- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: DNA expert, NAACP weigh in on evidence in Maddison Brooks case
Posted on 7/28/23 at 7:44 am to jrobic4
Posted on 7/28/23 at 7:44 am to jrobic4
quote:
Put Slow Flow and Aggie Hank on the defense, and you get Louisiana's version of "Dream Team"...as in, they dream of defiling a deceased young girl's memories to protect animals.
Also=TrannyHank as Kardashian and SFP as Shapiro makes too much sense...A pedo and a bitter old Lib, sounds fitting
0
Posted on 7/28/23 at 7:44 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Don’t get me wrong, rape is always wrong. But the notion a woman is freed of all responsibility for her actions while intoxicated while males are just as responsible while intoxicated as sober is just wrong. Either men and women are equal or they’re not.
Exactly
Posted on 7/28/23 at 7:45 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Skin cells will still be left behind.
Inside of her? Is that not what the defense is saying? No DNA inside of her? They seem to ignore the DNA found externally
Posted on 7/28/23 at 7:46 am to pizota13
quote:
These low life scumbags. Ridiculous! This poor girls parents. Imagine reading this.....Unbelievable.
All this does is reiterate how I won't send my kids to LSU.
Posted on 7/28/23 at 7:47 am to jchamil
I see what SFP is saying. If the prosecution has to prove penetration and there's only DNA on the outside, it's another hurdle to clear. I'm sure they'll argue condoms + DNA on genitals + admission of sex, but that doesn't un-muddy the waters that this causes.
Posted on 7/28/23 at 7:47 am to SlowFlowPro
Well she’s dead now. But women can withdraw consent anytime they want.
Getting in a vehicle drunk is not consent to have sex with her.
Getting in a vehicle drunk is not consent to have sex with her.
Posted on 7/28/23 at 7:48 am to jchamil
quote:
Inside of her? Is that not what the defense is saying?
Yes. DNA of 1 was found outside of her genital area, which means that the "DNA collection was corrupted from the delay in collection" argument is sunk.
But, if you look at the statute, rape requires penetration.
Sexual battery would not.
quote:
A. Sexual battery is the intentional touching of the anus or genitals of the victim by the offender using any instrumentality or any part of the body of the offender, directly or through clothing, or the touching of the anus or genitals of the offender by the victim using any instrumentality or any part of the body of the victim, directly or through clothing, when any of the following occur:
(1) The offender acts without the consent of the victim.
(2) The victim has not yet attained fifteen years of age and is at least three years younger than the offender.
(3) The offender is seventeen years of age or older and any of the following exist:
(a) The act is without consent of the victim, and the victim is prevented from resisting the act because either of the following conditions exist:
quote:
(ii) The victim is incapable, through unsoundness of mind, of understanding the nature of the act, and the offender knew or should have known of the victim's incapacity.
Posted on 7/28/23 at 7:51 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Yes. DNA of 1 was found outside of her genital area, which means that the "DNA collection was corrupted from the delay in collection" argument is sunk.
But, if you look at the statute, rape requires penetration.
A condom couldn't have been used preventing DNA from being left inside?
I'm aware of the statutes.
Posted on 7/28/23 at 7:51 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'm talking about the litigation, not the incident. No "rule" is broken.
Your stated parameters were that discussions about what happened are for message boards…and a trial is about proof.. I’m simply saying you can’t have it both ways and argue you’re right every instance when you’ve set two set of rules. Just an observation of course
Posted on 7/28/23 at 7:53 am to jchamil
The one guy where the other victims came forward will still go to jail
The others will get far less time and likely plea deal this down
The others will get far less time and likely plea deal this down
Posted on 7/28/23 at 7:57 am to blueboxer1119
quote:
Well WBRZ is garbage, so par for the course.
From the article, the real victims are the blacks.
But if you remember when it first happened, all articles from WBRZ and other outlets all but convicted the males (without any proof at the time)
This is the media's game - get the public riled up, then play innocent to doing so. Then get the public riled up again.
