Skip to comments.'She didn't affirmatively say no': Silence means consent according to defense...(Steubenville rape)
Posted on 03/12/2013 8:26:48 PM PDT by Morgana
FULL TITLE: 'She didn't affirmatively say no': Silence means consent according to defense in Ohio high school rape trial where passed out, drunken teenage girl was 'sexually assaulted' by multiple football players
Defense lawyers in the coming trial of two high school football players charged with raping a nearly passed-out-drunk 16-year-old girl are expected to argue on the issue of consent.
In the case that has shocked the nation, prosecutors state that the inebriated girl was taken to a number of parties by a group of drunk teenagers, supporting her to walk when she wasn't physically capable.
The prosecution claims that the group later sexually assaulted the girl while she lay unconscious.
But attorney Walter Madison, who represents one of the accused boys, argues she was drinking voluntarily and left willingly with the group of boys.
As reported by the Cleveland Trader Madison said: 'There's an abundance of evidence here that she was making decisions, cognitive choices.' 'She didn't affirmatively say no,' he stated.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Have you read about the case?
They are an especially nasty group of boys — and any teenager that was a witness that night is devoid of a conscience.
No one called 911
Everyone had their fancy phones for fun pics - but no one called 911
You’re not really this stupid are you? You’re just playing devils advocate or something, right?
Tell us you already know this is a black on white crime
No, but if she is under age, their poor judgement does.
Was she kicked and punched?
google Michael Noidanos (sp?) and watch the video.
While he is talking - she is unconscious in the yard. They urinated on her.
So by that logic, I can come by your place tonight and steal your car. That's ok. You weren't awake to positively tell me not to. And hey, it was your poor judgement to leave it outside anyway. So I wouldn't be criminal in your eyes, right? Where'd you say you live?
You see, IMHO, her "sex partners" - let's be realistic, her rapists, are criminals. In what twisted universe is it ok to have sex with someone who is passed out? This is the same insane logic that says if you don't expressly and explicitly forbid it, it must be ok. No, that's what leads to warning labels on hammers that say "don't strike body parts with hammer" and others that say "don't use electrical equipment near water.." etc. etc. Really, insultingly dumb sh*t warnings because someone got the bright idea that if it isn't expressly forbidden it must be ok. So liability lawyers have a field day "you didn't say not to ..." Same thing with the stupid "defense" these guys are apparently putting up.
Not at all. There is a history of it. That’s why people might think it likely. And apparently this is news to you?
So those who were there are less qualified to make a judgement than you who heard about it through a media filter?
“And you have never had sex without “saying” yes?”
Actually, this is a good point. Not saying “yes” is not the equivalent to saying no. I would guess that with the billions of times people have sex every week, the partners almost NEVER say “yes”. Men or women...
BTW, that doesn’t in any way suggest that I agree with papertiger about this case. I would say though, that if there is ANY doubt as to the willingness of the girl, then the prosecution maybe over charged in this case.
Clearly you have not read much about this case - or refuse to for some reason.
Did she deserve this because she didn't know how to handle alcohol?
Did she deserve this because the football players doing this simply had to take advantage of her because being passed out means she's fair game?
Did she deserve this because she's an unworthy human?
Kindly explain this to us all, because I don't understand what in the world you're saying.
As were they.
I KNEW someone else would take the words right out of my mouth..er, keyboard.
If you don’t have the spelling, perhaps a link?
Ahh. First logical point you’ve made on this thread all night. A step in the right direction. One that we can all agree on.
I seriously doubt a jury will believe it, and if they do, either something is seriosly wrong with the information we're reading, or the jurors are nuts.
“Sex partners”? YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR MIND. AND FOUL.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.