Replies

Perhaps if she wanted him to stop, she could have told him explicitly to STOP!

This attempt at exploiting the semantics in such a situation is feeble. Am I to believe that if a murderer claims that his victim didn't say "stop" before he killed him, he 'only' said "you better get out of my house" that he would be innocent of his crime? Rape is a crime with a long history of people trying to 'blame' the victim.

Rape and murder are not the same-poor example. How do you factore into your little rape scenario the fact that this girl initially gave her permission and I'm assuming defrocked, layed beneath this boy, and likely even participated in MOST of the sexual intercourse or the women who actually said no without ambiguity and were ignored in the most violent of ways. IMO, those are mitigating circumstances and your idea(and the justices) that this is a rape is a slap in the face to women forced in back ally at knifepoint and forced to have intercourse. The fact you can equate the two is morally bankrupt.

This attempt at exploiting the semantics in such a situation is feeble. Am I to believe that if a murderer claims that his victim didn't say "stop" before he killed him, he 'only' said "you better get out of my house" that he would be innocent of his crime? Rape is a crime with a long history of people trying to 'blame' the victim.

Let me put it to you this way: how plausible is it that a girl who was engaged in sex without consent would, for 90 seconds, be able to come up with a more emphatic statement than "I should be going now", or "I need to go home"? Frankly I'd find her case much more compelling if she'd been trying to physically remove him but been unable to say anything.

Frankly, statements like she made could very reasonably be interpreted as "Hurry up, I haven't got all day". Since, presumably by the girl's own testimony, she failed to make any effort to correct such an apparent misunderstanding, I find it hard to believe that her real removal of consent wasn't retrospective.

It is not a question of exploiting semantics. It is a question of making a judgment based upon the known facts. You are basically just making up facts to suit your own purposes.

If the girl had been physically trying to push the guy off her (as you are sure she did), then why did she not so testify? If she did so testify, then why did the article not report it? The article says: "She testified the boy kept having sex with her for about a "minute and a half" after she called it off.

It is the Judge who says the girl never clearly said to STOP. There is no mention of any trial testimony that she said "STOP!" The apparently uncontroveted testimony of "calling it off" were her remarks about "needing to go home." This boy did not commit rape.

By the way, I consider rape a very serious crime. Someone very dear to me was the victim of a vicious assault. There is no punishment too severe for the scum who did that to her---and I mean that quite literally--- I would myself flip the switch or pull the trigger to kill that individual if given the chance. But sex is not rape. Changing one's mind in the middle of consensual sex is not the same as being pulled into a dark alley. Holding this young boy to the criminal standard of rape based on these facts is pathetic.