JMU Punishes Sexual Assault With Expulsion -- After Graduation

[laughing dog]

The strange man in the nightclub who shoved his hand under my skirt and grabbed my crotch trying to finger my vagina while I was standing against a wall minding my own business did, in fact, sexually assault me. He was thrown out of the club and his membership was revoked (which meant he was banned from the most popular club in the city forever, similar to a university expulsion). Is it your position that this man should have also been criminally prosecuted and put in prison for a few years? I think not.

If it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he did that, and that he did it knowing or reasonably ought to have been knowing, that you didnt invite it, then yes, he should have been criminally sanctioned.

Suppose it could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Some argue that means that club should not take action. Do you agree?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The video "supposedly" depicts these clowns pulling off the woman's bathing suit top at a beach party. They then shared the video with other students.

In other words, a "prank" that doesn't sound like it rises to e level of criminal prosecution, but is clearly in violation of normal university behavior policies. Even if you want to dismiss the removing of her bathing suit top (???), the fact alone that they shared the video of her humiliation should be enough to take disciplinary action that does not include forcing the woman to withdraw from the university because they've allowed the men to remain.

Sorry, but forcefully removing someone's top is a crime. If that's really what it shows then this would be handled by the police.

However, I have seen pool (I've never lived near a beach) horseplay involving mutual attempts to remove bathing suits. Could this video simply be showing her as the loser of such a game?

Unfortunately, you and Derec seem to have the attitude that - in the cases of sexual misconduct only - unless the offense meets the standard for criminal prosecution, the universities should not be allowed to enact any disciplinary action at all.

Yes, we are saying the school has no business pretending it's a criminal justice system with lower standards than the real criminal justice system. The school's justice system should be limited to academic matters.

As for that other video--I'm only saying it's not proof because they did play rape fantasy games apparently without a safeword. How can the camera tell real rape from rape fantasy?

Even the husband testified that she said "no". I don't care how many scenarios you concoct to attempt to excuse his rape of her, there is no genuinely consensual BSDM relationship in the world wherein the dominant partner makes that sort of "mistake", and if s/he does, it is rape. For you to keep insisting otherwise indicates that it is you who really does not understand the dynamics of BSDM.

And what you don't seem to get is that her saying "no" in a rape fantasy situation doesn't prove it's not just a fantasy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Even the husband testified that she said "no". I don't care how many scenarios you concoct to attempt to excuse his rape of her, there is no genuinely consensual BSDM relationship in the world wherein the dominant partner makes that sort of "mistake", and if s/he does, it is rape. For you to keep insisting otherwise indicates that it is you who really does not understand the dynamics of BSDM.

I'd argue he doesn't understand rape. It appears he thinks that rape requires the intent to rape because the defense he is offering ("How was he to know she meant no") makes no sense without that presumption.

Yes, this is exactly the issue. Rape requires intent. If he reasonably believes he has consent he has not committed rape no matter what she says. (Note, however, that a third party that tricked him into thinking he had consent might be guilty of rape despite not being there.)

 

[RavenSky]

The strange man in the nightclub who shoved his hand under my skirt and grabbed my crotch trying to finger my vagina while I was standing against a wall minding my own business did, in fact, sexually assault me. He was thrown out of the club and his membership was revoked (which meant he was banned from the most popular club in the city forever, similar to a university expulsion). Is it your position that this man should have also been criminally prosecuted and put in prison for a few years? I think not.

If it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he did that, and that he did it knowing or reasonably ought to have been knowing, that you didnt invite it, then yes, he should have been criminally sanctioned.

I am surprised you disagree.

Given how nearly impossible it is to get a rape conviction, do you think that the DA would actually prosecute a man for groping? The point remains, however, that lack of criminal prosecution does not, in any way, mean that the sexual assault should not be addressed by other means. In my case, my boss threw the assailant out of the club and revoked his membership. In the case of the bikini girl, the 3 males were expelled - though it should have been an immediate expulsion.

 

[RavenSky]

Sorry, but forcefully removing someone's top is a crime. If that's really what it shows then this would be handled by the police.

suuuurrrreeeee... in some perfect world, maybe. Police and prosecutors routinely decline out and out violent rape cases if they don't think they can easily obtain a conviction. There is simply no way they will be clogging the court system with criminal prosecutions fro groping. And if they did, can you imagine the howls of protest from those who already have hissy fits when the assailant just gets expelled from college?

However, I have seen pool (I've never lived near a beach) horseplay involving mutual attempts to remove bathing suits. Could this video simply be showing her as the loser of such a game?

