Kosher Ham Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 by most state's legal definitions, it is. In your state a passenger of a car can be arrested for a DWI. To me (and probably most) rape would have penetration in some manner. Again, I am not saying this guy shouldn't be locked up and considered a predator even. But I wouldn't call him a rapist. Nor would I call a guy dating a 17 year old lady when he is 18 and it's consensual. ---------- Post added June-13th-2011 at 04:22 PM ---------- Yes, it is. I suppose if you want to establish a "spectrum," it's not "as bad" as actual penetration, in the same way second degree murder isn't "as bad" as first degree murder. But they're both still murder, and they're both still rape. Not even close to the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 In your state a passenger of a car can be arrested for a DWI. To me (and probably most) rape would have penetration in some manner. Again, I am not saying this guy shouldn't be locked up and considered a predator even. But I wouldn't call him a rapist. Nor would I call a guy dating a 17 year old lady when he is 18 and it's consensual. ---------- Post added June-13th-2011 at 04:22 PM ---------- Not even close to the same thing. I have absolutely no idea why you think your opinion is relevant in telling us all what exactly this crime is. The only thing that is relevant here is the state's legal definition of rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 To me (and probably most) rape would have penetration in some manner. This "most" seems to be awfully quiet. Are you sure they're here? Again, I am not saying this guy shouldn't be locked up and considered a predator even. But I wouldn't call him a rapist. Nor would I call a guy dating a 17 year old lady when he is 18 and it's consensual. Nor would most states, although that really shouldn't be a factor in how many facepalms it would take to generate an appropriate response to comparing a high school couple to holding a woman down and stripping off her clothes in order to ejaculate on her exposed chest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 It both fascinates and disturbs me that American law changes from State to State. One would of thought that something as serious as rape would be a unilateral Federal law in place right across the board with no grey areas. Under English law, FWIW, it would come under unlawful penetration without the others consent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_law Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 In Missouri, the correct definition of what he did is likely "sexual abuse," which is a class C felony as opposed to "rape" which is a Class A felony. It could be a class B felony depending on the level of force used and the injury caused. He's likely looking at 5 to 15 even without any other charges tacked on. (I don't really want to explore case law and see if there is anything that could push this into a higher felony category though since I'm not a paid prosecutor in Missouri). We are being awfully literal here though. The guy held a woman down and ejaculated on her. I am very comfortable referring to him as a rapist in a purely colloquial sense. http://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2009/t38/c566/c566.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 It both fascinates and disturbs me that American law changes from State to State. One would of thought that something as serious as rape would be a unilateral Federal law in place right across the board with no grey areas.Under English law, FWIW, it would come under unlawful penetration without the others consent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_law Hail. In Nebraska, for instance, it's still legal to beat your wife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Ok. Zoony, Was the state law(s) posted and I missed it ? Please show me. Teach me. I apologize if it was, I just don't think I saw it. The quiet Hubbs...are afraid to get blasted for asking. I admit, I am not sure and posting my opinion and thoughts. For you not to see what I was saying there is more on you. I don't see the guy as a rapist. I certainly think he has some issues. As far as the High school thing, it has happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailGreen28 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 I wouldn't call it rape, but still a violent crime of a sexual nature. I'd call it rape where HER private parts were molested, plz correct me if I missed it in the article. (Maybe depends on what the "inappropriate touching" was?) Still throwing the jerk-off UNDER the jail for a few years, and awarding her millions from any asshats that ignored the situation, sounds about right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 In Nebraska, for instance, it's still legal to beat your wife. SMH. The Constitution does as much bad as good when it leads to ridiculous instances like that. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 I posted the ****ing statute. Jesus....I have to do all the work around here. ---------- Post added June-13th-2011 at 03:47 PM ---------- SMH.The Constitution does as much bad as good when it leads to ridiculous instances like that. Hail. Eh...criminal law has always been left to the states, save some exceptions. And the statutes tend to be remarkably similar from state to state, particularly in criminal law. In Virginia, this would be "aggravated sexual battery" and the accused could face 20 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Gentlemen, as disgusting as it is, it is not rape. It's pretty dang rapey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Ok. Zoony, Was the state law(s) posted and I missed it ? Please show me. Teach me. I apologize if it was, I just don't think I saw it. The quiet Hubbs...are afraid to get blasted for asking. I admit, I am not sure and posting my opinion and thoughts. For you not to see what I was saying there is more on you. I don't see the guy as a rapist. I certainly think he has some issues. As far as the High school thing, it has happened. Of course it's happened, it's been the reason that most states have modified their laws to provide an acceptable "age gap" specifically to prevent an 18-year-old from being charged with statutory rape for having sex with someone who's 17, because there at least seems to be a shred of common sense left within most people. The same applies to this situation. Somehow I doubt that if you had a daughter and she came to you sobbing uncontrollably, describing this incident, you'd try to explain to her that technically, she wasn't raped. I wouldn't call it rape, but still a violent crime of a sexual nature. I'd call it rape where HER private parts were molested, plz correct me if I missed it in the article. (Maybe depends on what the "inappropriate touching" was?)Still throwing the jerk-off UNDER the jail for a few years, and awarding her millions from any asshats that ignored the situation, sounds about right. I'm gonna go ahead and say that breasts qualify as "private parts." SMH.The Constitution does as much bad as good when it leads to ridiculous instances like that. Hail. Please. There are dumb laws on the books everywhere because they're so outdated that nobody ever brings them up. I'm sure the purpose of federalism is really to allow wife-beating. According to dumblaws.com, in Canada, it's illegal to climb trees. Damn you, Constitution! Oh... wait.