Posted on 07/22/2012 9:14:57 AM PDT by AtlasStalled
Savannah Dietrich, 17, could be locked up on contempt-of-court charges for tweeting the names of her attackers after they allegedly got a sweetheart plea bargain, according to a published report. * * * The judge in the case had further protected the sex fiends by placing a gag order that barred Dietrich from talking about what happened to her.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
“So because you got a raw deal from some woman and a court it’s open season on young girls? Grow up and grow a set.”
My comment was meant to demonstrate that when it comes to contempt of court there really is no constitutional protections that will protect you from the wrath of a judge. But somehow you seem to want to know about my testicles or lack thereof as a result of getting a “raw deal”. I’m not really sure how to respond to that request so I’ll chalk it up to your being totally ignorant about what you posted earlier and leave you to your own little fantasy world. Good luck, you’ll need it once reality smacks you up side the head one day.
They plead out to 1st degree sexual abuse which is a Class D felony in Kentucky. Voyeurism is a misdemeanor. Not that this matters to jihadist nuts who beat their women when they get raped.
Absolutely 100% false. In fact, dozens of studies (where researchers spiked punch they said was grape juice or gave participants grape juice and told them it was alcoholic) has shown that the only actual effects of large quantities of alcohol are loss of motor control, slurred speech, and impaired reaction time (until you pass out and poison your body). The "lowering inhibitions" crap is just that... crap! The study participants who were given alcohol without knowing it never exhibited a "loss" of inhibitions, whereas the grape juice drinkers acted like drunks.
Such statements as yours are simply excuses for people to misbehave. You are wrong, and your idea is a liberal one.
“They plead out to 1st degree sexual abuse which is a Class D felony in Kentucky. Voyeurism is a misdemeanor. Not that this matters to jihadist nuts who beat their women when they get raped.”
OK so they’re convicted felons now, happy? Not that the article at the NYPost actually has any of the details but it does not change my view. They were wrong to do whatever it was that they did but she still bears some responsibility for putting herself in a situation that most reasonable people would say could have the outcome that it did. It’s not rocket science that we’re talking about here.
Also I’m not sure what it is that makes you think that I’m a jihadist, is this something to do with my testicles again or is it some latent homosexual desire to be beaten by a eunuch while screaming rape that is bubbling to the surface? If so please do not include me in your bizarre fantasies, I’m here to argue about the constitution being made into toilet paper and why women should take responsibility for their actions. Thanks.
Candy’s dandy, but licker’s quicker
Candy’s dandy, but licker’s quicker
I think licker’s spelled wrong, there a a couple of other options to spell it...
Ever been to a frat party? I get the feeling that you’re beliefs would be badly shaken if you had... just saying.
Not since the early eighties, well before the pornification of society by the internet and cell phone technology, not that it matters.
In a decent society, the stupid, weak or helpless would be safe, even when passed out drunk because young men knew that taking advantage of easy targets did not make them men, but cowards and knaves.
Blaming the weak for the behavior of those who exploit their weakness makes you one as well.
“Such statements as yours are simply excuses for people to misbehave. You are wrong, and your idea is a liberal one.”
Studies show that 12 out of ten dentist prefer rope to waxed thread for flossing. Most of these “scientific studies” are just a bunch of bunk with the conclusion written before any testing was done so I put no real stock in them any more. Or do you buy into all the “global warming” studies as well? And if not why not? I’m reminded of a quote from a great philosopher who had real insight into human nature, “what are going going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?”, Groucho Marx truly was an insightful man.
The fact that I have personally observed as well as participated in any manner of stupid things while drunk is a testament to the common sense fact that drugs (alcohol included) will impair your reasoning skills and lower your inhibitions. It takes a real liberal to ignore common sense and experience and go with the “scientific studies”.
As far as it being an excuse for “misbehaving”, no it is not an excuse but as I said before even an idiot can foresee that there is a much higher probability of bad things happening when you combine a passed out girl, a bunch of horny teenage boys, a video camera and alcohol. If you are the girl in that set you have to be real real stupid to think you’re totally safe. It’s really not that hard so why can’t you see it? But sense a girl was involved you twist into a pretzel to try and absolve her of any responsibility.
So lets take the girl out of the this and try a hypothetical situation. You’re a white dude and you decide to party with some gang bangers from the hood (i.e., their racial makeup is on the darker side of tan). So you go with them to the hood, get drunk and pass out while shouting the N word. The next day they find your lifeless body in the gutter with “cracker” tattooed to your forehead. Now the gang bangers are guilty of murder (that they will plead down to manslaughter) but what responsibility did your own poor choice have in your early demise?
