- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Deputies arrest 4 in LSU student Madison Brooks case
Posted on 1/27/23 at 4:07 pm to JudgeHolden
Posted on 1/27/23 at 4:07 pm to JudgeHolden
quote:
True. But ignorance of her incapacity ("stupor or abnormal condition") is a defense to third degree rape.
No it’s not. The standard is knew or should have known. They don’t need actual knowledge of her incapacity. The question is should they have known of her incapacity.
This is irrelevant since they have admitted actual knowledge of her incapacity.
This post was edited on 1/27/23 at 4:13 pm
Posted on 1/27/23 at 4:11 pm to MMauler
quote:
And, just for the record, this did happen to me. I would take a polygraph on it.
First off, CSB.
Secondly, totally irrelevant "hypothetical."
But, in summation: you, a minor, met and went home with a 29 year old. Said 29 year old asked you to her house, drove you to her house and then had sex with you.
You're question is, did you rape her under modern laws? I don't see a DA in this universe bringing charges against a 17 year old in this scenario.
However, to draw the parallel to this case since I assume what you're trying to go with is that one of the perps is a minor, I don't think the fact that he is a minor and she isn't is relevant. I don't think who pursued and who was pursing initially is relevant. I DO think the veracity of the initial statements made by two of the people in the car is much more relevant.
Posted on 1/27/23 at 4:13 pm to Tvilletiger
quote:
I do think it will be interesting if the certain members of a future jury are put in this case.
Finally, someone sees how this case is going to play out.
And you can pretty much take it to the bank that “certain members“ will dominate this jury. Thanks to Batson and the public racial spectacle this case has already become, there's just no way around it.
This post was edited on 1/27/23 at 4:36 pm
Posted on 1/27/23 at 4:13 pm to JudgeHolden
quote:
But ignorance of her incapacity ("stupor or abnormal condition") is a defense to third degree rape.
Their statements completely contradict any claim they didn’t know she was incapacitated
There is also the “should have known” constructive knowledge portion of the statute
This post was edited on 1/27/23 at 4:14 pm
Posted on 1/27/23 at 4:14 pm to JAMAC2001
(no message)
This post was edited on 7/16/23 at 5:47 pm
Posted on 1/27/23 at 4:15 pm to LSUFAITHFUL
quote:
This is irrelevant since they have admitted actual knowledge of her incapacity.
They’ve admitted knowledge of her being drunk.
They have not admitted that she was in such a stupor or abnormal condition that she did not understand “the nature of the act.”
The testimony will likely shift to her exhibiting the more serious signs after the sex.
ETA: Absolutely right on should have known. That just leaves a lot of room for argument.
This post was edited on 1/27/23 at 4:18 pm
Posted on 1/27/23 at 4:16 pm to MMauler
quote:
Batson
Explain Batson to me.
Posted on 1/27/23 at 4:16 pm to JAMAC2001
And how about the sliminess of WAFB selectively editing the last half of that video from Reggie's yesterday. You can never convince me that wasn't an intentional editorial decision considering we got the full clip from WBRZ.
This post was edited on 1/27/23 at 4:17 pm
Posted on 1/27/23 at 4:18 pm to LSUFAITHFUL
quote:
No it’s not. The standard is knew or should have known.
But, it’s should a 17-year-old have known. What a 40 year old on this board knows or should know is different than what a 17-year-old knows or should know.
Posted on 1/27/23 at 4:19 pm to JudgeHolden
quote:319 BAC qualifies as a stupor or abnormal condition of mind, particularly when they admitted she was slumped over in the car prior to the rape
They’ve admitted knowledge of her being drunk. They have not admitted that she was in such a stupor or abnormal condition that she did not understand “the nature of the act.”
Not only that, but you’re skipping over the reasonable person standard. Constructive knowledge based on the admitted facts will sink them
Posted on 1/27/23 at 4:22 pm to Proximo
quote:
Proximo
I think you are probably right if the lab tests hold.
Posted on 1/27/23 at 4:22 pm to MMauler
quote:
But, it’s should a 17-year-old have known. What a 40 year old on this board knows or should know is different than what a 17-year-old knows or should know.
This is not correct: it’s a reasonable person, not a reasonable 17 year old rapist
Some relevant individual characteristics could possibly come into play. But it’s going to come down to reasonableness of that belief, and based on the admissions, I don’t see any reason for them to believe it was consensual, 17/18 or not
This post was edited on 1/27/23 at 4:36 pm
Posted on 1/27/23 at 4:35 pm to Wayne Campbell
quote:
However, to draw the parallel to this case since I assume what you're trying to go with is that one of the perps is a minor,
First, that wasn’t really my point. I could’ve easily have been 18 for the point of the story. However, I was actually 17 when it happened.
Under today’s laws, anyone (other than a teacher with a student) of any age can have sex with a 17-year-old in Louisiana. You can’t serve them a drink, but you can have sex with them.
