Posted on 01/12/2003 9:23:37 PM PST by kattracks
Girls should never be alone with guys that they don't intend to screw. Ever. Of course the guys should be punished but she is just plain stupid for being there in the first place.
I bet she wishes now that she just went to her church youth group meeting like she was supposed to.
God Save America (Please)
Well, its depends if you want to read certain parts and disregard the others. So let me try to explain the time line here:
Juan wanted Laura to take him to a party at defendant’s home and then return about 8:30 p.m. to pick him up. Laura agreed to take Juan to the party, but since she planned to attend a church group meeting that evening she told him she would be unable to pick him up.
Its improtant to stop right here. She has obviously told her parents she is going to a church group, and not an underage alcohol party. This establishes that she lied to her parents.
Sometime after 6:00 p.m., Laura drove Juan to defendant’s residence. Defendant and Justin L. were present. After arranging to have Justin L.’s stepbrother, P. W., buy them alcohol, Laura picked up P. W. and drove him to the store where he bought beer.
Note, Laura, who was supposed to be at church, was driving someone to buy beer.
Laura told Juan she would stay until 8:00 or 8:30 p.m. Although defendant and Juan drank the beer, Laura did not.
She wasn't drinking and had to leave by 8:30. Important again to establish she wasn't supposed to be there and was not drunk either. She knew what she was doing the entire time.
During the evening, Laura and Juan went into defendant’s parents’ bedroom. Juan indicated he wanted to have sex but Laura told him she was not ready for that kind of activity. Juan became upset and went into the bathroom.
Goes into bedroom. Juan imndicated he wanted sex - she says no. At this point, she knows what Jaun wants. No guessing.
Laura left the bedroom and both defendant and Justin asked her why she "wouldn’t do stuff." Laura told them that she was not ready.
Note: Two guys ask her why she is a prude. Laura gives standard answer of "not ready". Important that it is established that there was "peer pressure" for her to have sex.
About 8:10 p.m., Laura was ready to leave when defendant asked her to come into his bedroom to talk. She complied. Defendant told her that Juan had said he (Juan) did not care for her; defendant then suggested that Laura become his girlfriend. Juan entered the bedroom and defendant left to take a phone call.
Ok, so after Juan asked her into the bedroom and indicated he wanted sex, she goes back into the bedroom with the man who already asked her "why wont you do stuff". And she did, why? Then, Juan, who already said he wanted sex, comes back in. She stays, in the bedroom, with a man who wants sex.
Now, it gets odd, considering what has already transpired.
When defendant returned to the bedroom, he and Juan asked Laura if it was her fantasy to have two guys, and Laura said it was not.
Wierd. She now knows both guys want sex, and want a three-way. But, she stays.
Juan and defendant began kissing Laura and removing her clothes, although she kept telling them not to. At some point, the boys removed Laura’s pants and underwear and began "fingering" her, "playing with [her] boobs" and continued to kiss her.
At some point? say what? At some point, a girl who didn't want sex allows TWO guys to get her BUCK NAKED?? This makes no sense to me.
Laura enjoyed this activity in the beginning,
Wait a second. It went from "I dont want this" to, "well, this may be ok"? LOL!! Come one. I wasn't born last night.
but objected when Juan removed his pants and told defendant to keep fingering her while he put on a condom.
One guys takes off his pants while the other is playing with her. When did the point come when she decided to get out of there? Oh, it never did.
So at this point, we have a girl who suposedly didn't want to have sex, but within a short period of time, two guys have her completely naked and they are having foreplay with her. But...... she didn't want this? Aint buying it.
Once the condom was in place, defendant left the room and Juan got on top of Laura. She tried to resist and told him she did not want to have intercourse, but he was too strong and forced his penis into her vagina. The rape terminated when, due to Laura’s struggling, the condom fell off.
Her testimony of the previous events is shaky, thus casting doubt upon this part.
Laura told Juan that "maybe it’s a sign we shouldn’t be doing this," and he said "fine" and left the room. Laura rolled over on the bed and began trying to find her clothes; however, because the room was dark she was unable to do so.
No lights? No lamps? How hard did she try?
Defendant, who had removed his clothing, then entered the bedroom and walked to where Laura was sitting on the bed and "he like rolled over [her] so [she] was pushed back down to the bed." Laura did not say anything and defendant began kissing her and telling her that she had "a really beautiful body." Defendant got on top of Laura, put his penis into her vagina "and rolled [her] over so [she] was sitting on top of him." Laura testified she "kept . . . pulling up, trying to sit up to get it out . . . [a]nd he grabbed my hips and pushed me back down and then he rolled me back over so I was on my back . . . and . . . kept saying, will you be my girlfriend." Laura "kept like trying to pull away" and told him that "if he really did care about me, he wouldn’t be doing this to me and if he did want a relationship, he should wait and respect that I don’t want to do this." After about 10 minutes, defendant got off Laura, and helped her dress and find her keys. She then drove home.
