Information has come to light, about a date rape case, in 2005, which was refused by the then Prosecutor, Ken Buck.

In discussing the case with the date rape victim, Mr Buck appeared to lay the blame squarely on the victim and told her directly that the case was not winnable and he thus, refused to take the case. Unbeknownst to him, the victim had legally taped their conversation. Unfortunately for him, the information has now been made public.

Some facts of the case... The victim alleged that her ex boyfriend had raped her while she was intoxicated. The alleged rapist admits to having had sex with her and sexually touching her in her home, even after she had said no and even though he knew she was drunk (as he reported to the police, that he recognised she was quite intoxicated and he had seen her like that before). Here is a part of the police incident report in questioning the alleged rapist:




http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/greeley.gif


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/12/ken-buck-refused-rape-victim-case-audio_n_758890.html


Here is what the police recommended at the time:


The report, however, suggests that the police did recommend charges. “I advised (the suspect) that I would be requesting a felony summons for sexual assault,” Detective Michael Zeller wrote in the report. The same information was given to the victim, who told the Colorado Independent last week that it was still her understanding the detective had wanted charges filed.

(Source) (http://coloradoindependent.com/63491/bucks-refusal-to-prosecute-2005-rape-case-reverberates-in-u-s-senate-race)


So where did this case go wrong? Reading through that, it looks fairly cut and dried. The alleged rapist even admits to having sex with her after she said no and even as she said no. He admitted to sexually assualting her, even after she said no.

So why refuse to take this case. To attempt to understand this utter disaster, we should take a look at what Mr Buck actually said to the victim when he questioned her about the assault.

The transcript of that conversation can be viewed here:

http://coloradoindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Ken-Buck-transcript.pdf

You can also listen to the actual taped conversation here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/12/ken-buck-refused-rape-victim-case-audio_n_758890.html

But lets have a quick look and break it down. Firstly, when he discusses why, in his mind, he does not think that this case is worthwhile. It seems Mr Buck has a bit of an issue with date rape. In his conversation with her, he virtually accuses her of inviting the assault and that because she had had sex with the man in the past (they had been in a relationship in the past), that it would be difficult for him to prove to a jury that she had not consented to sex. Keep in mind that the alleged perpetrator admitted that he knew she was drunk, that she had said no several times, and that he felt so bad about what he had done to her that he had told her he was sorry for what he had done and then admitted to feeling shame and regret about it.

At one point in the conversation, the victim confronts Mr Buck about what the perpetrator had said in the police report and asks him to explain to her how it was not rape. She challenges him about why he thinks their having been "bedfellows" in the past somehow means that she had consented, even though the perpetrator admitted that she had said no several times and had attempted to push him away. It seems that Mr Buck has issues with the fact that she had invited him into her home and also has issues with the fact that they had had sex before:


Victim: His statement says, “When he finished, … (reading police report)… tried to get the victim to wake the victim up so he could apologize.” How is that not “physically helpless, meaning unconscious, asleep, or unable to act” (legal code)

(139) KB: Because when you look at what happened earlier in the night, all the circumstances, based on his statements and some of your statements, indicate that you invited him to come to your apartment… that you told him how to get in …. It would appear to me and it appears to others that you invited him over to have sex with him. Whether that you, at that time, were conscious enough to say yes or no... ?

(147) V: So you’re telling me that previous sexual relations is enough to provide consent, and you’re telling me that because of me calling him and because of previous sexual relations and because I invited him up and told him how to get in, that invited him up for sex...

(153) KB: I’m telling you that’s what the circumstances suggest, to people,
including myself, who have looked at it. Although, you never said the word yes, but the appearance is of consent.



http://coloradoindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Ken-Buck-transcript.pdf



"Never said the word yes"? She said no, several times.. Anywho..

As someone who has been involved in countless rape and sexual assault cases, I quite literally facepalmed when I read this transcript. This is should have been cut and dried. Hell, a first year law student would have been able to get a conviction based on the man's confession. But this is not the end of it. There is more in that transcript that suggests that Mr Beck may have a personal view or belief about the victim and indicates something that, well, you'll have to see for yourself to believe.

