Teen sex-assault victim could face contempt, jail time.

[mlr52]

You have a few issues here that go beyond just this one girl.

How many girls who are minors have to be named then if your going to impose an idea that a juvenile who commits a sex crime has to be named?

All of them. In the open it can be addressed better.

Your accusing them of something so the populace will also want to know who was harmed. The society as a whole will also want to know the specifics of the crime to see where the crime occured, who is responsible, what could have been done to stop or change the outcome. Then lets add in the fact you have a right to face your accuser which means that to shall be part of the public record. Given our current social perspective also how the girl is at faught in many communities for that assumption will be reached.

They are not accused, they are convicted, they plead guilty!

As far as a right or obligation to warn others, that's bs to a large degree. That implies you think she has a right to say anything or that anyone else will be as guilable or stupid as she was. Yes stupid for getting so drunk you pass out and loose control over your body and facilities is pretty stupid in any day and age. It also undermines the concept of the court being the ones to administer justice.

She has the right to tell others who assaulted her.

Then lets actually ask warn them against what? Be careful when you drink and pass out around these guys they might take advantage of you! That doesn't even touch upon the rumor mill that probably has already spread in regards to all three of them.

Warn about both her actions, and those of the boys.

Then lets open it up a bit more to those awful sex crimes where an older boy has a relationship with an underage girl or an older girl has a relationship to an underaged boy. After all that is a sex crime as well and if your going to open it up in one case it has to be opened up in all of them.

YES

With regard to your one statement I take it you have to assume because it was done once it shall be done again?

For anything the first time is the hardest, and when it comes to abusing people (female, and male), it gets easier after that.

That sort of removes the very concept of serving the time for ones crime and
being given a fair chance at rehabilitation.

Wake up the prisons stopped rehabilitating people a long time ago.

Or we can just assume that everyone is a sexual preditor and assume what happened once must happen again.

We are not discussing everyone, we are discussing this particular case.

But if I go by your last statement then your position is we have to assume they shall do it again. But if i'm going to assume they shall do something again then the law had better assume everyone will do something over. Perhaps even this young lady getting drunk and passing out and being taken advantage of again.

She may very well do so, that is no reason or excuse for someone to take advantage of her. And by naming those who assaulted her, others may chose not to take advantage of her. While other girls may keep their distance from those named.

With regard to your last question, How many years do they have to serve before you stop trying to condem thier whole life?

Those who are sexually assaulted spend the rest of their life with it, why shouldn't the assaulter?

You were not there, I was not there so all we know is bit of a persons story of what was supposedly done and that this one person is not satisified with the courts action on it. That a plead bargin was accepted speaks to the ability the prosecution had with regards to proof to actually prosecute and get a conviction.

Can I sell you a bridge in Brooklyn? Plea bargains do not mean there would have been a convticion.

I haven't seen these supposed pictures and all of what occured nor do I know what occured at that event. What role did all three have in it before the incident, during the incident and after the incident? I do not know and must rely upon the courts and the investigation to determine the truth of it.

We are not trying to determine guilt, not guilty, or the truth, the article said they plead guilty.

The only thing I do know is that the prisons are filled with innocent people if you listen to the prisoners. The victims are always innocent if you ask them, regardless of thier role in the incidents.

There are a lot of innocent people in prison.

The victims may have played a role in what happened to them, but they are innocent.

[Annie Roonie]

So sorry at this point in time she's just someone who thinks she's special and should divuldge the identity of two underage boys who haven't even gone to trial or sentenaced yet and no one knows what the bargin was they may have pleaded out to.

You know what she thinks? I don't. I do know what a raped person often thinks and it is not that he or she is special. It is that he or she is worthless and has no reason to go on living. But thats just years of dealing with that kind of thing. I don't assume that she's feeling that way. It would be very dehumanizing to assume what she thinks.

Actually, you know she said she was waiting to be arrested. So it doesn't seem like she was thinking she'd be treated as special. But I cannot be sure.

Yes and until they are sentenanced all she is doing is crying because she thinks its not what she wants them to get.

You think that the plea bargain is why she was crying? She must be special.

I mean there are people who get raped who have tons of things to cry about. Pretty much every single part of their lives can be colored afterward by the rape. Some people heal quickly, others take longer and some kill themselves. Some, I am sure, die of natural causes. And others lead fantastic lives in denial. And still others lead incredibly sad lives in which they project their anger on to everyone with whom hey have contact.

I'm sure there are more possibilities. Like that a 17 year old can heal from a rape that's been made public less than a year after it happened. Yes. That would be a very special person.

Yes stupid for getting so drunk you pass out and loose control over your body and facilities is pretty stupid in any day and age.

Oh you were there! I see. And you know her! So she was very knowledgeable about how her body handles alcohol. And nobody spiked anything. There were no teenaged hijinks with the beer bong and unknowing participants. There was no other drug use that might have escaped mention.

