Rand Paul Allegedly Tried to Force College Classmate to "Take Bong Hits," According to GQ

As for whether she admitted a lie, I’d have to ask you to verify that. The story is out there in only one or two textual formats, and I haven’t found one in which she ever stated she was kidnapped in a legal sense, and therefore she cannot deny what she never asserted as true. The writers of the story superimposed that interpretation over her direct testimony, but she herself never said it was kidnapping per se. You didn’t pick that up? ----------------------------------------------

"He and Randy came to my house, they knocked on my door, and then they blindfolded me, tied me up, and put me in their car. They took me to their apartment and tried to force me to take bong hits. They'd been smoking pot."

This is really pathetic.

So, the woman never made a claim of kidnapping at all? I guess it was all a mirage?

Then why were you screeching that Paul should deny the woman's claims? She never made any claims to begin with.

But I guess you leftist trolls are all the same. Zero logic.

Seriously, get whatever money back you can from that outhouse that taught you argumentation.

It may help clarify my position to inform you that “kidnapping” is a specific and well-defined legal term, and what she experienced, by the facts, was plausibly kidnapping, based on her initial report, primarily because she left the question of her “consent” to inference:

From US Legal.com, the elements of the crime of kidnapping:

1. Taking, Seizing, Detention, or Restraint (definitely happened , thus false imprisonment at minimum, depending on consent)
2. Movement, Asportation, or Carrying Away (definitely happened)
3. Effect of Distance of Removal or Duration or Place of Detention (“substantial distance” jurisdictions vs “distance doesn’t matter” jurisdictions)
4. Force or Threat; Confining or Taking By Force; Other Means of Instilling Fear (related to consent, but facts make out prima fascia case for coercion)
5. Secrecy; Concealment and Deception (maybe, maybe not, facts not clear, but if not, false imprisonment still holds up)
6. Lack of Consent of Victim (critical to Paul’s case, see below)
7. Effect of Incapacity to Consent; Child as Victim (not relevant – victim was not a minor)
8. Particular Purpose or Intent (taking illegal drugs)
9. Accomplishment (more than a plan, the capture of the person actually happened)

The thing you have to remember is she is not in a position to impose a legal conclusion on the facts as given. She can’t say it was or wasn’t kidnapping. That’s a legal conclusion, not a fact. A judge could do that, and most crimes are like that, a person does something, the facts line up to fit a certain crime, and the state imposes a legal conclusion on both the perp and the victim, sometimes even when the victim doesn’t agree with that conclusion.

The victim can, however, dismantle the legal conclusion of kidnapping by proving consent. She can claim consent was given, and if no contradictory evidence exists as to consent, the whole crime structure falls apart.

And that is exactly what our young lady has attempted to do, absent Paul’s denial of any of the salient facts. On the first report, she omitted any direct statement of consent, leaving reasonable interpreters to infer lack of consent, from such indicia as being tied up and blindfolded, and from her reaction afterward of being distressed enough to break off further association with Paul. It’s clear to anyone with an ordinary understanding of human psychology that her lack of consent was a reasonable inference of the circumstances as reported.

In fact, SO obvious was that inference, that our young lady felt a need to come to his rescue, rather than see him get tangled up in criminal accusations, and thus she later asserted that she did indeed consent to the treatment.

So she didn’t lie.

Unless of course she is presently lying about her giving consent. Which is what my gut tells me is happening here, given what happens all the time in domestic abuse cases (and pardon me for letting my logic be influenced by the non-textbook facts I’ve picked up practicing real law).

In real life, if Paul were just an ordinary person and the local State’s Attorney had some free time to pursue it, the state could bring charges, and could use her testimony as given to make out a case before a jury that even though she says now she consented, the manifest weight of the evidence indicates otherwise. Ordinarily people do not consent to be bound and blindfolded by someone they find disagreeable to associate with. If the jury agreed, Paul could be nailed with the felony of kidnapping, if all the other elements were proven up. Consent remains the element most in doubt.

BTW, leftist trolls don’t believe what I believe. If we weren’t both anonymous I’d think about suing you for defamation of character. But if you think its leftist of me to be prolife, anti-gay marriage, and pro-fiscally restrained and constitutionally limited government, I’d hate to see what you think is rightist. Such smear tactics have more in common with the left than anything I have done (Alinsky, anyone?), and usually betray a certain level of frustration, even desperation, in the face of logic, so I won’t hold it against you. :)

You have a positive knack for misrepresenting me. I commend you for your skill at obfuscation. Anyone reading your summary would have not a clue what I’ve been saying.

First, I never said I’d sue you for pointing out alleged inconsistencies. Said I’d sue you for calling me a leftist, which would be a charge against my character (socialism is fundamentally evil, institutionalized breach of the Tenth Commandment (thou shalt not envy), therefore being called a leftist is a charge of moral turpitude, libel per se).

Second, I never said her facts were false. I said he should deny her statement of facts *if he can,* because that was (and still is) the best way to deflate the controversy and mitigate the political damage. But because he has *still* not denied the bare facts of tying her up, blindfolding her, transporting her, pressuring her to take drugs, or pressuring her to worship a mock deity, we can reasonably infer those facts are probably true, and he was a cad to her, whatever legal veneer you apply to it.

Third, I never said there were no charges; I said it was not she who charged him with kidnapping named as such. It was the article *writers* who did that, simply by drawing the inferences that arose naturally from her facts, because her facts do describe something very like kidnapping, depending on how the consent issue is resolved, which is why she tried to patch things up later by suggesting consent. It all fits.

And even if all this doesn’t trouble you, it still troubles me, as a conservative, because it may mean the good people of Kentucky are spending all their tea party energy on a person unfit for public office. Time will tell.

One parting shot, if you will “bear” it. I am more convinced than ever that what the world needs is not more dialogue but better readers. I cede the floor, indefinitely, to the anonymous gentle-bear from wherever. Bye.

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.