After the victim challenged him about his flimsy reasons, which basically amounts to blaming the victim for her own rape, for refusing to prosecute the case, he then makes a comment about the victim and her past, which is troubling at best. Now, as has been mentioned, the victim had, in the past, been involved in a relationship with her alleged rapist. He then goes on to warn and threaten her in case she decides to pursue this further.


(255) KB: Be aware of something, if this, if you file this motion, it will be very public, publicly covered event. There are a lot of things that I have a knowledge of, that I would assume (name of possible suspect redacted) knows about and that they have to do with, perhaps, your motives for (unintelligible) and that is part of what our calculation has been in this.

V: I’m interested to hear more about that, my motives, for what this has been.

KB: You have, you have had HIS baby, and you had an abortion.

V: That’s false, that’s just false.

KB: Why don’t you clarify?

V: I did have a miscarriage; we had talked about an abortion. That was actually year and a half ago. So …

(268) KB: That would be something that you can cross-examine on, that would be “something that might be a motive for trying to get back at somebody.” And it would be a (unintelligible). And it’s part of what we have to take into account whether we can prove this case or not. And there are a lot of things that, um, you know, for as why weren’t not prosecuting the case. We’ve got to weigh all that, and it not something that I feel comfortable with, but something I have to be.

(274) V: I would be interested in you actually bringing that up with me, actually being honest with me as to why you’re not willing to take this case. Instead of dancing around, you know, what you’ve told me because if there are other things, I would be interested in hearing them...

KB: I don’t appreciate your inference that I’m not being honest with you. I’m taking the time to meet with you. I’ve had prosecutors review … I’m being absolutely honest when I say “Totally of circumstances, I don’t believe that we can prove this case.” That the …?

(280) V: So you’re looking at the fact that I had a miscarriage with his child, and what else? Give me more information, because I’m really interested in knowing the totality.

KB: That’s part of it. And part of it is, when you describe yourself as “bedfellows” and you did indicate that you were “bedfellows” and “it’s hard to
convince a Weld County jury that this wasn’t consensual, when that is your label. So there are those kinds of factors. This office doesn’t believe in (blaming the victim?) for the conduct of the case but, we do have to take into account what a weld county jury sees in the relationship. You had consumed a lot of alcohol. You had a prior relationship. According to him, you were naked from the top up when he came into the bedroom. So, there are enough indicators or (indications?) that in my opinion make this impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.




In other words, even though she had said no, that even the perpetrator admitted she had said no, that because she had had sex with the man in the past (they had not apparently spoken for a year before this incident), that because he, Mr Buck, believed the perpetrator about an alleged abortion that she denied having, the fact that she was very drunk and according to the perpetrator, semi-conscious and at times unconscious when he sexually assaulted her and then raped her... she was not raped.. Ermm yeah.. makes sense if you exist in some sick and twisted reality..

What is worse, Mr Buck advised that he had spent 2 hours reviewing the case and the police report (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/12/ken-buck-refused-rape-victim-case-audio_n_758890.html) before he decided that he would not take on the case.

Now, Mr Buck is against abortion, even in cases of rape and incest, something he has publically stated in the past, which makes this even more revolting, as he actually went on to accuse her of having had an abortion.. Over a year before.. Ermm what the hell?..

There was a temptation to start this in the Politics forum and I am sure Tiassa may end up moving it there regardless. But I wanted to discuss the ethics behind his reasons.

In 2006, Mr Buck described the case quite insultingly:


District Attorney Ken Buck told the woman he could not press charges against her attacker, despite the man's admission to police that she said no. Buck said he must only prosecute cases in which he has a reasonable chance of convicting someone, and this was not one of those cases.

"A jury could very well conclude that this is a case of buyer's remorse," Buck said.


http://www.greeleytribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060301/NEWS/103010095&parentprofile=&template=printart



Buyers remorse?

Even the perpetrator admitted that she had said no and had rolled away from him. And that he had continued to touch her and then sexually assault her before raping her. He admitted she was not fully conscious during the rape and he had to actually "get her more conscious" so that he could speak to her to apologise for what he had done. What buyer's remorse? He even went on to refer to the facts of this case as pitiful.