A core conservative principal used to be that people were responsible for their own actions but because a girl was “sexually abused” (hey that’s what they pleaded to) you go all liberal on us true conservatives and get your panties in a bunch over our pointing out that she bears some responsibility for her actions and what happened to her.
apparently you are not aware of the rule of 65
When you reach 65, spelling is optional.
Ever been to a frat party? I get the feeling that you’re beliefs would be badly shaken if you had... just saying.
How many incapacitated people did you rape at frat parties?
“In a decent society, the stupid, weak or helpless would be safe, even when passed out drunk because young men knew that taking advantage of easy targets did not make them men, but cowards and knaves.”
You truly are the epitome of a white knight. Chivalry like you imagine wasn’t even practiced in the middle-ages let alone in modern times. I’ll leave it with a quote from Forest Gump, “stupid is as stupid does”, what she did was stupid and like all stupid people everywhere she paid the price for her stupidity. Life has a way of doing that. Why you feel I should pity some drunken teenager that doesn’t have a lick of common sense I’m not sure. Usually the worst thing you can do to a stupid person is to encourage them in their stupidity so that they don’t learn from their mistakes. How is that protecting the weak? It is evil to the core and you are the one that is encouraging her to continue in her stupidity so that even more harm will come to her.
Nobody is rewarding this girl’s behavior, she is already paying the stupid tax. Those pix are on the net forever.
I see no reason to reduce the consequences for the boys just because their victim made herself an easy target.
Chivalry is no more dead than Jesus Christ is, truth and life is always there for those that seek it. Pretending that the scorn and contempt you heap on the weak is a form of help is a rationalization more commonly found on the left, just like excusing criminals because the victim caused them to target her.
Predators always prey on the weak. That’s why a truly just society establishes the rule of law by punishing people for behaving like predators. It’s what makes us more than animals.
“That’s why a truly just society establishes the rule of law by punishing people for behaving like predators.”
Good try but wrong, a truly just society establishes the rule of law based on God’s unfailing standards of justice as set out in the old testament. What we have is far from that and under God’s law both parties would have been punished for their behavior in this instance, harshly.
Mosaic law basically states:
If a woman is engaged and someone forces himself on her, the man is to be killed–unless she didn’t cry out, in which case they both will be killed. This is considered taking another man’s wife, which is a disgrace worthy of death.
If the woman is unmarried and not betrothed and a man forces himself upon her, he must pay her father fifty shekels of silver and marry her, and he is never permitted to divorce her.
My guess is one of the boys would have been forced to pay the 50 pieces of silver and marry her for life. Personally I think I’d rather be stoned than married to that particular piece of American womanhood, certainly a far harsher punishment than they are probably suffering.
And if you say, “but we are not under the law!”. That is certainly correct but as Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” When Jesus returns it will be his laws that are enforced and that would mean something entirely different than what you’ve proposed.
Your understanding of Mosaic law is incomplete. Our law (based on Mosaic law) understands that being incapacitated and unable to cry out does not give consent, which is why the law considers this the same category as forced.
The would have killed the boys and sent the girl home to her parents.
Your posts seem to indicate that the boys be given a pass on being disgrace while the girl is to be scorned as beneath contempt.
I think Christ would say to you the same thing He said to the Pharisees.
I think that your understanding is incomplete, she was not engaged to any one so the punishment is 50 pieces of silver and a life time of hell being married to the woman of your nightmares. Incapacitated or not.
Also, in times past her behavior would have resulted in her being ostracized from society for generally acting like a whore. Virtuous women even 50 years ago did not do what this poor excuse for a woman did so she deserves all the scorn she gets (which is not that much unfortunately).
I’m sorry, my parents did not teach me it is OK to rape a girl because she passed out. And I have gone with groups where that has happened. Sometimes people make mistakes. I don’t think getting raped fits into the serves you right category.
I never defended the boys actions, from the little bit we know about them, they are indefensible.
I focused on the girls actions.
Obviously the Liberal mindset about how young women should behave has won the day in society, and also with most here at FR.
Oh give me a break..vast majority of women get drunk in their lives and party when they are younger when growing up. Oh, and loose moral character? Getting drunk does not mean you have loose moral character.
And who is to say the woman in question is loose? She just passed out drunk. That is not being loose.What those guys did together is wrong..and it is not the same as urinating in public or a 18 year old guy having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend as your previous examples.
This woman needs to tweet - and otherwise publish online - her side of the story before it gets suppressed, getting as much help from bloggers as possible. If she can generate as much publicity as that bullied bus driver did, Judge Sweetheart won’t be able to lock her up and keep the story under wraps.
I don’t run out into a busy freeway either, as this silly girl essentially did.
....... way over your head. If you need me to say it at your level, let me know, I’ll give it a try.
Explain how gang rapists are like cars lawfully driving on a freeway.
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.