Mayor blames 4 year old for her own molestation

[Malintent]

YES.

Ya, I agree. It's pretty damn bad.

Now, that doesn't mean that it's not therefore a valid part of a legal defense.

Thank you. This is my point.

If ya'll go around yelling "Victim Blaming"! for every single case the accused does not plea guilty, then the times you yell "Victim Blaming" at the spectators that say "she asked for it" will have exactly zero impact because of all the background noise of yelling it at every.single.rape.trial.

 

[laughing dog]

YES.

Ya, I agree. It's pretty damn bad.

Now, that doesn't mean that it's not therefore a valid part of a legal defense. If one is trying to make the case that the sex was consensual and they feel that this argument would influence the jury enough to plant reasonable doubt about whether or not there was consent, it's fine to use it. You are, however, a bad person if you use this strategy.

As you point out, it is still victim blaming.

- - - Updated - - -

Ya, I agree. It's pretty damn bad.

Now, that doesn't mean that it's not therefore a valid part of a legal defense.

Thank you. This is my point.

If ya'll go around yelling "Victim Blaming"! for every single case the accused does not plea guilty, then the times you yell "Victim Blaming" at the spectators that say "she asked for it" will have exactly zero impact because of all the background noise of yelling it at every.single.rape.trial.

You continue to babble this straw man. Not every defense for rape is victim blaming.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, I agree. It's pretty damn bad.

Now, that doesn't mean that it's not therefore a valid part of a legal defense.

Thank you. This is my point.

If ya'll go around yelling "Victim Blaming"! for every single case the accused does not plea guilty, then the times you yell "Victim Blaming" at the spectators that say "she asked for it" will have exactly zero impact because of all the background noise of yelling it at every.single.rape.trial.

I actually think the exact opposite. The more discussion there is about how invalid a point of view this is, the less effective it becomes as a defense strategy. It won't change anything anytime soon, of course, but if something is wrong, we should not shut up about how it's wrong, regardless of how effective it may be for people to do something wrong.

 

[RavenSky]

Ya, I agree. It's pretty damn bad.

Now, that doesn't mean that it's not therefore a valid part of a legal defense. If one is trying to make the case that the sex was consensual and they feel that this argument would influence the jury enough to plant reasonable doubt about whether or not there was consent, it's fine to use it. You are, however, a bad person if you use this strategy.

As you point out, it is still victim blaming.

- - - Updated - - -

Ya, I agree. It's pretty damn bad.

Now, that doesn't mean that it's not therefore a valid part of a legal defense.

Thank you. This is my point.

If ya'll go around yelling "Victim Blaming"! for every single case the accused does not plea guilty, then the times you yell "Victim Blaming" at the spectators that say "she asked for it" will have exactly zero impact because of all the background noise of yelling it at every.single.rape.trial.

You continue to babble this straw man. Not every defense for rape is victim blaming.

As Tom said, "not every defense for rape is victim blaming". Further, I need to slightly correct Tom's earlier comment

Now, that doesn't mean that it's not therefore a valid part of a legal defense. If one is trying to make the case that the sex was consensual and they feel that this argument would influence the jury enough to plant reasonable doubt about whether or not there was consent, it's fine to use it.

Victim-blaming it not actually a "valid" part of a legal defense in most states and countries, nor is it "fine" to use it. Victim-blaming has, historically, been very commonly used, and very effectively used, but it is more and more recognized as inappropriate and disallowed. In the U.S. (as in Canada and the UK) "Rape Shield Laws" at the state and federal levels are supposed to disallow defenses based on the woman's clothing or past sexual history. Unfortunately, these protections are only as good as the prosecutor and judge at those trials. Case in point:

Highlighting examples where women had been subjected to this form of questioning, she said: "Ivy, a rape victim, was told at a ground rules hearing that her sexual history would not be used. But at court she faced questions and allegations that she was promiscuous - there was no judicial intervention.