That information wasn't in the article. Thank you for providing it otherwise I would think you were making a vile assumption and I have no idea why you'd do that. She is getting more special by the minute though. During my bartending days, there were newly 21s coming in all the time and they could not hold their own against my senior citizen gin biddies. It's all about knowing how your body and mind is going to handle the buzz.

The owners of the restaurant made us take a class on alcohol management to get a license so that they would get an insurance break. It saved them money for us to be certified officially as having passed 100% a test demonstrating that we knew how alcohol works in the body of all/most different kinds of humans.

I guess they got that discount on a fluke since even a 17 year old should be knowledgable about that.

I guess all the college preventative programs concerning safe alcohol consumption are just a waste of time too. I mean they all should already know how they're bodies are going to handle alcohol given the years of experience with it and their underage drinking.

But there is this one thing. Human brains in teens are not fully developed. For real. They are missing a link that doesn't develop till later. That link is to things like consequences of actions. That might have been taken into consideration in the plea deal, who knows, but for sure, she has to have had it if what you say holds any water at all. She has to be a human fluke of special to have already developed it.

Here's a very simple video that discusses that link.

You were not there, I was not there so all we know is bit of a persons story of what was supposedly done and that this one person is not satisified with the courts action on it.

Oh wow.

You were not there.

That makes everything else you said about the stupid, really very off base and kind of mean spirited then. Or it could be ignorance. Not knowing about what your speaking kind of thing.

But this story you speak of is not supported by the article either. She didn't give a story of what was supposedly done. It was about her breaking the law, owning up to it and accepting the consequences of her actions.

I do not know and must rely upon the courts and the investigation to determine the truth of it.

Apparently not. Apparently you know quite a bit without relying on the courts or the investigation. You've culled quite a bit more than I have from reading the article.

The only thing I do know is that the prisons are filled with innocent people if you listen to the prisoners. The victims are always innocent if you ask them, regardless of thier role in the incidents.

I have heard this. I have also heard some sex offenders, mostly pederasts and pedophiles, request chemical castrations because they know they will repeat offend. When I read that, I thought it was touching. It was the first time I could glimpse compassion for these people.

But I know several criminals of other sorts personally, sadly, who also say they will repeat offend if they have to. Thieves and drug dealers mostly there. The shooters, I don't know. None I know have been released yet. I even know some people who've been released and done their time and not, so far, repeated their offenses.

I think some victims do not hold themselves culpable for anything. I think some lie about their circumstances to be held less accountable for their foibles, attitudes and future mistakes.

But most victims of rape I've known, do go through a time (for some that never ends) in which they blame themselves over and over. They pick apart every detail and find a way to blame themselves. One woman blamed herself for her rape because she tripped on a crack in the sidewalk at night and fell down.

So you're "always" there is not really realistic IME.

Perhaps you did not mean to blame a victim of rape for the rape and were just trying to point out that she committed a crime. That was a lot of words you had there for something pretty obvious even to her given what she tweeted.

Or maybe your point was to defend the, admitted by plea, rapists from having their names drug through the mud. It could potentially ruin their lives. And it's not like they shared their rape with people by cell phone photos. Oh wait. They did.

Not sure what points you were trying to make actually. I am confused as to why you would attack a 17 year old girl that you do not know though. Not curious, but to your credit entirely, confused.

[monsnoleedra]

All of them. In the open it can be addressed better.
They are not accused, they are convicted, they plead guilty!

That they plead out to something does not tell us what they are guilty of. If you look at the charge there are a number of things beneath it of which the only one they couldn't be held on would be if the girl was under 13.

Until the charges are read and the sentenace filed we do not know what they are being charged with. It could range every where from rape to molestation of some form which could be as simple as copping a feel. Not saying the lessor thing is any better only that we simply do not know what they are convicted of per specific charges.

She has the right to tell others who assaulted her

.

She did and they were charged because of it, convicted of it by their plea. Now its not about what they supposedly did its about them not getting charged as she thinks it should be.

"[Protecting rapists] is more important than getting justice for the victim in Louisville," she added.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...174732753.html

Until they are sentenaced we won't know whether they were charged with rape which falls under First Degree Sexual charges or something lessor.

Warn about both her actions, and those of the boys.

That I do agree with.

For anything the first time is the hardest, and when it comes to abusing people (female, and male), it gets easier after that.

We don't know if they have or will its all assumption that they shall. Not even sure one could say it gets easier as much as it takes more to reach the same level of elation. Serial _____'s tend to increase because it takes more not because it gets easier.

Wake up the prisons stopped rehabilitating people a long time ago.

Perhaps but the social mindset is still that one goes to prison, serves their time then comes back into society. They either come back in and show some sign of rehabilitation or repeat offender I agree, but until it happens we do not know which way they shall jump.

We are not discussing everyone, we are discussing this particular case.

