2 athletes convicted of raping unconscious women given wildly different sentences

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
How did the girl end up behind the dumpster? Wouldn't this answer have a bearing on the ruling?

if dude drags her there, holy shit. If she walked there with him and then passed out, more questionable.
My understanding is that he was walking with her and she fell down behind the dumpster.

Your attorney has repeatedly pointed out, well we don’t know exactly when she became unconscious. And you’re right, maybe I was still fluttering my eyes and wasn’t completely limp yet. That was never the point. I was too drunk to speak English, too drunk to consent way before I was on the ground. I should have never been touched in the first place. Brock stated, “At no time did I see that she was not responding. If at any time I thought she was not responding, I would have stopped immediately.” Here’s the thing; if your plan was to stop only when I became unresponsive, then you still do not understand.
 
Last edited:

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
As per the gender bias, it does go both ways, just men are a little more difficult to rape, in the sense that most passed out guys couldn't get an erection, and even more hesitant to step forward for fear of ridicule, stigma, shaming, etc.
I think Female on Male rape plays out differently, and it'll never be prosecuted. Because it'd just be a woman not taking no for an answer. People assume rape always happens in back alleys at gun point like in an episode of SVU. It mostly happens where people feel like they aren't allowed to say no. We know (more or less) not to say "why didn't you fight back" to women, but we would probably still tell men they could have stopped it, so it isn't rape.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
The way I understand it, with the Rikers incident, the way it worked is that the hearings could get delayed for as long as it takes to plea for time served. The public defenders, like most public defenders just wanted him to take the plea bargain and go home, he wouldn't, and so he was just retained there while his hearing kept getting held off.
So was it the fact that he was black, or was it the fact there was an incompetent PD who wouldn't hold his hand through a trial where he would be convicted and then sentenced to time served? Or that he was too stupid to tell a family member with a credit card to pay 2 grand to some low end private attorney to do the same thing?
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
Yeah, I do not agree that a drunk college male having nonconsensual sex with a drunk college female is as bad as forcible rape or murder.

To me it's more on par with say, drunk driving vehicular manslaughter versus murder.

Murder means deliberate intent, often premeditated. Vehicular manslaughter is an accident stemming from the bad choices made when you were inebriated, and though both merit jail time, the law treats them differently because of the mental state.

Some murders don't get 25 years. No way a much less serious drunk rape should get that much. Drunk rape should be like 3 to 5.

No matter how much it's not PC to say this, you can avoid this situation by just not getting black out drunk if you are a woman. There are way too many gray areas including the man's own clouded perception of your intent. I'm sorry, to me, that's a mitigating factor for the man. You each got equally drunk!
 
Last edited:

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
So was it the fact that he was black, or was it the fact there was an incompetent PD who wouldn't hold his hand through a trial where he would be convicted and then sentenced to time served? Or that he was too stupid to tell a family member with a credit card to pay 2 grand to some low end private attorney to do the same thing?
There's a lot of factors here. It'd take a bit of research. Race only plays a tertiary role in this I think, in that he fell prey to a system designed to prey on poor blacks.

Either way the gov't was still at fault for failing to fulfill the constitutional obligations for a speedy trial. Pads shouldn't have to hand hold anyone for the courts to carry out constitutional obligations.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Yeah, I do not agree that a drunk college male having nonconsensual sex with a drunk college female is as bad as forcible rape or murder.

To me it's more on par with say, drunk driving vehicular manslaughter versus murder.

Murder means deliberate intent, often premeditated. Vehicular manslaughter is an accident stemming from the bad choices made when you were inebriated, and though both merit jail time, the law treats them differently because of the mental state.

Some murders don't get 25 years. No way a much less serious drunk rape should get that much. Drunk rape should be like 3 to 5.
I think it'd be closer comparably to murder by poisoning versus murder by stabbing. I mean one's less messy, but you're effectively doing the same thing.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
I think it'd be closer comparably to murder by poisoning versus murder by stabbing. I mean one's less messy, but you're effectively doing the same thing.
I mean, if the guy is straight sober and roofies the chick, I'd agree. If he's also drunk I don't think you can fault him on the same level as a forcible rape for not being able to pick up on the signs, or lack thereof. What if they were making out in bed and then she passes out? A drunk college kid is going to be able to perceive the wrongness of continuing the act, when the person who was drinking with him is so inebriated that she passed out? His crime then is being drunk, not being malicious. And she's drunk too!
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
I mean, if the guy is straight sober and roofies the chick, I'd agree. If he's also drunk I don't think you can fault him on the same level as a forcible rape for not being able to pick up on the signs, or lack thereof. What if they were making out in bed and then she passes out? A drunk college kid is going to be able to perceive the wrongness of continuing the act, when the person who was drinking with him is so inebriated that she passed out? His crime then is being drunk, not being malicious. And she's drunk too!
I think it's tough to exactly pick out. If you're going to town on an unconscious chick that's not a simple alcohol induced lapse of judgment. That's forcible rape. It's like a drunk person getting in a car and running someone over on purpose. Sure maybe their judgement was affected but they still had criminal intention.