"Emma was followed by a stranger who attacked and tried to rape her. Her screams were met with the threat of, 'stop or be killed'. "Fortunately two off-duty police officers heard her screams,” she said, but added: "The trial fixated on why Emma chose to wear a red dress on that summer's evening."

Specific to the case in the OP:

In many states, statutes provide that a female under a certain age is incapable of consenting to an act of sexual intercourse[xi]. The consent of a woman below the statutory age limit is not a defense in a prosecution for rape because it is considered irrelevant. However, if the offender was under the belief that the female was capable of giving consent, then it would amount to a valid defense.

In this case, there is no reasonable or believable way for the rapist to claim he thought a 4-year-old was old enough to consent. As such, no amount of trying to claim that she initiated the sex act can be considered a defense of his rape, and any/all of his claims are victim-blaming. Period.

I simply do not understand why this specific thread is even continuing because it is so very much a clear cut example of victim blaming... but I think the fact we have several people twisting themselves into pretzels trying to make it not victim-blaming was exactly the point the OP was making.

Here is a valid defense to rape that is not victim-blaming:

Impotency can be considered as a good defense in a criminal prosecution for rape. Where a person is charged with the crime of rape, evidence of his physical capacity to accomplish the act is admissible as a defense.

and another

Double jeopardy is a defense to the crime of rape. A conviction of an attempt to commit rape, or a conviction or acquittal of an assault with intent to commit rape, will be a bar to a subsequent prosecution for rape.

https://rape.uslegal.com/trial/defenses/

There is also:

Someone else committed the crime

The rapist enters an insanity plea because "the accused is mentally ill and did not have the capacity to control his behavior, to form criminal intent, or to understand what he was doing or that his actions were unlawful."

None of these are victim-blaming, which refutes the claim that "every single case the accused does not plea guilty" is or is claimed to be viewed as "victim-blaming". Horseshit.

But saying that a 4-year-old initiated the sex act IS victim-blaming, and it is really really appalling that some people here can't understand that.

 

[whichphilosophy]

As you point out, it is still victim blaming.

- - - Updated - - -

Ya, I agree. It's pretty damn bad.

Now, that doesn't mean that it's not therefore a valid part of a legal defense.

Thank you. This is my point.

If ya'll go around yelling "Victim Blaming"! for every single case the accused does not plea guilty, then the times you yell "Victim Blaming" at the spectators that say "she asked for it" will have exactly zero impact because of all the background noise of yelling it at every.single.rape.trial.

You continue to babble this straw man. Not every defense for rape is victim blaming.

As Tom said, "not every defense for rape is victim blaming". Further, I need to slightly correct Tom's earlier comment

Now, that doesn't mean that it's not therefore a valid part of a legal defense. If one is trying to make the case that the sex was consensual and they feel that this argument would influence the jury enough to plant reasonable doubt about whether or not there was consent, it's fine to use it.

Victim-blaming it not actually a "valid" part of a legal defense in most states and countries, nor is it "fine" to use it. Victim-blaming has, historically, been very commonly used, and very effectively used, but it is more and more recognized as inappropriate and disallowed. In the U.S. (as in Canada and the UK) "Rape Shield Laws" at the state and federal levels are supposed to disallow defenses based on the woman's clothing or past sexual history. Unfortunately, these protections are only as good as the prosecutor and judge at those trials. Case in point:

Highlighting examples where women had been subjected to this form of questioning, she said: "Ivy, a rape victim, was told at a ground rules hearing that her sexual history would not be used. But at court she faced questions and allegations that she was promiscuous - there was no judicial intervention.

"Emma was followed by a stranger who attacked and tried to rape her. Her screams were met with the threat of, 'stop or be killed'. "Fortunately two off-duty police officers heard her screams,” she said, but added: "The trial fixated on why Emma chose to wear a red dress on that summer's evening."

Specific to the case in the OP:

In many states, statutes provide that a female under a certain age is incapable of consenting to an act of sexual intercourse[xi]. The consent of a woman below the statutory age limit is not a defense in a prosecution for rape because it is considered irrelevant. However, if the offender was under the belief that the female was capable of giving consent, then it would amount to a valid defense.