Yes but the fallout of this case will affect everyone in the long run. What happens here will be seen as endorsement by the legal system and used as arguments in future cases. Regardless of whether that usage is postive or negative we can never really known until each occurance occurs.

She may very well do so, that is no reason or excuse for someone to take advantage of her. And by naming those who assaulted her, others may chose not to take advantage of her. While other girls may keep their distance from those named.

To me blame is a two way street and all are equally guilty of setting up the conditions for it to occur. It doesn't give them the right to take advantage of her but it also does not remove the guilt from her own choices and the repercussions of those choices.

With regard to the rest of the statement we simply do not know and can only assume something will happen. We choose to error on the side of good and right but can never state that it will be that way nor that others will do as we would like or think.

It sucks and its a sterotype for sure but I bet there will be others that flock to them because of the bad boy reputation than stay away because of what happened to her.

Those who are sexually assaulted spend the rest of their life with it, why shouldn't the assaulter?

They do but the legal system and society tend not to blame the accussed or victim like the victim likes to blame the system. Society says via its laws that this is the punishment for X crime and that once served the person is not to be realistically charged over and over for it. Granted there are exceptions to that if one considers registers for offenders but that also varries state to state.

Can I sell you a bridge in Brooklyn? Plea bargains do not mean there would have been a convticion.

NO, but I have some water front property I could sell you in central Florida. he he he Serious though I know a plea bargin does not mean they could have convicted them but it adds to the idea they could not have on the evidence they possessed. But it also raises concern as to the totality and truthfulness of the incident and just what occured.

We are not trying to determine guilt, not guilty, or the truth, the article said they plead guilty.

Yet we are still trying to determine what level of guilt and guilty of what. Something that we can not trully know until they are sentenaced and we see the charges that were placed against them.

At this point in time the whole purpose is that the girl in question says they are not being charged nor convicted in a manner she would like. In that capacity its up to the law as to what is legally right and correct not the girl who brought the charges.

There are a lot of innocent people in prison.

Yep ask any inmate and the majority will tell you they are innocent. Of course that doesn't take away from the fact that it seems every day new evidence is discovered that clears someone wrongly convicted of a crime.

The victims may have played a role in what happened to them, but they are innocent

Sorry disagree there. To many try to escape any responsibility for thier actions and claim the "not being responsible" for what occured to them due to their own actions. If she had been jumped from some dark alley, had a person break into her home in the night and rape her or other such action then I'd say she was innocent and had no part in what occured. But she had none of those, she simply drank herself into a stupper and placed herself in that position by her own actions.

She is not as guilty as the males who took advantage of that situation but she's not innocent of it either in my opinon.

[MadZealot]

I am confused as to why you would attack a 17 year old girl that you do not know though. Not curious, but to your credit entirely, confused.

To be fair, I am too.
If she's guilty of anything, she's guilty of being a pretty girl and of possessing an allure that drives dipshit teenage boys to villainy. Although teenage boys are hardons with feet and need little-to-no reason to do anything stupid.
I don't think "she was too drunk" is a valid defence.
I don't think "her skirt was too short and she was wearing a thong" is a valid defence.
What part of this makes her "not innocent of it either in my opinon." Really trying to understand this POV.

[Annie Roonie]

She is not as guilty as the males who took advantage of that situation but she's not innocent of it either in my opinon.

That does say much about you.

[MadZealot]

That does say much about you.

Whoa, let's rein that in. We can discuss without making personal jabs.

Apologies to the mods. I don't want to step on yer toes, but I figure you're probably asleep.

[Annie Roonie]

Really trying to understand this POV.

Me too. Or I was and then got angry. Now I am back to confused.

Maybe there is a step back we take from these things that blurs our vision and allows us to be less compassionate. Like how grief fades, but then can be brought back with a thought.

[SkySamuelle]

She is not as guilty as the males who took advantage of that situation but she's not innocent of it either in my opinon.

She was drunk and molested and filmed during the molesting, and the perpetrators admitted culpability so they could get a lighter sentence yet she is somewhat guilty as well for the hassault ? WOW, it does make perfect sense ... for the average victim blaming scenario.

I personally think the girl is admirable, even if she stepped out of the legal boundaries. For someone who was assaulted, being asked to protect the reputation of her aggressors by keeping silence must be icing on the cake - I cannot condamn her anger and indignation or the way she acted on them.

Rather, I recognize I takes a lot of strenght and bravery to stand up to both the system and the pain she must be experiencing now.

[Annie Roonie]

Whoa, let's rein that in. We can discuss without making personal jabs.

Apologies to the mods. I don't want to step on yer toes.

I totally deserved that. I let my emotions get the best of me there.

[MadZealot]

I totally deserved that. I let my emotions get the best of me there.

This kind of thing hits some of us closer than it hits others.
Because of that some are more able to remain objective. But objective does not necessarily mean non-empathetic.