Hackers leak video of Steubenville, Ohio Rape case.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Simply reading a statute and assuming it applies when in fact it does not is one of the other reasons people get upset.

How is it that the laws I posted don't apply to what's in the video?
Oh, wait. You didn't watch the video.

Again you ignored the part about the PA and charges. As I have stated, just beause you think it should be prosecuted doesnt mean it must be prosecuted.

i am still not understanding why you are continually trying to argue this point when it has nothing to do with what im talking about.

If it helps, please research juveile law, which is who has jurisdiction in this matter. Please learn how that works and what the differences are when it comes to juveile and criminal law.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by roadgravel

 

I don't know how much more stupidity and ignorance I can take.
I've offered concrete examples of what the law states, yet it's falling on deaf ears.
If we're living in a world where people who haven't looked at all the evidence believe that the law is being followed AND our officials are this sloppy and feel as though they don't have to follow the statutes put in place to charge any and all criminal activity, all hope is lost.
This isn't the world I signed up for. I want my money back.

No you have not offered concrete proof.. What part of Juvenile law and Criminal law being different are you not understanding?

I find it amazing that this case has been investigated, charges have been filed under juveile sections, and yet you are still going on and on about somthing that is not releveant to the covnersation.

So you watched the video and so it shows law violations.. It still does not have anything to do with hjow the juveile law process works.

Here - pick this apart with your interpretation of the law.
January 5, 2013 Governance, Jurisdiction, and Ohio Law by Steubenville Facts

Ohio Statutes - Juvenile Courts

how about we review the police report.
Bottom of page, second page of report - Referred to Juveile Division

I am empowered to investigate crimes in my state. However, I have no authority / jurisdiction when it comes to minors. For those issues we are required by law to refer them to juveile officers. I am not even allowed to interview minors. I am not allowed to arrest them.

Ohio law is the same.

Originally posted by TWILITE22
reply to post by Afterthought

 

Sounds like the good ole boy system is still alive and kicking.
I believe they should move the trial to Appalachia where the
news still travels by horse.Have one of their judges preside
over the trial...Then again is there anywhere justice will be served?

If these boys aren't punished sufficiently or according to
public outcry what's going to happen?what will the public do?

I don't think this is going to work out well no matter how it's done or who does it,
and imo this will follow them for the rest of their lives... as it should.

Because 2 wrongs somehow make a right?

So if the 2 minors are attacked and killed by adults who dont understand how the legal system works, would you go after the adults for murdering 2 children?

reply to post by Xcathdra


I understand the prosecutor charges people. I understand it's the responsibility of the arresting agency (police and sheriff) to deliver the alleged criminals to the Office of the Prosecutor to decide if they should be charged.

What about this case shows that this has been accomplished? What about this case proves that the letter of the law was followed in its entirety and the proper chain of command was followed?

So, we agree that misdemeanors are punishable offenses and the prosecutor is the charging authority.
The only thing you seem to be harping on about is how the police did their job and the prosecutor decides who gets charged.
What is your agenda here? Are you trying to defend the police department?
Instead of attacking everyone on the thread, why don't you come over to our side and start calling for the arrests of those who are still walking free? Why are you not demanding that misdemeanor charges are applicable according to the video evidence?
I just don't understand you. You continually come into this thread and insult those who have viewed the video and want justice, yet have not taken the responsibility of viewing all of the evidence for yourself.

Nothing in Ohio’s criminal statutes makes it a crime for someone to ridicule a rape victim on a video or otherwise say horrible things about another person. Further, nothing in the law allows someone who says repugnant things on Twitter, Facebook, or other Internet sites to be criminally charged for such statements.

Of course, but is there an investigation into whether these people were actually involved in a crime. That's a question that has arisen since they seem to know fine details. Hopefully it didn't stop at being a jerk isn't a crime.

reply to post by Afterthought


You really need to read and understand my posts.. From the start ive stated I agree with the people being charged.. You and some others are so hell bent on the "why arent theybeing charged" that you are completely blind to what im posting. I am explaining to you why they have not been charged. I am explaining to you how that process works. I am explaining to you that if a crime occurs within an incorperated city limit that the city police is the primary agency. The Sheriff cannot come in and assume the investigation. They enforce state laws and can do so inside city limits.

Municipal officers are able to not only enforce the same state laws as the sheriff, they also enforce city ordinances, something the sheriffs office cannot do.

People complained about the report SPD submitted - I explained why its done that way.
People complained about the Sheriff not running the investigation - I explained why its done that way.
People complain about charges - ive explained why we are where we are.

If people took the time to step back from the torches and pitchforks you might see how this can play out. We do not have all of the evidence. We have a hacker group threatening the entire town if people who have info dont come forward.

I am all about seeing justice done - however it must be done in a court of law and not public opinion. The reason for that is all over this thread. People are judging based on emotions and partial facts.