Unfortunately, you and Derec seem to have the attitude that - in the cases of sexual misconduct only - unless the offense meets the standard for criminal prosecution, the universities should not be allowed to enact any disciplinary action at all.

Yes, we are saying the school has no business pretending it's a criminal justice system with lower standards than the real criminal justice system. The school's justice system should be limited to academic matters.

And the rest of us live in the real world wherein the universities have every right to have a code of conduct that differs from criminal law.

As for that other video--I'm only saying it's not proof because they did play rape fantasy games apparently without a safeword. How can the camera tell real rape from rape fantasy?

Even the husband testified that she said "no". I don't care how many scenarios you concoct to attempt to excuse his rape of her, there is no genuinely consensual BSDM relationship in the world wherein the dominant partner makes that sort of "mistake", and if s/he does, it is rape. For you to keep insisting otherwise indicates that it is you who really does not understand the dynamics of BSDM.

And what you don't seem to get is that her saying "no" in a rape fantasy situation doesn't prove it's not just a fantasy.

Oh I get what you are saying perfectly clearly. You are saying that the woman must be a lying liar who lies because you can imagine some sort of contorted, unsupported by any facts, fantasy wherein maybe (but not really) is was all just a big mistake. Here's the real fact you continue to ignore, if you MISTAKENLY have sex with someone without their consent, it is RAPE

 

[RavenSky]

Even the husband testified that she said "no". I don't care how many scenarios you concoct to attempt to excuse his rape of her, there is no genuinely consensual BSDM relationship in the world wherein the dominant partner makes that sort of "mistake", and if s/he does, it is rape. For you to keep insisting otherwise indicates that it is you who really does not understand the dynamics of BSDM.

I'd argue he doesn't understand rape. It appears he thinks that rape requires the intent to rape because the defense he is offering ("How was he to know she meant no") makes no sense without that presumption.

Yes, this is exactly the issue. Rape requires intent. If he reasonably believes he has consent he has not committed rape no matter what she says. (Note, however, that a third party that tricked him into thinking he had consent might be guilty of rape despite not being there.)

No rape does not require "intent". It requires "lack of consent". From the FBI: : “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

 

[Toni]

Even the husband testified that she said "no". I don't care how many scenarios you concoct to attempt to excuse his rape of her, there is no genuinely consensual BSDM relationship in the world wherein the dominant partner makes that sort of "mistake", and if s/he does, it is rape. For you to keep insisting otherwise indicates that it is you who really does not understand the dynamics of BSDM.

I'd argue he doesn't understand rape. It appears he thinks that rape requires the intent to rape because the defense he is offering ("How was he to know she meant no") makes no sense without that presumption.

Yes, this is exactly the issue. Rape requires intent. If he reasonably believes he has consent he has not committed rape no matter what she says. (Note, however, that a third party that tricked him into thinking he had consent might be guilty of rape despite not being there.)

You are wrong. Consent is required for it NOT to be rape. A mistake on the part of the rapist does NOT mean that it is not rape.

If you are told that behind that door is a woman (or man) who is tied and gagged and waiting for you to come in and have your way with her or him--and you do; but it turns out that in fact the person tied up was kidnapped And tied and gagged: they just got raped.

 

[+or-1]

Yes, this is exactly the issue. Rape requires intent. If he reasonably believes he has consent he has not committed rape no matter what she says. (Note, however, that a third party that tricked him into thinking he had consent might be guilty of rape despite not being there.)

I really don't understand how it's even possible to believe that. It doesn't matter what one believes, if the victim hasn't consented then the victim has been raped. If the rapist can prove their allegation then one might reasonably consider the mitigating circumstances regarding punishment (not that I would) but this person is, in fact, a rapist regardless of intent.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes, this is exactly the issue. Rape requires intent. If he reasonably believes he has consent he has not committed rape no matter what she says.

Without consent, it is rape. It really is tha simple. I am astonished that anyone would make such a claim in this day and age. No wonder the extent of the rape culture is not shrinking as fast as it ought to.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, this is exactly the issue. Rape requires intent. If he reasonably believes he has consent he has not committed rape no matter what she says. (Note, however, that a third party that tricked him into thinking he had consent might be guilty of rape despite not being there.)

No rape does not require "intent". It requires "lack of consent". From the FBI: : “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

Anything other than a strict liability offense requires intent.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, this is exactly the issue. Rape requires intent. If he reasonably believes he has consent he has not committed rape no matter what she says. (Note, however, that a third party that tricked him into thinking he had consent might be guilty of rape despite not being there.)

You are wrong. Consent is required for it NOT to be rape. A mistake on the part of the rapist does NOT mean that it is not rape.

