Posted on 07/21/2012 6:57:23 PM PDT by rawhide
'I'm not protecting anyone that made my life a living hell': Teen faces jail time after lashing out on Twitter and naming the boys who sexually assaulted her.
17-year-old sexual assault victim is facing a jail sentence for tweeting the names of her attackers in anger at their light punishment.
Savannah Dietrich named and shamed the boys on the social messaging site, writing: 'There you go, lock me up. I'm not protecting anyone that made my life a living Hell.'
The Louisville, Kentucky teen told The Courier-Journal she was frustrated by what she feels is a lenient deal for her attackers.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
It would seem to me that the victim of a crime has a right to publicize who did it to her and any and all circumstances. If she is lying then get her for defamation. if she is not lying then I cannot fathom how a court can order her to not talk about her experiences to others.
That’s disgusting. Apparently you don’t understand the concept that freedom doesn’t include violating someone else’s rights.
So you think because they pleaded guilty instead of being convicted by a jury that somehow makes them less guilty? You are aware they took pictures of their crime?
“We’re supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, even if it looks bad for the perps.”
Proven guilty? They PLEADED guilty.
Yes, I bothered to read the article, and the perps got what they deserved. I’m not on their side, trust me.
This one isn't done yet ~ she's already attracted the attention of a lawyer who sees money to be made ~
Let's say some psycho chick accuses you of something you didn't do, just to be vindictive.
The boys pleaded guilty to both the felony and the misdemeanor charges.
She and her parents show up for the trial, the plea is announced and THEN the judge orders all not to talk about it.
So, if some "psycho chick" accuses you of something you didn't do, don't take a plea and plead guilty.
The judge can not gag a victim in the US. However, it is done in Saudi Arabia routinely. Perhaps the judge needs a refresher course in the 1st Amendment. BTW, victims in Kentucky must be consulted on any plea bargain agreement. The judge may have violated that law. Victims also have a “right to be heard”... through impact statements in Kentucky. Judges can not supercede rights by gag orders or whims. There are no 6th Amendment issues here that would allow the judge to abridge the defendants right to speech since their will be no jury or trial.
[ In a free country, this would be chalked up as a lesson learned the hard way. In the USSA, now we have three young people with criminal records. Thank a feminist. ]
Are you defending the rape of this girl? You think that in a free country boys should be able to rape a passed out girl, take pictures, and pass them around? That’s sick! It doesn’t take a “feminist” to recognize that fact.
Actually, I should have said they should have gotten worse, but plea bargains prevent that sometimes like you said. But I still say that she should have held her peace until after the trial. Maybe I’m wrong, but I also believe in jury nullification.
“If she is not lying then I cannot fathom how a court can order her to not talk about her experiences to others.”
I’m not saying that I agree with the gag order, because I don’t, but I am saying that the legal theory is that these young “boys” didn’t know better and the intent was to not wreck their lives by having what they did out there in the open - basically the philosophy of the juvenile justice system.
Well, that’s life - if they didn’t want their lives wrecked, maybe they should have respected hers just a bit more.
Most of us would pretty much know what to do if we were on the jury at her trial for a triple homicide.
She's not going to go to jail!
“There are PICTURES...”
Where?
“Are you defending the rape of this girl? “
I know this isn’t directed towards me, but I can see how people, especially men, have a tendency to be suspicious of rape and related charges, considering the Duke case and now Zimmerman, and often people they personally know having it thrown at them in some way.
In this case, it seems that the boys got some high-power attorneys to argue their case and cut a sweet deal for them. Oh well, too bad for them.
Did I misread? Very possible. I thought she tweeted after the plea bargain. So, no trial, right?
As a "mom" I would guess you know what is likely to happen when young ladies get drunk and pass out around young punks. The internet photos are the only thing that makes it different than what has gone on in your day and my day (if I'd been invited to parties), our parents' day, etc.
This shouldn't be a legal matter. It should be an angry Dad matter and she should be ashamed rather than playing victim and trying to have boys thrown in prison.
If they advertised their crime and her abuse, I think she has the right to advertise their names. If the pictures of her rape are public, so should the names of the assailants.
RE: Sorry, but if she was instructed not to make comment, she should have abided by that.
WAS she convicted in the case of doing something to herself? piss off I would demand max sentance prove it jury trial
Me too, certainly, but it’s unnecessary to put oneself in jeopardy. I know of an instance where the victim simply “leaked it” and the result was the same with no way to attribute it to her personally
Being instructed might not be legitimate. Many courts seem to think of themselves as the ultimate arbitrator of law... even in cases wherein they ought to have no power. One such case was that TN case where the divorced mom got in trouble for the son getting baptized.
TN Constitution:
Art 1, § 3. Freedom of worshipAs you can see such a contract as their divorce agreement is illegitimate precisely because of the requirements imposed on the son's religion.
That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any minister against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship.
Let's say some psycho chick accuses you of something you didn't do, just to be vindictive.
The sad truth is that this case is quite common, and even though it is illegal they do not get prosecuted often. (In fact it's rather unusual when they do get prosecuted.)
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.