Mr Buck advised that he had sent the report and his assessment of it to others to try to assertain whether they agreed or not. He then advised that they agreed with his assessment to refuse to prosecute the case. However, the victim stated she also showed the case and the report to 3 other lawyers, all of whom could not understand why Buck had refused to prosecute:


The victim also says she showed the case to three different attorneys and was told by each that the case for conviction was much stronger than for acquittal. “None of them could understand why he wouldn’t file charges,” she said.

http://coloradoindependent.com/63491/bucks-refusal-to-prosecute-2005-rape-case-reverberates-in-u-s-senate-race


The article then goes on to say that Mr Buck seemed to have seen the light after this case and approached rape victim advocates for advice. All well and good, but it still does not excuse his behaviour towards this victim and his refusal to take on the case.

So when is "no", actually "no"? The perpetrator recognised she had said no and even apologised and said he felt ashamed and regretted what he did immediately afterwards, even to the point of trying to get her to regain consciousness to apologise.. The police, in their initial report, recommended that he be prosecuted for what he did and what he had admitted to in the incident report. Mr Buck, on the other hand, decided that it was not worth his time and then went on to accuse her of not only inviting her own rape and sexual assault, but then threatened her about going public and to make matters worse, accused her of having an abortion...

Should he, as a prosecutor, have allowed his own personal feelings to cloud his judgement? I'd say no.

But when is no, actually no? And do you think he should have prosecuted the case back in 2005? Was he ethical in refusing to take on the case?

I feel that it was unethical to refuse to prosecute and he should have taken on the case.

No Means No (http://www.clotheslineproject.org/No_Means_No.htm)

I feel that it was unethical to refuse to prosecute and he should have taken on the case.

No Means No (http://www.clotheslineproject.org/No_Means_No.htm)

Cases where the two parties involved, knew each other (sexually) and were intoxicated are hard to prosecute. Unless there was physical marks or death involved. Dont get intoxicated.

Motherfucker raped her. End of. Lock him up. No and rolling away means NO.

Jesus how much does it take to convince someone that NO really means NO and not 'I want you, but I'm playing hard to get?' Some of these sick fucks, you could stab them in the liver and they'd take that as 'She wants me'.

Cases where the two parties involved, knew each other (sexually) and were intoxicated are hard to prosecute. Unless there was physical marks or death involved. Dont get intoxicated.

So his confessing does not mean anything in this case?

That is the thing about this case. The individual confessed and said that she had said no. He advised that she was no conscious or fully conscious during the act.

Are you saying John, that even with all of that, in Buck's case, you would also refuse because there were no physical marks that we know of and she was not killed?

You say that this case involved two people who had had sex in the past. Are you aware that a husband can be found to rape his wife and vice versa? That once she says no, it is no? That having sex with someone who is so drunk that they are passed out = rape regardless?

I have to admit, what got me about this case, the killer for me, was when he accused her of having had an abortion and used it as a threat in case she did go public. That is inexcusable.

To me, that transcript and listening to that conversation, he acted more like the perpetrators attorney, instead of acting like the Prosecutor he was at the time. He was virtually defending him while accusing her of not only inviting her own rape, but also of having had an abortion over a year prior to the rape and that the abortion was the motive for her to have 'cried rape' or 'suffered from buyers remorse'.

I would hesitate to use the transcript to castigate the Prosecuter.
One of his jobs is to challenge the defendent, as the defense will do in court, to see how she responds, so things he challenges her with are very likely to be framed from the point of view of what he expects the defense would do.

As he said: "he must only prosecute cases in which he has a reasonable chance of convicting someone, and this was not one of those cases".

Meaning if you already have the hurdle of convicting beyond a reasonable doubt and you also apply to that the requirement of having a "reasonable chance of convicting", then a prosecuter isn't likely to bring any cases to trial unless he vets the victim to get a good idea of how they hold up under the pressure of uncomfortable questions and allegations of consent.

Apparently he wasn't convinced that this was one of those cases where he felt he had a reasonable chance of winning.

Certainly there are facts that suggest that might be the case (previous consenual sexual relationship, drunk defendent, self described "bedfellows" would all weigh against the ability to get all the jurors to accept "beyond a reasonable doubt")

But is that the criteria a prosecuter is supposed to meet?

Or, as I've heard (I've got zip experience with the Criminal Justice system) that the system is so overloaded and the schedules are so full that DAs cut deals as often as possible and really only take a tiny fraction of cases to trial, and this is just an example of what that equates to, that a good percent of victims will never get a chance to face the accused in court?