Justice is not served by lynching people simply because they broke the law and you dont like what happened. If that is something you want, then I would refer you to Sharira law and their eye for an eye clause.

I would rather the time and effort be put into doing a thourough AG investigation and then file charges against those they can where the evidence can ensure a conviction. If the evidence is weak, and they go forward, and lose the case, then what? Right now there are people who are pissed that people are not being charged. People are going to be even more pissed when the PA gives into public emotion and goes forward with a case and loses it.

Damned if you do, damned if you dont.

Stop the 100 meter rush to judgment and look at the whole picture, and try to do so by putting aside some of the pre conceived notions just for a few minutes. Thats all im asking.

Again, I have no need to watch the video. It shows violations of the law, I get that. Right now that avenue is irrelevent until they firm up the evidence.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Under Ohio law they have 2 years to prosecute misd and up to 6 for felonies (higher felonies go longer).

If the prosecutor doesn't demand that those in the video be arrested and charged and those in the video are beaten and/or killed or commit another crime, can those in the video or their families or any future victims sue the prosecutor's office and the State of Ohio because they dragged their feet thus leading to further damage deading to additional victims, injuries, or deaths?

Arresting someone pleases the people and protects the perps until they have their day in court.

reply to post by Xcathdra

You really need to read and understand my posts.. From the start ive stated I agree with the people being charged.. You and some others are so hell bent on the "why arent theybeing charged" that you are completely blind to what im posting.

OMG!!!!!! YOU ARE THE ONE NOT COMPREHENDING!!!!!!!
We aren't talking about the guys who have been arrested/
AGAIN, we aren't talking about the guys who HAVE BEEN ARRESTED.
We want those IN THE VIDEO who HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE CRIME and a POSSIBLE DEAD BODY arrested and charged.

I give up. You're too dense to understand why everyone is so upset.
Please don't watch the video. You are by far the most obtuse and unreasonable know-it-all I've ever encountered on ATS.

Good day to you and thanks for bumping the thread.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

I understand the prosecutor charges people. I understand it's the responsibility of the arresting agency (police and sheriff) to deliver the alleged criminals to the Office of the Prosecutor to decide if they should be charged.

It is not the responsibility of the Police or Sheriff to deliver a minor. That is the job of the Juveile Officer.

Originally posted by Afterthought
What about this case shows that this has been accomplished? What about this case proves that the letter of the law was followed in its entirety and the proper chain of command was followed?

Where was the chain of You have an independent investigating agency,,, You have the county PA ceding her authority to the AG as a special prosecutor.

Be careful with the strict letter of the law position. If we are to go down that road then there would be no defense when a person kills another person in self defense. As I said, the death, whether by police / civilians, is classified as a homicide. The caveat is was it justified.

Originally posted by Afterthought
So, we agree that misdemeanors are punishable offenses and the prosecutor is the charging authority.
The only thing you seem to be harping on about is how the police did their job and the prosecutor decides who gets charged.

Because people are somehow not comprehending that the Police and the County PA and the Sheriff did their job by refering the matter to Juveile authorities to investigate, the AG to prosecute etc etc...

I am pointing that out because you keep coming back with the people should be charged because of the video. I agree however I dont support a half assed prosecution. How do you think the victim is going to feel when her attackers are found not guilty because of the publics demand for judicial expediancy?

Originally posted by Afterthought
What is your agenda here? Are you trying to defend the police department?

To the extent that they are not empowered to investigate crimes committed by minors. The report I linked to is pretty close to what my reports look like for the same issues. They came to the station, they explained what occurred, I gather the basics, type an information referral report and submit it to our Juvenile Officer for complete investigation.

Which is exactly what occurred.

Originally posted by Afterthought
Instead of attacking everyone on the thread, why don't you come over to our side and start calling for the arrests of those who are still walking free? Why are you not demanding that misdemeanor charges are applicable according to the video evidence?

I havent attacked anyone.. I have responded to attacks that are made at me. As for the last part, as I said, im all for prosecuting where they can. However, my experience and training tell me that sometimes a direct frontal attack is not always the best course of action. Secondly, where do all of the youtube people live? Are they all in the city? out in the County? a neighboring county? If the violation is to be followed up on, and its determined the violator does not live in the city, county or even state, it becomes the responsibility of the jurisdictional agency they are living in.

We are dealing with minors... In my opinion I dont think any criminal investigation into minors should ever be rushed. As for the last part ive stated it time and again, just because there is a violation does not mean an arrest / prosecution should be immediate.

Originally posted by Afterthought
I just don't understand you. You continually come into this thread and insult those who have viewed the video and want justice, yet have not taken the responsibility of viewing all of the evidence for yourself.

Because you are ignoring what im telling you. The youtube video is not the only evidence present... We dont know what evidence is present.