If you are told that behind that door is a woman (or man) who is tied and gagged and waiting for you to come in and have your way with her or him--and you do; but it turns out that in fact the person tied up was kidnapped And tied and gagged: they just got raped.

Yes, they got raped. However, if you have a reasonable belief that the situation is true you aren't guilty of raping them. The person who deceived you probably is, though.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, this is exactly the issue. Rape requires intent. If he reasonably believes he has consent he has not committed rape no matter what she says.

Without consent, it is rape. It really is tha simple. I am astonished that anyone would make such a claim in this day and age. No wonder the extent of the rape culture is not shrinking as fast as it ought to.

And I'm astonished at how many people on here don't understand that most all crimes require intent.

 

[RavenSky]

Yes, this is exactly the issue. Rape requires intent. If he reasonably believes he has consent he has not committed rape no matter what she says. (Note, however, that a third party that tricked him into thinking he had consent might be guilty of rape despite not being there.)

No rape does not require "intent". It requires "lack of consent". From the FBI: : “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

Anything other than a strict liability offense requires intent.

So you are suggesting it is possible to accidentally fuck someone without their consent?

 

[Toni]

Yes, this is exactly the issue. Rape requires intent. If he reasonably believes he has consent he has not committed rape no matter what she says.

Without consent, it is rape. It really is tha simple. I am astonished that anyone would make such a claim in this day and age. No wonder the extent of the rape culture is not shrinking as fast as it ought to.

And I'm astonished at how many people on here don't understand that most all crimes require intent.

People who misappropriate funds or other people's property often tell themselves that it isn't really stealing. They genuinely convince themselves that they deserve whatever they are taking. They steal cable or content or whatever and justify it as 'victimless' or the company must not care or they'd have better security. They don't intend to steal--just to take what they feel they deserve. Without permission.

Not much different than saying she must have wanted it if she dressed that way/drank that much/went to that party...

 

[laughing dog]

Yes, this is exactly the issue. Rape requires intent. If he reasonably believes he has consent he has not committed rape no matter what she says.

Without consent, it is rape. It really is tha simple. I am astonished that anyone would make such a claim in this day and age. No wonder the extent of the rape culture is not shrinking as fast as it ought to.

And I'm astonished at how many people on here don't understand that most all crimes require intent.

First, your claim that most crimes require intent is truly debatable. You might wish to brush up on the difference between "general intent" and "specific intent" crimes. Second, your claim is non-responsive because rape occurs when the victim does not give consent. Perhaps you could try and substantiate your claim that rape requires intent with an independent source.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Sorry, but forcefully removing someone's top is a crime. If that's really what it shows then this would be handled by the police.

However, I have seen pool (I've never lived near a beach) horseplay involving mutual attempts to remove bathing suits. Could this video simply be showing her as the loser of such a game?

Considering that groping of her breasts was involved and her being depicted as stating that it is not OK (addressing also the attempt at taking off her top), I am not sure how it could be interpreted as a "horseplay game" between one female and 3 males.

Ravensky in her reply to the above addressed your assumption that the victim of such forceful and non consensual interaction would not get anywhere if filing a complaint with law enforcement. It is a fact that Prosecutors are not going to pursue to charge anyone on such case. She is correct.

Unfortunately, you and Derec seem to have the attitude that - in the cases of sexual misconduct only - unless the offense meets the standard for criminal prosecution, the universities should not be allowed to enact any disciplinary action at all.

Yes, we are saying the school has no business pretending it's a criminal justice system with lower standards than the real criminal justice system.

The school's justice system should be limited to academic matters.

Whether it be throughout the US public education system or superior education in Colleges and Universities, Administrators are tasked with the RESPONSIBILITY to maintain an environment in each primary,middle and high school as well as College/University promoting the safety and well being of the student body by enforcing rules addressing a code of conduct. Your "should be limited to academic matters" would result in eliminating that responsibility and voiding the importance of rules addressing a code of conduct throughout the entire educational system while the student body would be left in unsafe environments.

Some of us here who are parents and have raised our children through their schooling are certainly aware of the importance of the above and would never consider that disciplinary interventions are to be limited to "academic matters" only.

As for that other video--I'm only saying it's not proof because they did play rape fantasy games apparently without a safeword. How can the camera tell real rape from rape fantasy?

Even the husband testified that she said "no". I don't care how many scenarios you concoct to attempt to excuse his rape of her, there is no genuinely consensual BSDM relationship in the world wherein the dominant partner makes that sort of "mistake", and if s/he does, it is rape. For you to keep insisting otherwise indicates that it is you who really does not understand the dynamics of BSDM.