Be careful using the media as a source when it comes to the topic of crime. They are almost always wrong.
Posted on 7/28/23 at 7:57 am to TROLA
quote:
Your stated parameters were that discussions about what happened are for message boards
And I'm not discussing that.
I'm discussing the litigation.
2 different things.
Posted on 7/28/23 at 7:58 am to TROLA
quote:
I’m simply saying you can’t have it both ways and argue you’re right every instance when you’ve set two set of rules
You nailed it..
Posted on 7/28/23 at 8:00 am to SixthAndBarone
quote:
No, I don’t think what happened to her is right, but I also think her actions led to the situation and she’s not blameless.
I don’t want to see the scumbags get off scot free, but I also don’t think they are 100% responsible for her death.
This is not an unreasonable position
Posted on 7/28/23 at 8:01 am to SixthAndBarone
quote:
A girl is getting physical with a guy and says she wants him and she agrees to sex. She initiated it and he agrees. By the law, the male just raped her.
But…what if the male is drunk? If she’s so drunk, she doesn’t know what consent means, then how can the drunk male comprehend that she’s too drunk for consent? Why isn’t the male too drunk to know what consent is? Why
The law puts 100% of the responsibility on the male and the woman has ZERO responsibility for her actions.
I think you’re making a lot of assumptions here. Most notably, that the law places all responsibility on the male. I don’t think there’s any basis for this in the actual law. The law does not differentiate between men and women.
If a woman has sex with a man who is too drunk to consent, that’s still rape by the letter of the law.
If both the man and woman are legitimately too drunk to consent, it raises the question of how they could have sex in the first place. Ultimately somebody has to be an active participant for sex to actually occur.
So using your imaginary scenario - a man and woman both completely shitfaced, woman initiates sex - if we assume these facts are known (meaning there is absolutely no doubt about how it went down), I would be shocked if the man were charged with rape.
I don’t think the letter of the law creates the problem you think it does. The problem is that the facts are not usually 100% clear, so it turns into her word against his. At the same time, though, that would be an extremely difficult case to prove and I’m not convinced there are a whole lot of false convictions happening because of BS rape allegations when both parties are drunk. From what I understand police/DAs are usually pretty conservative about even bringing charges in those types of cases without some clear proof.
The bigger issue for the man in that scenario is the public perception that comes with being accused of rape. But again, this is not an issue with the law itself. It’s an issue with being falsely accused by the woman.
Posted on 7/28/23 at 8:04 am to lostinbr
quote:
If both the man and woman are legitimately too drunk to consent, it raises the question of how they could have sex in the first place. Ultimately somebody has to be an active participant for sex to actually occur.
Never been to college I see
Posted on 7/28/23 at 8:04 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
And I'm not discussing that. I'm discussing the litigation. 2 different things.
You’re a smart guy but I’m laughing that you don’t or wont recognize the box you’ve set up. No big deal…
Posted on 7/28/23 at 8:05 am to pizota13
"Leaking" to the media is unprofessional and seems clearly intended to taint the jury pool in favor of the defendants.
Like all of these cases, we should wait until all the evidence is presented before coming to a conclusion. Also, the demand from the NAACP that the charges be dropped seems to be an attempt to use the media to make this case more about race than about facts.
Like all of these cases, we should wait until all the evidence is presented before coming to a conclusion. Also, the demand from the NAACP that the charges be dropped seems to be an attempt to use the media to make this case more about race than about facts.
Posted on 7/28/23 at 8:12 am to pizota13
So the NAACP is claiming the black guys are innocent?? Well color me shocked.
Posted on 7/28/23 at 8:13 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I graduated from law school with him. I didn't really know him (more on my end than his). I admire his dedication to the craft. Getting an MS in biology stuff to become a DNA expert is next level.
True dedication to his craft
While you were becoming a master of bate he became a master of science
Page 3 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News