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichmondRedskin88 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 So he held her down, whacked her with his junk, and then blew his load on her? I'm just trying to understand how he managed to pull all that off. He must have really been using some force to hold her down while hitting her with his penis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 He could have held her down with both hands while rubbing himself on her. She's not participating so it's masturbation. That doesn't take much imagination to figure out. Unless one only uses one's hands for masturbation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Please. There are dumb laws on the books everywhere because they're so outdated that nobody ever brings them up. I'm sure the purpose of federalism is really to allow wife-beating. According to dumblaws.com, in Canada, it's illegal to climb trees. Damn you, Constitution! Oh... wait.... Aside from the fact we're on about America, am I wrong in thinking the Constitution gives each individual State the right to decide on most laws for the people in that State outside of the Federal Government? If I'm wrong, I apologize. If that is the case, then in cases like the one z threw up it does more harm than good. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 So he held her down, whacked her with his junk, and then blew his load on her? I'm just trying to understand how he managed to pull all that off. He must have really been using some force to hold her down while hitting her with his penis. We don't know how big he is. We don't know how small she is. It's very easy to "hold" someone down by straddling them and pinning their arms to their sides. I would imagine that would make it extremely easy to do everything he's alleged to hae done. Most likely the guy was already aroused just thinking of doing it. The aggression and feeling of power fuels the arousal as much as anything visual (maybe moreso). He was most likely aroused during the struggle to pin her down. By the time he actually did the act it would have taken very little for him to take it to, um, "completion". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 . Somehow I doubt that if you had a daughter and she came to you sobbing uncontrollably, describing this incident, you'd try to explain to her that technically, she wasn't raped. Au contraire Hubbs, aside from wanting to kill the ******* myself, as sickened and vengeful as I'd be toward him; there's no way I'd support going after him on a rape charge. Sexual assault and the maximum that carried yes. Rape when to me it's not; not at all. I'd feel as low as he is if I pushed for a much harsher punishment for something he didn't do IMHO just because I was totally appalled at what he did. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDoyler23 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 You owe it to yourself to read some of the comments in that link. Yikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 man we got some sick people in this world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailGreen28 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 I'm gonna go ahead and say that breasts qualify as "private parts."In what context, copping a feel over her sweater, or involving his ****? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Au contraire Hubbs, aside from wanting to kill the ******* myself, as sickened and vengeful as I'd be toward him; there's no way I'd support going after him on a rape charge. Sexual assault and the maximum that carried yes. Rape when to me it's not; not at all. Kinda ironic how you'd want to kill the guy but wouldn't want him charged with rape lol... I'd feel as low as he is if I pushed for a much harsher punishment for something he didn't do IMHO just because I was totally appalled at what he did.Hail. I think the point, though (and I could be wrong), is that you'd have an easier time understanding how and why it's viewed as rape if it were your daughter. I doubt any loving father would find that time to try and instill on their daughter the proper definition of "rape" lol... And if the DA said that, by law, what occurred can be charged as "rape", and your daughter is telling you she was raped, I'd like to think you'd put your individual perceptions on the back burner and go for the full punishment for the crime that is allowed by law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 He could have held her down with both hands while rubbing himself on her. She's not participating so it's masturbation. That doesn't take much imagination to figure out. Unless one only uses one's hands for masturbation. So you're saying a woman "participates" in full penetration rape? Aside from the fact we're on about America, am I wrong in thinking the Constitution gives each individual State the right to decide on most laws for the people in that State outside of the Federal Government? If I'm wrong, I apologize. If that is the case, then in cases like the one z threw up it does more harm than good.Hail. I'm not even sure how to tackle this. There are outdated, archaic laws that are still technically on the books all over the world because they're never enforced and nobody ever goes through the entire legal code, line by line, and tries to repeal dumb laws from eighty years ago that aren't enforced. It has nothing to do with the Constitution. Off the top of my head, I believe that in Great Britain, there technically is a law which states that carrots and potatoes are the only foods which may be sold on Sunday. I'm pretty sure that doesn't have anything to do with our Constitution, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 People keep saying "if it was your daughter". First, it's not. Second, my daughter would not put up with that crap and would have kicked his ass after the first crossing of the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 People keep saying "if it was your daughter". First, it's not. Second, my daughter would not put up with that crap and would have kicked his ass after the first crossing of the line. It's nice to think that as a dad...but it never ceases to amaze me what strong, intelligent females put up with when you'd never expect them to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Sorry Cali man, I can't get down with that. If I knew exactly what had happened as happened in this case, I couldn't give my full support to pushing for a rape prosecution. To me, and maybe this is down to their being one clear law in England and not different interpretations by State, rape is penetrative, without consent. This is sexual assault. Whilst both are reprehensible, there's a major difference. Both in punishment and the lasting perception. As much as I'd hate the guy for what he'd put my daughter through, it wouldn't sit right at all on me to taint the guy with worse than he had done in the name of vengeance. And I'd hope I'd of brought her up to realise the same. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.