re: ULM Student Accused of Rape

the women on the OT have been conditioned to say things they know the OT hardlegs will agree with

you know this

quote:

---

Exactly. Yet, we're assuming that she did say no 20 times because she told someone else she said no approximately 20 times.

---

Maybe not 20, but I'd imagine it was at least 10. She didn't estimate it at 20 when she really only said it like 5 times.

quote:

---

that's reason enough right there...

---

quote:

---

Maybe not 20, but I'd imagine it was at least 10. She didn't estimate it at 20 when she really only said it like 5 times.

---

Its just as likely that she said it Zero times and imagined she said it 10 times then exaggerated it up to 20.

GT defends Weinstein

He doesn't believe in rape, apparently

Man.. honestly, sometimes stuff like this makes me think charges shouldn't be made public until the defendant is found guilty. If we truly believe in "innocent until proven guilty" (which I would hope we do as a society), what does society gain by trying the guy in the court of public opinion before his bond is even set?

That being said, since we are all clearly going to speculate anyhow...

It really seems like this entire discussion is kind of missing the point. I could be wrong, but it sounds like there is a feeling among many in this thread that this could be more of a "I really didn't want to have sex but did anyway" case rather than a "I was threatened and/or drugged by my assailant" case. But I think the charge gives a pretty cut-and-dry picture of how the police/DA view the situation.

If you look at §42, §42.1 (already posted previously I know), and §43 (first, second, and third degree rape) the differences are pretty clear. Some of the language:

quote:

---

§42 First degree rape
(1) ...victim resists the act to the utmost, but whose resistance is overcome by force.
(2) ...prevented from resisting the act by threats of great and immediate bodily harm...
(3) ...prevented from resisting the act because the offender is armed with a dangerous weapon.
(4) ...under the age of thirteen years...
(5) ...two or more offenders participated...
(6) ...prevented from resisting the act because the victim suffers from a physical or mental infirmity...

---

quote:

---

§42.1 Second degree rape
(1) ...prevented from resisting the act by force or threats of physical violence ... victim reasonably believes that such resistance would not prevent the rape.
(2) ...incapable of resisting or of understanding the nature of the act by reason of stupor or abnormal condition of the mind produced by a narcotic or anesthetic agent or other controlled dangerous substance administered by the offender and without the knowledge of the victim.

---

quote:

---

§43 Third degree rape
(1) ...incapable of resisting or of understanding ... reason of a stupor or abnormal condition of mind produced by an intoxicating agent ... and the offender knew or should have known of the victim's incapacity.
(2) ...through unsoundness of mind, is temporarily or permanently incapable of understanding ... and the offender knew or should have known of the victim's incapacity.
(3) ...submits under the belief that the person ... is someone known to the victim, other than the offender, and such belief is intentionally induced by any artifice, pretense, or concealment practiced by the offender.
(4) When the offender acts without the consent of the victim.

---

So based on the charge, it appears the authorities believe that she was either:
A) physically forced to comply
B) threatened with physical violence if she didn't comply, or
C) drugged by the offender without her knowledge.

That's pretty damning if you think about it. You'd think that if it were just regret, her being drunk, etc. they would have charged him with third degree rape instead. So for all of those saying "maybe she didn't leave because she trusted the guy.." etc., that type of situation is NOT what is reflected in the charge being filed.

Also for all of the back-and-forth argument about whether it's OK to ask the girl why she didn't leave: Does anyone here really believe that the police NEVER asked that question before filing second degree rape charges with the required conditions stated above? Also does anyone really believe that they never questioned the guy?

I'm a cynical dude, but that seems like a stretch. Not saying it's impossible - we are in Louisiana - but still. I understand the comments about the police only releasing their side of the story but isn't that kind of how it works for any of these types of press releases? The burden of proof is still on the prosecution, is it not? The guy will get his day in court - if he was wrongly accused hopefully he gets off. If not, let him hang.