And what you don't seem to get is that her saying "no" in a rape fantasy situation doesn't prove it's not just a fantasy.

Again and again, in that specific case, the dominant party did not take the precaution to insure that the non dominant party would remain ABLE to convey at any time, during the rape fantasy activities, "stop". Basically dismissing her right to communicate/convey her WILL to stop the said activities.Do not call it BDSM when that precaution is NOT met. Call it an assumption on the dominant party's part that consent previous to the onset of the activities is to be continuous while the non dominant party's right to be able to convey/communicate at ANY time her will to stop the said activities has been DISMISSED.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Yes, this is exactly the issue. Rape requires intent. If he reasonably believes he has consent he has not committed rape no matter what she says.

Without consent, it is rape. It really is tha simple. I am astonished that anyone would make such a claim in this day and age. No wonder the extent of the rape culture is not shrinking as fast as it ought to.

And I'm astonished at how many people on here don't understand that most all crimes require intent.

I am the one surprised here that you would expect that when it comes to sexual crimes involving juvenile and legal adult, intent is required. Also surprised that you would think that intent is required for pedophiles who engage in sexual intimacy with pre pubescent children when their claim is often cited that they view it as an "act of love". Equally surprised that you would think that intent is required to convict an individual engaging in sexual intimacy with a mentally disabled person. Equally surprised that speaking of intent, you keep dismissing the reality that as the dominant party he DISMISSED the non dominant party's right to discontinue the rape fantasy activities at ANY time as he did not apply the condition actual BDSM adepts will abide to, which is to insure that the non dominant party will remain able to convey/communicate at any time their WILL to stop the said activities.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, this is exactly the issue. Rape requires intent. If he reasonably believes he has consent he has not committed rape no matter what she says. (Note, however, that a third party that tricked him into thinking he had consent might be guilty of rape despite not being there.)

No rape does not require "intent". It requires "lack of consent". From the FBI: : “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

Anything other than a strict liability offense requires intent.

So you are suggesting it is possible to accidentally fuck someone without their consent?

It's possible to reasonably believe you have their consent.

- - - Updated - - -

People who misappropriate funds or other people's property often tell themselves that it isn't really stealing. They genuinely convince themselves that they deserve whatever they are taking. They steal cable or content or whatever and justify it as 'victimless' or the company must not care or they'd have better security. They don't intend to steal--just to take what they feel they deserve. Without permission.

Not much different than saying she must have wanted it if she dressed that way/drank that much/went to that party...

That's a totally different case--just because they think they deserve it doesn't mean they don't know it's not their money.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am the one surprised here that you would expect that when it comes to sexual crimes involving juvenile and legal adult, intent is required. Also surprised that you would think that intent is required for pedophiles who engage in sexual intimacy with pre pubescent children when their claim is often cited that they view it as an "act of love". Equally surprised that you would think that intent is required to convict an individual engaging in sexual intimacy with a mentally disabled person. Equally surprised that speaking of intent, you keep dismissing the reality that as the dominant party he DISMISSED the non dominant party's right to discontinue the rape fantasy activities at ANY time as he did not apply the condition actual BDSM adepts will abide to, which is to insure that the non dominant party will remain able to convey/communicate at any time their WILL to stop the said activities.

We aren't talking about juvenile/adult situations (which are strict liability in many states), but adult/adult situations.

And in this situation we are talking about a case where they were stupid and set up a situation where there was no means of communicating "STOP!" So long as his actions were consistent with their prior play I see no way he could know that he didn't have consent.

 

[laughing dog]

I am the one surprised here that you would expect that when it comes to sexual crimes involving juvenile and legal adult, intent is required. Also surprised that you would think that intent is required for pedophiles who engage in sexual intimacy with pre pubescent children when their claim is often cited that they view it as an "act of love". Equally surprised that you would think that intent is required to convict an individual engaging in sexual intimacy with a mentally disabled person. Equally surprised that speaking of intent, you keep dismissing the reality that as the dominant party he DISMISSED the non dominant party's right to discontinue the rape fantasy activities at ANY time as he did not apply the condition actual BDSM adepts will abide to, which is to insure that the non dominant party will remain able to convey/communicate at any time their WILL to stop the said activities.

We aren't talking about juvenile/adult situations (which are strict liability in many states), but adult/adult situations.

And in this situation we are talking about a case where they were stupid and set up a situation where there was no means of communicating "STOP!" So long as his actions were consistent with their prior play I see no way he could know that he didn't have consent.

You keep posting as if that is relevant: it isn't. His belief is not relevant. He did not have consent, so it is rape. Still waiting for you to come up with a citation that shows rape requires intent.