Im in this thread to explain the side of the fence you guys ignore and bash. When I tell you its the responsibility of the JO and not the police, im not stating that to defend either. I am stating it because people are assuming certain positions that arent supported by the facts.

I have not insulted anyone... However people have been insulting towards me.

Just because an item is in evidence does not mean it will see the inside of a court room. A succesful prosecution does not rest on only 1 piece of evidence. If the prosecution is based solely on the video, and that video is excluded by the judge, then what?

Unless there is other evidence its game over and these guys walk free knowing they cant be charged again.

reply to post by Xcathdra

It is not the responsibility of the Police or Sheriff to deliver a minor. That is the job of the Juveile Officer.

Please, please, please, please, please watch the video and examine the personal details of the main subject of the video.
Nodiano is an adult. He was an adult when the crime took place.
There's no reason why he hasn't been arrested by the proper authorities.
Since you don't want to examine the evidence (which is the main purpose of this thread), I'll break it down for you.
1. He verbally states on the video that the girl was raped.
2. He verbally states personal knowledge of the crime that only a witness and/or participant would know.
3. He gives reasons as to why he believes that she is dead.

All of these points AND the fact that he's an adult are enough to demand he be arrested so he can have his half second in court to prove his innocence. He needs to be arrested and charged with not reporting a violent crime AND having knowledge that a murder may have occurred and that he was aware of the location of a dead body.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

You really need to read and understand my posts.. From the start ive stated I agree with the people being charged.. You and some others are so hell bent on the "why arent theybeing charged" that you are completely blind to what im posting.

OMG!!!!!! YOU ARE THE ONE NOT COMPREHENDING!!!!!!!
We aren't talking about the guys who have been arrested/
AGAIN, we aren't talking about the guys who HAVE BEEN ARRESTED.
We want those IN THE VIDEO who HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE CRIME and a POSSIBLE DEAD BODY arrested and charged.

Please use your inside voice...

I know who we are talking about.. What you are failing to grasp is the video and the people in it are all connected to the rape case. Like I said.. you are all gungho and you are refusing to see and understand the entire picture.

reply to post by Xcathdra

I am empowered to investigate crimes in my state.

The state allows you to be on the computer blogging while you should be working?
Do the tax payers in your state know that their public servants are busy blogging during work hours?
What state do you work for? I think they should know that their employees are spending time on ATS instead of focusing on their job.

Originally posted by Afterthought
Please, please, please, please, please watch the video and examine the personal details of the main subject of the video.
Nodiano is an adult. He was an adult when the crime took place.

Fair enough... I watched the video and it still does not change my position.

Originally posted by Afterthought
There's no reason why he hasn't been arrested by the proper authorities.

Sure there is.. However you refuse to see it because you think he is guilty of a crime without having all the evidence.

Originally posted by Afterthought
Since you don't want to examine the evidence (which is the main purpose of this thread), I'll break it down for you.
1. He verbally states on the video that the girl was raped.

Which is not against the law.

Originally posted by Afterthought
2. He verbally states personal knowledge of the crime that only a witness and/or participant would know.

The comment above is whats called in the legal arena a leap of logic. First off we dont have all the evidence that can support the comment.

A leap of logic is when a person takes in a situation and pieces a picture together without knowing the backstory.
Hypothetical - You are a police officer and you respond to a residence to interview a person. When you enter the house you see an ash tray and cigarette butts in it. The asumption is the person your interviewing smokes, and we arrive there because she lives alone. What gets over looked is the possibility of her having people over prior to your arrival, and some of those friends smoke.

Originally posted by Afterthought
3. He gives reasons as to why he believes that she is dead.

He gives multiple reasons which can be viewed as him not actually being present but is saying he was just to fit in with friends..

Originally posted by Afterthought
All of these points AND the fact that he's an adult are enough to demand he be arrested so he can have his half second in court to prove his innocence.

Demand all you want but if the guy walks because the PA doesnt have their ducks in a row dont be pissed at the PA for the crappy outcome. A good example of that problem is scene in the Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin case.

Secondly, and this goes back to my comments about knowing the law. A person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The burden of proof falls on the prosecution, not the accused.

Originally posted by Afterthought
He needs to be arrested and charged with not reporting a violent crime AND having knowledge that a murder may have occurred and that he was aware of the location of a dead body.

edit on 9-1-2013 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)

Its not enough to use just the video... What he stated in the video needs to be verified. Again just because he claimed to be present doesnt mean he was there.

Let the investigators proceed at their own pace to get it done right.

* Some thoughts to consider:
* - Was the guy in fact at the place this occurred?
* - Can anyone who was present state as fact that he was there?
* - Can you tell me, assuming he is at the rape location, where he was at when the assault occurred?
* - Did he know all of the details or did he speak to other people who were talking about it and is just repeating what he heard and not observed?
* - Was he intoxicated? If so how much alcohol was consumed and would the resulting BAC level compromise his mental status, resulting in an inability to focus on the conversation?