Again, her previous testimony is shaky, making any reasonable person wonder if she was really "forced" or not. And notice the last sentence: "Then she drove home". Didn't tell anyone there two guys had raped her. Didn't call parents. Didn't call cops. Just let the guy "help her get dressed" and drove home. Now, it gets better:
On cross-examination,
Oh, wait! On cross-examination. You mean, she didn't volunteer this part of the story?
Laura testified that when defendant entered the room unclothed, he lay down on the bed behind her and touched her shoulder with just enough pressure to make her move, a nudge. He asked her to lie down and she did.
A guy, who she did not want to have sex with, enters the room naked, and asks her to lie down - and she does? At this point she is losing all the credibility she had left.
He began kissing her and she kissed him back.
But she had just testified that she didn't want sex - but is having sexual contact with a naked guy?
He rolled on top of her, inserted his penis in her and, although she resisted,(she interjects, but can not be believed at this point) he rolled her back over, pulling her on top of him. She was on top of him for four or five minutes, during which time she tried to get off, but he grabbed her waist and pulled her back down.
On top, for four to five minutes. Sounds like voluntary sex to me.
He rolled her over and continued the sexual intercourse. Laura told him that she needed to go home, but he would not stop. He said, "just give me a minute," and she said, "no, I need to get home." He replied, "give me some time" and she repeated, "no, I have to go home." Defendant did not stop, "[h]e just stayed inside of me and kept like basically forcing it on me." After about a "minute, minute and [a] half," defendant got off Laura.
Now, back to the "I have to go" bit. Why did she? Because her parents thought she was at church!!!!
Defendant testified, admitting that he and Juan were kissing and fondling Laura in the bedroom, but claimed it was with her consent. He also admitted having sexual intercourse with Laura, again claiming it was consensual. He claimed he discontinued the act as soon as Laura told him that she had to go home.
Sounds like her version of the story too!!!
To sum it all up: Laura lies to parents, goes to underage alcohol party; finds out two guys want to have sex with her - is even asked "why wont you do stuff"; Laura, wanting to be cool hangs around with two guys who want to screw her; she ends up having sexual contact with both, although maybe she felt pressured into doing it; Laura gets home late, and the more she thinks about it, realizes it was probably a bad idea to fool around with two guys; Laura, now in trouble for lying to her parents, and feeling like a slut, tells her parents she was "coerced" into having sex; parents call cops, press charges; Two young men's lives are screwed up because off bad decisions and because a girl would rather get out of trouble and look like a victim rather than admit she did things whoch would make her look like a dirty whore.
My guess is that you are probably not married (or divorced), have no teenaged daughters, and probably no daughters at all.
I didn't have any trouble at all believing the girl's story - it is very consistent with real life.
Imagine the girl's thoughts - You go to a party you're not supposed to with a guy you think you'd like to know better, so you don't come clean with the folks. The boy and his buddy get drunk, but you stay sober so you've got your wits. You go into a bedroom to talk and have a little privacy - not to "do it". Again, this is completely normal, especially considering the fact she said "no sex". She rejected the 3 way, but the animals persisted anyway, and now she is getting scared. It keeps escalating, and their behavior gets worse.
God forbid you ever have a child treated like this - you'd be no support at all, and frankly, are as much an animal as these two. The islamofascists have a "2 man witness to rape" rule - otherwise, they stone the woman for adultery. You're in that category, having swept aside the entirety of the testimony of the girl. Mercifully, the Court didn't.
To sum up your previous post:
2 teenaged boys who initiate a 3-way ="two young men"whose "lives are screwed up" because of "bad decisions".
(Leaving out her consent or lack of it for a moment)
girl who participates in a 3-way=a liar and a dirty whore
Very telling. But boys will be boys, so they can't be expected to act like civilized human beings. They just make "bad decisions".
So, the one not drinking makes the most "unsober" of choices?
You go into a bedroom to talk and have a little privacy - not to "do it". Again, this is completely normal, especially considering the fact she said "no sex".
CP, they already told her they did want sex. At that point, you dont go into the bedroom with them.
She rejected the 3 way, but the animals persisted anyway, and now she is getting scared.
Woh ,woh, woh. She never testified to being scared. She said she enjoyed and consented to the foreplay with the TWO guys - two guys who already said the wanted a three-way.
The islamofascists have a "2 man witness to rape" rule - otherwise, they stone the woman for adultery. You're in that category, having swept aside the entirety of the testimony of the girl.