In this case, there is no reasonable or believable way for the rapist to claim he thought a 4-year-old was old enough to consent. As such, no amount of trying to claim that she initiated the sex act can be considered a defense of his rape, and any/all of his claims are victim-blaming. Period.

I simply do not understand why this specific thread is even continuing because it is so very much a clear cut example of victim blaming... but I think the fact we have several people twisting themselves into pretzels trying to make it not victim-blaming was exactly the point the OP was making.

Here is a valid defense to rape that is not victim-blaming:

Impotency can be considered as a good defense in a criminal prosecution for rape. Where a person is charged with the crime of rape, evidence of his physical capacity to accomplish the act is admissible as a defense.

and another

Double jeopardy is a defense to the crime of rape. A conviction of an attempt to commit rape, or a conviction or acquittal of an assault with intent to commit rape, will be a bar to a subsequent prosecution for rape.

https://rape.uslegal.com/trial/defenses/

There is also:

Someone else committed the crime

The rapist enters an insanity plea because "the accused is mentally ill and did not have the capacity to control his behavior, to form criminal intent, or to understand what he was doing or that his actions were unlawful."

None of these are victim-blaming, which refutes the claim that "every single case the accused does not plea guilty" is or is claimed to be viewed as "victim-blaming". Horseshit.

But saying that a 4-year-old initiated the sex act IS victim-blaming, and it is really really appalling that some people here can't understand that.

I would like to add a comment. I would normally agree with double jeopardy. However if subsequent to the acquittal some strong evidence was discovered to prove the crime of rape then I believe a court has a right to bring about trial.

Nothing should be victim blaming I agree especially the last point.

I would also mention that even penetration for a split second,or just once against the person's will constitutes rape. The courts could determine the severity of this.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

"Rape Shield Laws" at the state and federal levels are supposed to disallow defenses based on the woman's clothing or past sexual history.

In a rape case (not this one of a minor), if they both agree that sex happened, but he says it was with her consent and she says it was not, what other evidence is typically used to decided a rape case? Is behaviour past and present not a factor in trying to determine if there was consent here? Can his past rapes of other women be brought up? Can his general disrespect towards women be brought up? If so, why can't her past behaviour of consenting to sex frequently be brought up too? And what of the reverse? Can she bring up the opposite; that she was a virgin etc so was unlikely to consent?

Or given so little evidence one way or the other, should we just err on the side of the accused and dismiss the case before it comes to these sorts of arguments?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

"Rape Shield Laws" at the state and federal levels are supposed to disallow defenses based on the woman's clothing or past sexual history.

In a rape case (not this one of a minor), if they both agree that sex happened, but he says it was with her consent and she says it was not, what other evidence is typically used to decided a rape case? Is behaviour past and present not a factor in trying to determine if there was consent here? Can his past rapes of other women be brought up? Can his general disrespect towards women be brought up? If so, why can't her past behaviour of consenting to sex frequently be brought up too? And what of the reverse? Can she bring up the opposite; that she was a virgin etc so was unlikely to consent?

Or given so little evidence one way or the other, should we just err on the side of the accused and dismiss the case before it comes to these sorts of arguments?

Well, I doubt you can bring up any past rapes he's committed. I forget what the legal term is, but there's some rule against bringing up somebody's past crimes in a case because it unfairly prejudices the jury against that person. It doesn't matter how many women he's raped, since the case would be about whether or not there's enough evidence that he raped this woman. Rape shield laws would be similar protections for the accuser, since it doesn't matter how many men she consented to previously, it only matters if she can present enough evidence that she didn't consent to this guy.

Now, there are ways around both of these. As RavenSky said, rape shield laws aren't always enforced and the accusation seems to be effective enough that defense tries to get away with it when they can. Also, I think there's some thing where if you can show that a crime is part of a pattern of behavior, you can introduce previous crimes in the trial. All in all, though, neither party's history should be included.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I would like to add a comment. I would normally agree with double jeopardy. However if subsequent to the acquittal some strong evidence was discovered to prove the crime of rape then I believe a court has a right to bring about trial.