These are just a few things that must be looked at in order to go forward with charges. It sounds to me like it would not be that hard to develop a criminal case against him, however we must answer the questions to be sure prior to arresting him.

As I said I support your side / view point however im more interested in seeing people be held accountible when the evidence guarantees a conviction. I would prefer thouroughness over expediency. Why rush charges?

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

I am empowered to investigate crimes in my state.

The state allows you to be on the computer blogging while you should be working?
Do the tax payers in your state know that their public servants are busy blogging during work hours?
What state do you work for? I think they should know that their employees are spending time on ATS instead of focusing on their job.

Did it not occur to you that im off today? Did it not occur to you that I may work an evening or overnight shift?

Thank you for proving my point about Leaps of Logic and the dangers fo rushing to a conclusion without having all of the info.

reply to post by Xcathdra


So, you're a cop. Am I right?
Now I understand why you're sticking up for the police so much.
It's frightening the way you feel it's responsible to comment on evidence that you don't believe you need to look at. You actually stated in a previous post "I didn't watch the video and I don't need to".
If you're a cop, your senses of judgement and reasoning make me question your ability to do your job correctly. You're the perfect example of the same kind of mindset the sheriff in this town possesses. He also didn't feel the need to watch the video until Anon brought it to the attention of the public. Only then did he feel compelled to watch it. Are you related to this guy or maybe you both went to the same school?
Please tell me what state you live and work in, so I won't ever set foot within your jurisdiction. It sounds as though it's a place where the innocent get locked up and the guilty go free.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I am not here to 'mud~sling' with you, but I do have a question for you -
Other posters have provided clear Ohio law examples that quash your sentiments and yet you adversley ignore their questions and postings which presents you as having an agenda!?!

The question I have is this - you do understand the commonly used judicial slang term "railroaded"..?
Do you understand that term is equally used for the accusers AND the accusee..?

So you have finally viewed the video - too bad it didn't sway your agenda.

Read this; www.prinniefied.com...
Joann Gibbs, a forensic analyst of digital media with the Ohio Bureau of Crimminal Identification and Investigation
clearly states and testified from the Oct.13th hearing -
"she did recover two naked pictures of the victim that were part of a text message sent on (snip) cellphone".

www.prinniefied.com...
"(snip) said he shot a video of sexual conduct in his car between (snip) and the victim as they were driving to (snip) house. (snip) said he later deleted the video from his phone."
(this is from a sworn statement)

..and there is more evidence as to who new what and where, if you care to acknowledge.

So again I ask -

" You DO understand the term 'railroaded' " and that it implies the victim in this certain case..?

Clearly this shows the Law you are representing is broken.. ..and yet, you continuously justify it.

reply to post by Xcathdra


If I may Xcathdra....

I fully understand the points you have made...truly.

I also fully understand the efforts you are making to get your points across to other members.

I understand all of what you have tried to point out in regards to this case....you have done an excellent job, by the way.

You have an abundance of knowledge when it comes to the nitty gritty of U.S. laws.

This site is extremely lucky to have someone, as a member, that holds so much pertinent information on such matters.

However, ( I'm sure you saw that coming), This is still an emotionally driven issue...Human nature tells us that emotion often trumps reason.

I've read your posts and realize that you have compassion towards the whole situation...

Given that....plus your legal expertise...

I look forward to what you have to say when this case goes to trial.

Since when is gang rape a misdemeanor in juvenile court?

Seems to be a whole lot of evidence of gang rape, so why only a misdemeanor?

reply to post by poet1b


I dont see any Ohio laws that address a gang rape.. just rape - Ohio statutes - Sexual Misconduct Chapter

They are charged with one count of rape each and 1 of the suspects also has a charge of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material. They are felonies however we are dealing with juveniles, which changes how things are done. Its not a normal prosecution nor will the sentences be normal.

also, this just came out -
Lawyer: 'I don't think she thinks she was raped'

CNN's Susan Candiotti spoke with Adam Nemann, the attorney representing Trent Mays, who is accused of raping a teen girl in Steubenville, Ohio. Nemann says the alleged victim sent a text message to Mays stating "I know you didn't rape me." Nemann will introduce the text as evidence at trial.

Something people need to keep in mind is what I pointed out before.. Its possible for these 2 guys and the girl to have consensual sex while at the same time the parents of the female can press charges on her behalf since she is a minor.

I have seen cases where a person will claim they were raped instead of going down the road with their parents that they are sexually active.

We have not heard much from the victim (for good reason imo) however she might be a reluctent victim. The PA might be taking that into account and may explain why the charges have been minimal and may be the reason why others ahve not been charged with anything conneted to this case.

With that being said, all I am doing is pointing out more possible reasons as to why this case is where it is.