Oh, please. I didn't sweep aside anything. Her own words don't add up.
Her story just isn't believable. This was "hindsight rape". She decided she didn't want the three-way after thinking about it for a while and getting caught. A girl, who does not want sex, does not let two guys undress her and "play" with her, especially after they said they wanted sex.
She let herself get into a situation that she may not have originally wanted. She consenetd to sexual activity, only to claim later that "she changed her mind at some point". Her story from when she "changed her mind" does not add up to rape. She gives generalities about "resisting", but never indicates she struggled or made it completely clear she didn't want sex.
This was a situation where all who were involved could learned valuable lessons. But that is not what happens. All that was learned is that a female is a victim whenever she claim to be so, regardless of her actions.
If you were a parent, you would understand it.
She consented to sexual activity with two guys at one time(this is not even in question), only to ask us to believe she "changed her mind" at some point. What I am asked to believe is that anything and everything up until actual pentration was "green light go", and at only at that point it became "I have to go now"????
One entered the room NAKED, asked her to lay down - and she did - and started kissing him, by her own admission. But you choose to believe she "chanegd her mind", and to get him to stop, she says "I have to go"? By her own words, she was ON TOP OF HIM FOR FOUR TO FIVE MINUTES, but this was all being forced upon her. Now, a girl who would lie to her parents about being at church surely wouldn't keep lying to keep herself out of a bad light? Inconceivable, right?
LOL!!! The one's denying reality are those who refuse to admit a large number of reported rapes are made up, especially when reputation and parents come into play.
If you were a parent, you would understand it.
Oh, I'm no parent, and all that needs to be understood is that both kids and adults lie their asses off to stay out of trouble. Her parents had some face to save as well. Looks better for your daughter to have been raped than to admit you raised a church-going girl who had a three-way with two teenage boys who she didn't really even know.
You can't even show when the rape occurred and how she really indicated she didn't want it. In her own words, she claims there was some consentual, and some not. But her own testimony of when things were consentual sounds no different than the part she claims wasn't. She never left, she never got dressed, she never screamed, she never hit them, she never even left the bedroom, went back in the bedroom, stayed on top of a guy for up to 5 minutes...... The only part that indicates she was forced is her mere words, which are contradicted time and time again by her actions.
You better believe her story was rehersed before they filed charges and took depositions. The conclusion of the concocted story was that she had to admit some was consentual, because there was no way the judge or jury would buy a story that claimed all this was forced upon her. And dont forget the kid waived his right to a jury trial. This was decided by one judge, not a jury.
Betcha he doesn't date much.
I dont believe I characterized any of them differently. If I did, it was unintentional. The guys were obviously a couple of horny dudes who believed they could coerce a female into having sex with them. I don't deny that. The testimony is quite clear on that. They were all willing parties, although I have readily said she was probably coerced by peer pressure and may not wanted that deep down in side. That doesn't make it rape, though. It makes it a bad decision. I'm sorry if I make such a big deal of a simple fact, but it establishes "mindset" of the alleged victim. This fact I refer to is that it was TWO GUYS, not one. Into today's society, a young girl may not be looked upon as a "whore" because she had sex with her "boyfriend". That's simply different than with two guys, at the same time, that she barely knows. Like I said before, I firmly believe that she decided this was "rape" in hindsight with the prodding of her parents, who also had face to save.
"Coerced by peer pressure"? You're a bigger fool than I thought. The whole lead-up to what happened to this girl was assaultive and coercive - period. It was an act of force, an act of rape.
The rape shield law came into play for several reasons - including one that you almost never, ever hear spoken in any publication. it was touched on in the original "Cape Fear", and Bobby Knight got in trouble over it. Do you want to know what that fact is? The "why" of the humiliation of rape?
Now you are putting words in my mouth. I am putting "two and two" together. Her own words make me believe this. Anyone can see it of they read the facts without forming an opinion before hand(like I did when Boot Hill posted them last week).
So, you see her as just a slut, who got what was coming to her?
Again, making up an argument I didn't make because the facts of the case do not support your opinion. I believe I said, time and time again, that she was a girl who wanted to experiment, made some bad choices, got caught, and in hindsight, is convinced that she was raped. I have not called her names, only stated what she may have been thinking of herself after it was said and done. What would a girl who just consented to sexual activity with TWO GUYS SHE DIDN'T KNOW WELL think of herself? You guys continualy avoid that question. She admitted she consented to two guys fooling around with her. What do you call such a girl? Anyone?
If you can't read between the lines of the story, then I am sorry for you.
Again - do you want to know the big secret of rape - something which has long been used to shame, embarrass and humiliate victims?
Again - do you want to know the big secret of rape - something which has long been used to shame, embarrass and humiliate victims?
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.