Disagree. The government has effectively bottomless pockets, they could simply wear someone down with trial after trial.

The only case where I favor allowing another trial is when the defendant or their allies are found to have done something to influence the outcome of the original, at which point the original should be vacated and a new trial held.

(Thus the witness doesn't show up at the mobster's trial and he walks. His underling is convicted of scaring the witness out of testifying, the government gets another bite at the mobster.)

 

[Malintent]

As you point out, it is still victim blaming.

- - - Updated - - -

Ya, I agree. It's pretty damn bad.

Now, that doesn't mean that it's not therefore a valid part of a legal defense.

Thank you. This is my point.

If ya'll go around yelling "Victim Blaming"! for every single case the accused does not plea guilty, then the times you yell "Victim Blaming" at the spectators that say "she asked for it" will have exactly zero impact because of all the background noise of yelling it at every.single.rape.trial.

You continue to babble this straw man. Not every defense for rape is victim blaming.

As Tom said, "not every defense for rape is victim blaming". Further, I need to slightly correct Tom's earlier comment

Now, that doesn't mean that it's not therefore a valid part of a legal defense. If one is trying to make the case that the sex was consensual and they feel that this argument would influence the jury enough to plant reasonable doubt about whether or not there was consent, it's fine to use it.

Victim-blaming it not actually a "valid" part of a legal defense in most states and countries, nor is it "fine" to use it. Victim-blaming has, historically, been very commonly used, and very effectively used, but it is more and more recognized as inappropriate and disallowed. In the U.S. (as in Canada and the UK) "Rape Shield Laws" at the state and federal levels are supposed to disallow defenses based on the woman's clothing or past sexual history. Unfortunately, these protections are only as good as the prosecutor and judge at those trials. Case in point:

Highlighting examples where women had been subjected to this form of questioning, she said: "Ivy, a rape victim, was told at a ground rules hearing that her sexual history would not be used. But at court she faced questions and allegations that she was promiscuous - there was no judicial intervention.

"Emma was followed by a stranger who attacked and tried to rape her. Her screams were met with the threat of, 'stop or be killed'. "Fortunately two off-duty police officers heard her screams,” she said, but added: "The trial fixated on why Emma chose to wear a red dress on that summer's evening."

Specific to the case in the OP:

In many states, statutes provide that a female under a certain age is incapable of consenting to an act of sexual intercourse[xi]. The consent of a woman below the statutory age limit is not a defense in a prosecution for rape because it is considered irrelevant. However, if the offender was under the belief that the female was capable of giving consent, then it would amount to a valid defense.

In this case, there is no reasonable or believable way for the rapist to claim he thought a 4-year-old was old enough to consent. As such, no amount of trying to claim that she initiated the sex act can be considered a defense of his rape, and any/all of his claims are victim-blaming. Period.

I simply do not understand why this specific thread is even continuing because it is so very much a clear cut example of victim blaming... but I think the fact we have several people twisting themselves into pretzels trying to make it not victim-blaming was exactly the point the OP was making.

Here is a valid defense to rape that is not victim-blaming:

Impotency can be considered as a good defense in a criminal prosecution for rape. Where a person is charged with the crime of rape, evidence of his physical capacity to accomplish the act is admissible as a defense.

and another

Double jeopardy is a defense to the crime of rape. A conviction of an attempt to commit rape, or a conviction or acquittal of an assault with intent to commit rape, will be a bar to a subsequent prosecution for rape.

https://rape.uslegal.com/trial/defenses/

There is also:

Someone else committed the crime

The rapist enters an insanity plea because "the accused is mentally ill and did not have the capacity to control his behavior, to form criminal intent, or to understand what he was doing or that his actions were unlawful."

None of these are victim-blaming, which refutes the claim that "every single case the accused does not plea guilty" is or is claimed to be viewed as "victim-blaming". Horseshit.