Now if two sloppy drunk people are kinda going at it, and one passes out during the act that's a different situation, of which it would be almost impossible to suss out just how much of it was or wasn't consensual.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
I mean, if the guy is straight sober and roofies the chick, I'd agree. If he's also drunk I don't think you can fault him on the same level as a forcible rape for not being able to pick up on the signs, or lack thereof. What if they were making out in bed and then she passes out? A drunk college kid is going to be able to perceive the wrongness of continuing the act, when the person who was drinking with him is so inebriated that she passed out? His crime then is being drunk, not being malicious. And she's drunk too!
You need to read up on this case because it's nothing like what you are saying.

And what about if a guy happens on a passed out drunk girl at a party alone in a bedroom, does the guy get leniant treatment because he was drunk and decided to take advantage of the situation because that is closer to what happened here.
 

Kbrown

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
I think it's tough to exactly pick out. If you're going to town on an unconscious chick that's not a simple alcohol induced lapse of judgment. That's forcible rape. It's like a drunk person getting in a car and running someone over on purpose. Sure maybe their judgement was affected but they still had criminal intention.

Now if two sloppy drunk people are kinda going at it, and one passes out during the act that's a different situation, of which it would be almost impossible to suss out just how much of it was or wasn't consensual.
Schmitty doesn't think drunken driving should be criminal, either.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,730
Wait one damn minute. So we can be lenient on a guy that got drunk and raped a girl? I mean, I get the whole two sides to every story thing, but how does him being drunk excuse anything? So, basically, we are saying it's less wrong if you were plastered than if you were sober?
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Wait one damn minute. So we can be lenient on a guy that got drunk and raped a girl? I mean, I get the whole two sides to every story thing, but how does him being drunk excuse anything? So, basically, we are saying it's less wrong if you were plastered than if you were sober?
I agree with you. Might be a sign of the apocalypse.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
I think it's tough to exactly pick out. If you're going to town on an unconscious chick that's not a simple alcohol induced lapse of judgment. That's forcible rape. It's like a drunk person getting in a car and running someone over on purpose. Sure maybe their judgement was affected but they still had criminal intention.

Now if two sloppy drunk people are kinda going at it, and one passes out during the act that's a different situation, of which it would be almost impossible to suss out just how much of it was or wasn't consensual.
Well what if one is inebriated enough to not be able to verbally consent but is also not passed out, and the other is too drunk to realize that she isn't consenting? Then it's not criminal intention.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
You need to read up on this case because it's nothing like what you are saying.

And what about if a guy happens on a passed out drunk girl at a party alone in a bedroom, does the guy get leniant treatment because he was drunk and decided to take advantage of the situation because that is closer to what happened here.
Thats a completely different scenario then what I'm talking about and is definitely more akin to forcible rape.

Still not sure it should be 15 to 25 years.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,730

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
This is stupid. Putting other people's lives at risk is pretty god damn serious.
Well, as someone who deals with it on a semi regular basis, I disagree. Lot of good people making dumb mistakes who can learn their lesson in ways besides mandatory jail times.

Also, it's kind of a joke that anyone is "putting lives at risk" at .08% BAC, which is the law in PA. No one is truly intoxicated at that level.

Finally, DUI laws are abysmally backwards when it comes to taking the presence of drugs into account. Someone could have smoked or taken pills hours, days, or weeks ago, but if it comes up in their blood test, it's automatically highest tier of penalties.
 
Last edited:

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,730
1. The level has to be set somewhere. Better lower than higher.

2. They do tests on site when they are stopped. And if they did drugs days before, it kinda shows what that person is anyway.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
1. The level has to be set somewhere. Better lower than higher.

2. They do tests on site when they are stopped. And if they did drugs days before, it kinda shows what that person is anyway.
So what if they did drugs days before? They were intoxicated having smoked marijuana a week before hand? And deserve mandatory jail time for it? Nonsense.

Just part of the over hysteria of DUI.

As for the level, it should first and foremost be set where people are actually a significant danger, if you're putting them in jail for it. While it varies from person to person, lots of people have literally no feeling of impairment at .08.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom