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.
Neither does the ingestion of arsenic prove it was forced, which is exactly what her defenders are inferring.
It may not be pretty, but this is what "presumption of innocence" looks like.
So you’re saying the jury may have been wrong, without having seen the evidence that they saw?
It does if the ingestion happens when you’re passed out.
It is, in fact, illegal for a bar tender to continue serving an obviously inebriated customer.
Apparently you don’t know what “sputtering” means, either.
As for “lying,” all it takes is a quote, sport.
“That doesn’t mean that guys should (either legally or morally) rape her when she’s passed out. Does it?”
Isn’t that what I said? Did I nor refer to them as evil?
“even if she is a slut, that doesn’t make rape okay”
No it doesn’t and I said as much.
I just tracked back the conversation and see that your first post was that the boys were evil and should have gotten more punishment than they did but you thought the girl was a slut.
So yes, you did say that. I didn’t realize you had; it seemed like you were implying that she had asked for it by being drunk around guys. And I would agree that it is stupid to get drunk because it makes a person vulnerable. Still doesn’t mean she was “asking for it”. Would you agree?
A poster named papertyger trying to explain why the girl who was raped is as guilty as the guys who raped her. Sputtering is a poster named papertyger trying to defend the indefensible, claiming a conviction in a trial is the same as the Zimmerman case that has not gone to trial. Sputtering is a poster named papertyger trying to not say something stupid..........not possible......
“To get catatonic like that takes one heck of a lot of alcohol, or some kind of knock out drug.”
Actually it doesn’t. A person builds a tolerance to alcohol over the years. My spouse of 45 years for instance can’t tolerate it at all...
Having done my share of power drinking in college, I can testify "Yes" to that question. Particularly if the person is smaller, female, an inexperienced drinker, and drinking something harder than beer.
Excessive Beer (or / especially wine) drinking usually hits slower, and the consumer winds up with their head in a trashcan before any serious damage is done. I suppose that you could get alcohol poisoning from beer, but jeez, you'd need to work pretty hard at it.
Hard liquor is different. Having had enough "Never Again" moments myself (Southern Comfort....shudder) I could see where this girl could have gotten herself into trouble. Especially if there was no one there to look after her.
I've carted my share of girls back to their apartments and roommates ("aw jeez, wildbill, thanks for bringing her home...I think") who thought that they could (or should, or whatever) keep up with either myself or other guys at parties. Fortunate for all of them that I'm a decent fellow, unlike this crew.
and I was reinforcing it
That sounds more like a participant.
Be that as it may, are you as conversant with the particulars of the defense, other than "she didn't say 'no?'"
Have you seen anybody pass out to a near-comatose state in response to one drink?
I get the impression that this girl may have done her share of drinking and screwing around before this incident, based on the reputation she seems to have had.
I wonder what the situation was with the other girl who says she was raped by this crew.
Whichever is true, drunk from lots of drinking, drugged, or drunk from one drink, the girl should not have been treated as she was. She was stupid (and none of us ever did stupid things at 16 here, right?), the guys took advantage, making her do things while she was catatonic, quite frankly a series of very evil things, and were subsequently convicted of rape.
Yep, I’d find it hard to believe that she was a “lightweight”.
My understanding is there was no jury. But apply the same question to the judge and I'd answer: most definitely!
I have not seen the legal pleadings and my computer won’t allow a sound card driver to be installed so I haven’t looked at the videos either. I only have what I can read, and I haven’t seen the actual pleadings linked anywhere. If you know where I can see the arguments I would appreciate being able to read them.
I recently had a bit of medical work done and they gave me some "happy juice" (as the nurse lightly put it). I was completely functional. No memory of anything though.
Mrs WBill said that she had to chew on me during the trip home. We live maybe 10 min from the doc's office. I kept giving her the wrong directions on how to get back to our house. Finally, she said "Enough. Cork it!". I replied, "OK" and blissfully went along. :-)
Well that's the question being disputed isn't it?
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.