But saying that a 4-year-old initiated the sex act IS victim-blaming, and it is really really appalling that some people here can't understand that.

as has been acknowledged by yourself, and others, "wasn't me" is a valid defense, and that defense "blames the victim" for getting the identity wrong.

so, yes, every rape trial that starts with a not-guilty plea is victim blaming. If the person is innocent, then it is the (so-called) victim that is to blame for the accusation of guilt in the first place.

Every victim of rape is victim blamed, either directly (what is important to call out for the sexism it is), or indirectly (what I am saying shouldn't be labeled that).

 

[laughing dog]

as has been acknowledged by yourself, and others, "wasn't me" is a valid defense, and that defense "blames the victim" for getting the identity wrong.

so, yes, every rape trial that starts with a not-guilty plea is victim blaming. If the person is innocent, then it is the (so-called) victim that is to blame for the accusation of guilt in the first place.

Every victim of rape is victim blamed, either directly (what is important to call out for the sexism it is), or indirectly (what I am saying shouldn't be labeled that).

"I an insane and I didn't know what I was doing" cannot be reasonably construed as victim-blaming. "I thought she meant yes when she NO WAY" cannot be reasonably construed as victim-blaming. It is ridiculous to claim that every rape trial that starts with a not-guilty plea is victim blaming.

 

[KeepTalking]

As you point out, it is still victim blaming.

- - - Updated - - -

Ya, I agree. It's pretty damn bad.

Now, that doesn't mean that it's not therefore a valid part of a legal defense.

Thank you. This is my point.

If ya'll go around yelling "Victim Blaming"! for every single case the accused does not plea guilty, then the times you yell "Victim Blaming" at the spectators that say "she asked for it" will have exactly zero impact because of all the background noise of yelling it at every.single.rape.trial.

You continue to babble this straw man. Not every defense for rape is victim blaming.

As Tom said, "not every defense for rape is victim blaming". Further, I need to slightly correct Tom's earlier comment

Now, that doesn't mean that it's not therefore a valid part of a legal defense. If one is trying to make the case that the sex was consensual and they feel that this argument would influence the jury enough to plant reasonable doubt about whether or not there was consent, it's fine to use it.

Victim-blaming it not actually a "valid" part of a legal defense in most states and countries, nor is it "fine" to use it. Victim-blaming has, historically, been very commonly used, and very effectively used, but it is more and more recognized as inappropriate and disallowed. In the U.S. (as in Canada and the UK) "Rape Shield Laws" at the state and federal levels are supposed to disallow defenses based on the woman's clothing or past sexual history. Unfortunately, these protections are only as good as the prosecutor and judge at those trials. Case in point:

Highlighting examples where women had been subjected to this form of questioning, she said: "Ivy, a rape victim, was told at a ground rules hearing that her sexual history would not be used. But at court she faced questions and allegations that she was promiscuous - there was no judicial intervention.

"Emma was followed by a stranger who attacked and tried to rape her. Her screams were met with the threat of, 'stop or be killed'. "Fortunately two off-duty police officers heard her screams,” she said, but added: "The trial fixated on why Emma chose to wear a red dress on that summer's evening."

Specific to the case in the OP:

In many states, statutes provide that a female under a certain age is incapable of consenting to an act of sexual intercourse[xi]. The consent of a woman below the statutory age limit is not a defense in a prosecution for rape because it is considered irrelevant. However, if the offender was under the belief that the female was capable of giving consent, then it would amount to a valid defense.

In this case, there is no reasonable or believable way for the rapist to claim he thought a 4-year-old was old enough to consent. As such, no amount of trying to claim that she initiated the sex act can be considered a defense of his rape, and any/all of his claims are victim-blaming. Period.

I simply do not understand why this specific thread is even continuing because it is so very much a clear cut example of victim blaming... but I think the fact we have several people twisting themselves into pretzels trying to make it not victim-blaming was exactly the point the OP was making.

