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 ...
Try looking up www.prinnified.com I’ve been following this for months. These animals should be locked up for a couple decades.
What is the matter with you? There is video of her UNCONSCIOUS, being carried over state lines and raped.
"Rape" is precisely what is being disputed here. Therefore, your "opinion" not only lack humility, it lacks equity. .
Among these particular defendants?
I only have one question, Where the Hell were the parents?
I don't think that defense attorney has much to work with here. One who is nearly passed out usually doesn't have the ability to consent.
Unless they get off OJ/Robert Blake style for being football players, these two perps should start lifting weights for where they are about to go.
To what would you like me to turn my attention?
Not worth debating this.
I’m not sure if this is the entire video. He sure did prattle on. Very pleased with himself
Heh heh. I hope you have plenty of coffee. I can see you are working on an all-nighter thread with your replies
Depending on how many hits this thread actually gets, I can see the hate-responses toward you could top over 250 replies. Easily.
I think I've been quite clear. "Rape" is not determined by outrage.
Secondly...I don't know what playing football has to do with anything, except I suppose a good football team might be more vulnerable to attacks that they were given special privileges and egregious behavior was overlooked or covered up.
Lastly...if you read the article, the victim does not remember what actually happened, and she went with the young men of her own free will. So, what is the difference between "party boys" and "party girls", in all fairness???
It seems clear the girl was a victim, but of what??? Are the boys also not victims? It's not clear what really happened here, other than general bad behavior on all sides, and stupid "social media" posts.
IMHO, all these "kids" acted incredibly stupidly, and the question is, why didn't any of them know better???
My other question is, why do we assume it's the fault of the stupid boys rather than the stupid girl? Her friends told her not to go...she went anyway, not by any force, and the stupid boys could be facing prison time now.
Here's an idea: let's try to educate our children!!!
I cannot convince you of anything or to understand your pov.
So the fact that I don't agree with you impugns my skepticism, how?
You obviously don’t know what constitutes “logic.”
Do you really think I chose to wade into this mud hole without knowing I’d be challenged by chauvinists and paternalists.
You haven’t been clear at all, you’ve somehow been defending some boys for raping a 16 year old girl because she was passed out drunk. Now you’re going to claim we’re just outraged (which would be a normal position for a decent human being to have considering what these boys seem to have done), presumably because you think you’re the only one who is thinking clearly that these boys didn’t actually force her to have sex while she was passed out. That’s a pretty crazy position you’re taking. You also dodged my other questions, presumably because you can’t defend what you’re saying in light of them. Here they are again: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2996300/posts?page=52#52
Are you suggesting she raped the boys, forcing them to have sex while she was passed out?
Because they don't have parents, only sperm donators and receptacles.
Why? Because I think young men are worthy of as much protection as you wish to give young women?
That's what equality looks like.
If there were, I doubt the defense would be positing the case as they are.
Do you actually trust anything those people would publish?!
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.