An incomplete report that is aimed to cause strife. And it's working.
edit on 4-10-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

The girl had the mental capacity of a three year old and this guy had sex with her.
What more do you need to know? The weather?

posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 02:08 PM
reply to post by newcovenant

Is horrible the right word? Despicable? I can't really put it into words. An amazing display of heartlessness, to say the least.

posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 02:09 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

yeah slip the roofies and it's just minor assault or what?? this is crazy in a box with a side order of fries

one day these people will just reveal themselves thinking the sheep won't harm them. let's hope that a) they'll be wrong and b) they'll call themselves Illuminati for purposes of vindication.

posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 02:11 PM
Well, I suppose the upside to this is now a woman can't claim rape when drunk because she can't kick bite or scratch and has no mental capacity to say no.

What an utterly disgusting ruling.

posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 06:39 PM

Originally posted by peck420

So everybody gets mad at the judges for actually following the law, but nobody is crying for the heads of the politicians that write the laws?

Folks, judges administer law. They do not write it, they do not make assumptions on it. They are bound by what is written in it. For all we know the judges are just as pissed as the rest of you, but their hands are just as tied as ours.

If you want to go after somebody for crap like this, head to the state political offices and get changes made.

Sorry friend but the crazy thing about our ridiculous government is laws are so poorly written that the judges many times have to interpret the meaning as well as the intent of the law. Hence why you see things like split decisions and it is always fascinating reading the majority as well as dissenting opinions on matters such as these. As of late the obamacare rulings and NDAA rulings have been very interesting to read. Check out the ndaa one here

posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 07:54 PM
Seems like a story that should be research from the start. I find it hard to believe that the court can be this stupid without there being more to this. Was it someone other then the victim that reported this or was it the victim. If so how did she report it if she can not communicate.

posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 08:06 PM
Are there any legitimate links to this case? Ones that are not alternate news sources?

posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 08:10 PM
The article has a link to the court ruling.

Here's the upshot.


Consider the following: had the trial court not granted LK accommodations, she
would not have been able to testify. Had she not have been able to testify, the State would
have not been able to prosecute the case at all because there was no other evidence to
support her claim that she was sexually assaulted. Without the accommodations, the
Appellate Court would have had little reason to believe that she could communicate. Thus,
the jury’s finding that she was “physically helpless” would have been left undisturbed. It is
the ultimate catch-22. Had she not been able to testify there would have been no
prosecution. Yet, because she testified, the Appellate Court determined she was not
physically helpless.

Catch 22 indeed.

posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 08:21 PM
reply to post by nixie_nox

Let me offer you this one. It's the summary of the case at the Appelate court level without the lawyer's spin found in the State's brief.

Criminal; Sexual Assault; Whether State Presented Sufficient Evidence that Disabled Complainant was Physically Helpless as Defined by General Statutes § 53a-65.

The defendant was convicted of attempted sexual assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 (a) and 53a-71 (3) and sexual assault in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2005) § 53a-73a (a) (1) (C) in connection with allegations that he sexually assaulted a twenty-five year old woman with significant disabilities. She has cerebral palsy, mental retardation and hydrocephalus.

Both crimes require the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged victim was "physically helpless" as defined by General Statutes § 53a-65 (6); that is, that the victim was "unconscious or for any other reason [was] physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act." The defendant appealed, claiming that his convictions should be overturned because the state had not met its burden of proving that the complainant was physically helpless.

The Appellate Court (118 Conn. App. 43) noted that, while the complainant's disabilities rendered her unable to communicate verbally, she could communicate by gesturing and vocalizing and through the use of a communication board, and that witnesses testified that she could indicate her displeasure by means of gestures, physical aggression - including biting, kicking and scratching - and by making screeching and groaning sounds. The court concluded that, given the uncontradicted evidence presented at trial that the complainant could communicate using these nonverbal methods and the state's failure to show that she was unable to use such forms of communication at the time of the alleged assault, no reasonable jury could have concluded that she was physically helpless at the time of the assault.

The Appellate Court accordingly reversed the judgment and remanded with direction to render judgment of not guilty. The Supreme Court granted the state's petition for certification to appeal and will consider whether the Appellate Court improperly substituted its judgment for that of the jury when it determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the complainant was physically helpless as defined by § 53a-65 (6).

The only thing the Supreme Court did was to agree that the Appelate Court's analysis was correct. I don't know what he did to be charged with (and I don't want to know), but "attempted" second degree, and "fourth degree" sexual assault? Doesn't sound like there was a rape to me. But headlines have to draw in readers.

Oh and she doesn't have to fight, she just has to indicate "no" in some way clear enough to be understood.

edit on 4-10-2012 by charles1952 because: Add link.

posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 09:20 PM
This is why I love Canada and hate the U.S. American lack of intelligence is absolutely stunning.

Here there isn't "It isn't rape because she couldn't fight back." Rape is rape.

Feel human yet, Americans?
edit on 4-10-2012 by Munku because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 09:35 PM
reply to post by charles1952

After reading your post with reference included I had two thoughts. My first thought, having been a Police officer, is that you need to satisfy legal administrative protocols to actually make a charge - let alone to proceed to court. There is a list of proofs that need to be satisfied before any charges can even be preferred. The fact this incident resulted in a person being charged and actually reaching a court - indicates there is evidence of an assault. Someone must have made a statement - on behalf of the victim. There must have been professional medical opinion or similar or a witness to the assault - something concrete.

Second thought is - were the appropriate charges laid? If inappropriate charges are laid then situations such as this will occur. Essentially the reference you provided is very clear - however - the judge by virtue of his office can question the entire legal application and request reviews - prior to finalising any case. A judge presides and her/his directions have to be considered.

I think this is the crux of this repugnant and inhumane situation being discussed here. The judge has adhered to the law in a literal sense - instead of questioning the original charges and reviewing the evidence/proofs that got the charge into the court in the first place.

The judge - in this instance - in my opinion - is way out of line and lacking in intellectual ethics and morals. His Duty of Care to the very vulnerable victim is sadly missing. I would love to see the charge sheet and the legislative requirements/proofs of the charges. The proofs and charge sheet would go a long way to determining why this very vulnerable victim has become a victim of the system that is supposed to protect her.

The victim is already vulnerable and has now been subjected to the humiliation and degradation of an inept court/judge/legal system - take your pick and she deserves so much better - so much more. There is a lack of compassion and common sense in society these days - sad for all of us!

Much Peace...

posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 09:59 PM
reply to post by charles1952

Thank you!

posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 10:08 PM
the thing that gets me, I don't care if she is able to communicate or not. If she is medically handicapped, she is not able to make decisions about whether she can have consensual sex or not. Which is why there is statutory rape, a person of an immature mindset can't make mature decisions regarding sex. She could of screamed: Come here big boy, she still didn't have the cognitive abilities to make a mature decision about sex.

Any male that takes advantage of that is a disgusting lowlife.

posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 10:11 PM
What about vulnerable adult laws? This is not right. This person needs an attorney. She has rights. VERY VALID RIGHTS! Vulnerable adult rights are very strong in many states. Hopefully, she has an advocate on her side who can help her.
edit on 4-10-2012 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 11:46 PM
reply to post by Amanda5 and nixie_nox

Dear Amanda5,

Thanks a lot for your post, but mostly for doing the job in the streets. I never wanted that. A salute to you.

You're absolutely right, there was evidence. Her "statement," done mostly by pointing, to a Doctor and a follow-up gynecological exam. Everybody knew that something sexual had gone on.

Second thought is - were the appropriate charges laid?
BINGO! I could kiss you. This ugly case was THE PROSECUTORS' FAULT. The final decision handed down told the prosecutors that they had screwed up big time (in a polite and orderly manner, of course), in at least two different ways. (Maybe three, I really don't want to re-read the decision to make sure.) This is the sort of thing that gets you called into the office for a "WTH were you thinking session?" with the boss. From the decision:

Indeed, as the Appellate Court suggested; this appears to be a case in which the state ultimately proceeded against the defendant under the wrong statute. Originally, the state also had charged the defendant with sexual assault in the second degree, attempt to commit sexual assault in the second degree , and sexual assault in the second degree all of which require that the victim be unable to consent to sexual intercourse because the victim is ‘‘mentally defective . . . .’’ Because the evidence established that the victim’s cognitive abilities are significantly limited, the state could well have prosecuted the defendant under those provisions. The record does not indicate why the state decided not to do so and opted instead to pursue charges requiring proof that the victim was physically helpless. By electing to prove that the victim was physically helpless rather than mentally defective, the state removed from the case all issues pertaining to the victim’s mental capacity to consent to sex. (citations removed)
I can't explain to you the sneering insult and criticism of the prosecutor's thinking process, expressed here. I don't know, maybe they thought this had slam-dunk written all over it and didn't pay attention.

BUT WAIT!! THERE'S MORE!! Act now and you can have your legal resume so blotted that other lawyers will probably look at you funny for the next few years, and some will never forget.

To the contrary, the prosecutor expressly told the jury during closing argument that the victim, ‘‘according to all accounts, was very vocal, very active, and, if in fact she felt that . . . [people were not understanding] what she was saying, I believe [that] everybody [who has] testified here [has indicated that] she would throw up her arms and say ‘stop.’ ’’ During closing argument, the prosecutor also noted that the victim was ‘‘very limited in terms of . . . what type of information she can pass on to you,’’ and that she had ‘‘some difficulty expressing herself . . . .’’ At no time, however, did the state even raise the notion that the victim was unable to communicate an unwillingness to an act. Indeed, it appears that the state believed there was no reason to contest the victim’s ability to express herself by biting, kicking, scratching, screeching, groaning or gesturing because it was the state’s theory that the victim was physically helpless, notwithstanding her ability to communicate nonverbally.
So he even picked the blankety-blank WRONG THEORY OF THE CASE! Anyway, you can find the link to the Supreme Court decision in this article: I think the link says something like :"The Court's decision."

How in the world I let you guys talk me into doing even a superficial case analysis, I'll never know. I think I'll go have a lawyer-type drink.

With respect,

edit on 4-10-2012 by charles1952 because: spelling

edit on 4-10-2012 by charles1952 because: moved a line.

posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 12:17 AM
The one thing I didn't find in the article was the physical age of the woman. She had the mental capacity of a 3 year old. But I don't know, was she a 40, 30 year old woman. I assume she was at least of age. I also assume, it wasn't she that originated the complaint. Just because she has a mind of 3 doesn't mean it was rape.

Now before you go crazy on me. Keep in mind this might have been a fully mature woman. I agree the man could have exercised better judgement, if this actually had occurred as a best case and was consensual. But the rape part, may be we don't know the whole story.

However if the act were committed on a shy, distracted, confused victim by a predator trying to encourage willful participation, then this guy should be locked up.

posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 12:28 AM
reply to post by okyouwin

25 years old.

posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 12:40 AM

Originally posted by eriktheawful
Almost, I would wish that each of those judges has a daughter, and said daughter get's raped, but the perp walks based on their ruling......

Almost, because I would never wish rape on anyone.

Instead I'll settle to have their very names smeared in the deepest, darkest mud.

I am sorry but this statement really infuriates me. Even almost wishing rape upon someone is pretty bad. What you don't seem to realize is that these type of judges, had their daughter been raped, they would blame their daughter for it or brush it off saying it wasn't that bad.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in