Here is a valid defense to rape that is not victim-blaming:

Impotency can be considered as a good defense in a criminal prosecution for rape. Where a person is charged with the crime of rape, evidence of his physical capacity to accomplish the act is admissible as a defense.

and another

Double jeopardy is a defense to the crime of rape. A conviction of an attempt to commit rape, or a conviction or acquittal of an assault with intent to commit rape, will be a bar to a subsequent prosecution for rape.

https://rape.uslegal.com/trial/defenses/

There is also:

Someone else committed the crime

The rapist enters an insanity plea because "the accused is mentally ill and did not have the capacity to control his behavior, to form criminal intent, or to understand what he was doing or that his actions were unlawful."

None of these are victim-blaming, which refutes the claim that "every single case the accused does not plea guilty" is or is claimed to be viewed as "victim-blaming". Horseshit.

But saying that a 4-year-old initiated the sex act IS victim-blaming, and it is really really appalling that some people here can't understand that.

as has been acknowledged by yourself, and others, "wasn't me" is a valid defense, and that defense "blames the victim" for getting the identity wrong.

That is not victim blaming. Getting the identity of your rapist wrong does not impart any of the blame for the actual rape upon the victim.

 

[Malintent]

I agree... my whole point in participating in this thread is to point out how extremely overused the term has been... to the point of complete loss of utility. My post was illustrative of the slippery slope other poster's usage has become.

 

[laughing dog]

I agree... my whole point in participating in this thread is to point out how extremely overused the term has been... to the point of complete loss of utility. My post was illustrative of the slippery slope other poster's usage has become.

Whether this was your intent or not, your +osts were much better examples of the effort that rape apologists use to minimize the responsibility of rapists for their actions.

 

[Malintent]

I agree... my whole point in participating in this thread is to point out how extremely overused the term has been... to the point of complete loss of utility. My post was illustrative of the slippery slope other poster's usage has become.

Whether this was your intent or not, your +osts were much better examples of the effort that rape apologists use to minimize the responsibility of rapists for their actions.

That makes sense, since those are the people that benefit from a weakening of that SJW war cry. That you see a connection further bolsters my point. It was not intentional, but true... so, there's that.

 

[RavenSky]

I agree... my whole point in participating in this thread is to point out how extremely overused the term has been... to the point of complete loss of utility. My post was illustrative of the slippery slope other poster's usage has become.

Whether this was your intent or not, your posts were much better examples of the effort that rape apologists use to minimize the responsibility of rapists for their actions.

Exactly.

 

[Malintent]

Whether this was your intent or not, your posts were much better examples of the effort that rape apologists use to minimize the responsibility of rapists for their actions.

Exactly.

Excellent... I am glad you see the point now. Stop feeding them continued examples of inappropriately placed outrage.. keep focused. The focus being on social apologetics... not on the defendant's limited legal options - as how the term was misused in this case.

 

[laughing dog]

Exactly.

Excellent... I am glad you see the point now. Stop feeding them continued examples of inappropriately placed outrage.. keep focused. The focus being on social apologetics... not on the defendant's limited legal options - as how the term was misused in this case.

The term was not misused in this situation. But feel free to continue to inadvertently help rape apologists minimize their responsiblities.

 

[Underseer]

https://mobile.twitter.com/KFoleyFL...st-journalist-who-called-rape-victims-whores/

Another brave meninist standing up to the persecution of feminazis.

He's not saying it's women's fault, he's just saying that women who get raped are whores.

By the way, the White House is promoting this guy as a legitimate journalist.

 

[RavenSky]

By the way, the White House is promoting this guy as a legitimate journalist.

You mean alt-journalist for an alt-president. Nothing legitimate about any of them

 

[NightSky]

By the way, the White House is promoting this guy as a legitimate journalist.

I have never seen such hatred for women in a journalist - this is legitimately concerning. I am afraid of thought processes like these becoming mainstream, especially with Red Pill movement and MGTOW no longer being as much on the fringes as I'd like and now White House promoting men like these as some type of legitimate journalist.

Peace.