Posted on 03/18/2013 9:52:27 PM PDT by ReaganÜberAlles
Edited on 03/19/2013 4:27:12 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
STEUBENVILLE - Jefferson County Prosecutor Jane Hanlin and her family had to leave town during the juvenile rape trial because of threats made against both her and her family.
Sunday evening, Hanlin confirmed that threats had been made, and she found them to be credible. Hanlin said there were instances of threats before, but the number of threats of a specific nature grew.
"As the trial date grew closer, we received a number of them that seemed to be more credible than others," Hanlin said.
Why the sympathy for these rapists? There was none for the lacrosse players.
True as well as demonized, discredited and made totally “uncool” morality, modesty and celibacy.
This attitude is the reason some men rape women and it’s sad to see some of our Freeper’s supporting it.
I have seen no "sympathy" here.
What you call sympathy, I call "doubt."
Yes, a choice.
One chooses to be vicious when taking physical advantage of someone who is weaker or vulnerable, be it molesting a boy or girl. It’s called a “crime”.
Gay men’s excuses are that they’re spreading ‘love’. Straight men’s excuses are that she had it coming. Yeah, right!
Whoever the victim, male or femaile, vulnerable or weaker, it doesn’t matter. Rape and/or murder are violent crimes, period.
Ok, but a judge who has seen ALL the evidence and is tasked to adjudicate according to the law has determined these two to be guilty! Case closed.
So you wish to mandate “civility?”
Judges, nor juries, are not above misguided paternalism.
So true (case in point: Roberts and Obozocare) but if that is so in this case, we have a system that deals with it accordingly. You could debate that this system is corrupt due to activist judges but it is what it is.
Got to wonder why no jury trial for these two...because they are juveniles?
Or did their lawyers know they would be dealt with more harshly by a jury?
The law regarding consent is clear. If she’s passed out, she doesn’t have the ability to consent by law.
That’s not a new concept. It doesn’t matter if she was trashed or not. She was guilty of being stupid. The perps were guilty of being evil.
Free will, and the liberties we are still allowed to enjoy, present us with opportunities to freely exhibit civility.
In Muslim-dominated cultures, women and children have “protection”, supposedly of their families. Doesn't seem to help much. “Honor” killings happen frequently and at the hands of other family members. Nevertheless, civility and kindness towards others does exist in those cultures; it is just very hard to find during periods of civil unrest and war.
Here in the U.S., we have laws about rape and murder in a justice system based on equality before the law. Those laws do not say that only the morally pure shall be treated as victims. It doesn't matter if the victims are a homeless man and alcoholic, a runaway child trying to live on the streets, or a prostitute attempting to earn a few bucks. As imperfect as the system may be, equal rights is better than no system at all!
Statutorily required civility would be unenforceable. That shouldn't prevent families from trying to rear their children to be moral individuals who respect others.
And then we are shocked, horrified to see young men doing exactly what they’ve witnessed for most their lives without shame or remorse ...
Spot on! Your post reminds me of the Senate testimony of Archbishop Charles Chaput following Columbine ...
“My position is that all parties were too inebriated to credibly support a rape charge, and I’d rather see ten guilty go free than one innocent convicted.”
Really? My understanding is that the boys weren’t even slurring their words when speaking. Just how drunk were they when they were driving her around from house to house?
The young victim was unable to give consent. There is proof by way of pictures and witnesses.
Yet you still favor the rapists rather than the victim.
Absolutely stunning.
Thus far, I have seen no evidence she was uniformly comatose throughout the ordeal, nor that her prior behavior had any bearing on what transpired.
As she claims to have no memory of her involvement, or lack thereof, there seems to me to be no positive evidence to support a charge of rape due to the spotty and inferential nature of the evidence that does exist.
I do not condone destroying the lives of somewhat advantaged teenagers to satisfy the altruist mob with less than comprehensive evidence.
Depends on the drug, how the individual reacts to the specific drug, and what else is in her system.
I have no memory of three days while on pain medication in the hospital. None. Yet, according to family, I was aware and speaking to them.
I just hope the two convicted rapist boys can put their lives back together after being victimized by that vicious slut. <sarcasm
Your denial of inescapable conclusions is not "putting words in your mouth."
Rather, your reticence to address the logical consequents of your statements is the root of your accusation.
Statutorily required civility would be unenforceable. That shouldn't prevent families from trying to rear their children to be moral individuals who respect others.
Nor does it. Yet you clearly advocate statutory redress for violating those lessons.
Uh-huh.
I suggest you need help with your reading comprehension AND psychopathy. Have much problem relating to women?
God help us if advocating for exculpatory evidence, or disputing the dominant legal theory becomes "favoring" the accused.
It would be my estimation that a 16 year old girl, unless she were brain dead to start with, would not get drunk with a bunch of guys who she did not know that were also drinking and probably smoking dope and not be aware that they wanted to get laid.
You could argue that she thought they were all gentlemen, but that defies belief. Had she never been on a date before?
I haven’t been on a date in almost 50 years, but thinking back, I seem to remember getting slapped a lot back then. And I didn’t drink and I didn’t chew and I didn’t go with the girls that do...
It was true then, and I have no reason to believe it’s not true today, that boys will be as good (or bad) as their date lets them be.
The female is, always was, and always will be the keeper of the gate, so to speak. If she abdicates that responsibility by getting drunk (knowing what could happen), then yes, she has slut written all over herself.
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.