There was a case a few years back where some guy brought two 17 year old girls back to his boat in Slidell. He had sex with him and took nude pictures of them as they willingly posed. There was nothing wrong with his having sex with them and he wasn’t charged with that. But he was charged with and went to Angola for producing underage pornographic material. Think about the absurdity of that.
Further, at the time these events to place, there was no law against having underage sex with a male of any age in Louisiana.
Getting back to my story -- my point was that the law as it stands is extremely hazardous. People have debated this on this board ad nauseam, Why is it that the girl is the only party this law applies to, especially when both of the parties are drunk. There are a mainstream Democrats out there who say that if a drunk girl says yes to sex one night but wakes up the next day and regrets having sex because she really didn’t want to, and she wouldn’t have had sex with that guy if she was sober, it doesn't matter if the guy was also drunk -- he's guilty of rape. I don’t buy it .
We don’t know if the 17-year-old was drunk or how drunk he was. As far as we know, he hasn’t given a statement. But let’s say he could have blown a .3. And let’s say that the tape reveals she seemed okay with having sex with a 17-year-old and knew what was going on. Is he still guilty of rape because she had a .32 BAC?
If you really want to read about one of the most egregious cases, look up the Amherst rape case.
This post was edited on 1/27/23 at 4:45 pm
Posted on 1/27/23 at 4:39 pm to Chad504boy
quote:
Casen didn't know Brooks before that night, why would he be bickering about her having a drinking problem? They were bickering reportedly over where to drop her off and kept changing etc.
No kidding. They’re saying he was aggravated bc she was so drunk & they were bickering over it & then she told them to let her out & she’d call an Uber.
We’ll find out the truth either way if it goes to trial.
Posted on 1/27/23 at 4:40 pm to MMauler
Still waiting on your explication of Batson, learned scholar.
Posted on 1/27/23 at 4:40 pm to LSUAngelHere1
quote:
We’ll find out the truth either way if it goes to trial.
We’ll find out what they claim is the truth
Posted on 1/27/23 at 4:43 pm to JudgeHolden
Do you really want to get into the intricacies of Batson?
Yeah, I’m not going play that game.
The practical result of Batson is that a prosecutor better have a damn good non-racial reason for using a peremptory on a minority. Technically, it should apply to both the prosecution and defense as it’s not really the right of a defendant to have black jurors on his jury, but it’s the right of the juror to actually serve on the jury. Of course, that’s more theory than reality.
Edmonson applied the same concept to civil jury trials. Having said that, it’s mainly applied to prosecutors in criminal trials.
I've never seen a case with respect to a white juror where defense counsel tries to get an all black jury, but I would love to see that case. It would seem that Batson and Edmonton should also be applied to white jurors who are excluded strictly because of their race.
Having said all of that, there are some cases where I think it’s malpractice not to take race as a major consideration in picking a jury. Certainly social economic upbringing also plays into it. However, if you’re were representing O.J. or Marion Barry in his D.C. crack case, you had better try to get the blackest jury you could possibly get. On the other hand, if you’re representing the cops who beat Rodney King, you better try to get the whitist lower-middle class jury you can possibly get.
Yeah, I’m not going play that game.
The practical result of Batson is that a prosecutor better have a damn good non-racial reason for using a peremptory on a minority. Technically, it should apply to both the prosecution and defense as it’s not really the right of a defendant to have black jurors on his jury, but it’s the right of the juror to actually serve on the jury. Of course, that’s more theory than reality.
Edmonson applied the same concept to civil jury trials. Having said that, it’s mainly applied to prosecutors in criminal trials.
I've never seen a case with respect to a white juror where defense counsel tries to get an all black jury, but I would love to see that case. It would seem that Batson and Edmonton should also be applied to white jurors who are excluded strictly because of their race.
Having said all of that, there are some cases where I think it’s malpractice not to take race as a major consideration in picking a jury. Certainly social economic upbringing also plays into it. However, if you’re were representing O.J. or Marion Barry in his D.C. crack case, you had better try to get the blackest jury you could possibly get. On the other hand, if you’re representing the cops who beat Rodney King, you better try to get the whitist lower-middle class jury you can possibly get.
This post was edited on 1/27/23 at 5:02 pm
Posted on 1/27/23 at 4:44 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
Going to a well established college bar? I don’t blame her for not knowing a twice charged rapist was on the dance floor at a college bar. This a chronic problem that LSU has ignored.
Reggie’s is a well established college bar? The frick it is. That place is a fricking dump and has had its doors closed multiple times yet somehow due to Louisiana politics keeps allowing to open back up.
How is this an LSU issue that they can resolve?
Posted on 1/27/23 at 4:44 pm to JudgeHolden
(no message)
This post was edited on 7/16/23 at 5:46 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News