Arthur

i'm sure i'll get a rash of shit for this, but imo this woman's lack of sense and responsibility was contributory. what in the hell was she doing shitfaced drunk and alone in her home with her ex-boyfriend?

i had a situation like this happen to me about a decade ago. i was a 30 something year old woman with plenty of experience with alcohol and men. nobody forced those 12 or so beers down my throat and nobody forced their way into my house. by the time i realized what was happening it was too late.

it would have been very easy for me to play victim and put all the blame on the man, but i couldn't do that in good conscience.

i think they're equally at fault.

So his confessing does not mean anything in this case?

That is the thing about this case. The individual confessed and said that she had said no. He advised that she was no conscious or fully conscious during the act.

Bell, being intoxicated is where things get shady. Compounded by the fact that they were lovers, the combination of the two will put doubt into the minds of any jury. The main one being where the victim is unconscious from being intoxicated. The problem is: you get intoxicated then invite your ex lover home who you had some bitterness towards, perhaps resentment and the jury begins to question what is really going on here.


Are you saying John, that even with all of that, in Buck's case, you would also refuse because there were no physical marks that we know of and she was not killed?

No. Rape is a very serious matter. My own feeling is severe punishment for rapists but this case is not as serious (or really circumstances are different) as your average rape case and for violent rape i advocate no release from prison.


Are you aware that a husband can be found to rape his wife and vice versa? That once she says no, it is no? That having sex with someone who is so drunk that they are passed out = rape regardless?

Absolutely. Though we are talking about a case where the only witness was semi conscious or even unconscious at times. A case like this is very hard to prove. Unless the other person admits to the wrong doing then i say absolutely he was 100% wrong.

I would hesitate to use the transcript to castigate the Prosecuter.
One of his jobs is to challenge the defendent, as the defense will do in court, to see how she responds, so things he challenges her with are very likely to be framed from the point of view of what he expects the defense would do.


If that was the case, certainly. But the meeting was to inform her of his reasons for not prosecuting the case. The decision had been made before she entered that room. The meeting appears to be her wanting to speak to him to find out why.

So he was not challenging her as practice for when she faced the defense attorney in court. He challenged her and accused her as a reason for refusing to take on the case.


As he said: "he must only prosecute cases in which he has a reasonable chance of convicting someone, and this was not one of those cases".

Could very well be. But for one little thing.

The perpetrator confessed. He described in fairly explicit detail what happened and when she had said no. As per his statement, she said no and rolled over, away from him, when he first touched her sexually. A few moments later he resumed touching her and then proceeded to have sex with her, by which time she was semi-conscious and that she had regained consciousness after he climaxed inside her and again said no.

This is cut and dried rape. For several reasons..

She was highly intoxicated and semi-conscious (can't give consent if you're passed out), she had said no twice in the moments that she was not unconscious. He knew and understood that and apologised for what he had done to her immediately afterwards.


Meaning if you already have the hurdle of convicting beyond a reasonable doubt and you also apply to that the requirement of having a "reasonable chance of convicting", then a prosecuter isn't likely to bring any cases to trial unless he vets the victim to get a good idea of how they hold up under the pressure of uncomfortable questions and allegations of consent.

Ah, but that is the thing.

He used his own personal beliefs in saying that he did not think the jury would have convicted. In other words, he projected his own personal beliefs about sex and abortion upon the proposed jury pool and said that in his opinion and as far as he was concerned, they would not convict - in short, he disregarded the confession of the accused and based his refusal purely on his own personal beliefs about sex and abortion.

This was a slam dunk case. You have a confession from the accused, given to the police. There is no implied consent, quite the contrary, there is explicit non-consensual sex in that she said no, rolled over and away from him and she was not in a state to even be able to consent, even if she had not said no.


Apparently he wasn't convinced that this was one of those cases where he felt he had a reasonable chance of winning.

Certainly there are facts that suggest that might be the case (previous consenual sexual relationship, drunk defendent, self described "bedfellows" would all weigh against the ability to get all the jurors to accept "beyond a reasonable doubt")


Based on what?

Remember, this was not a Prosecutor priming the victim to appear on the witness stand. This was a meeting to discuss his reasons for refusing to prosecute.

So what did he base this on? His accusation that she had had an abortion? Which, I may say is completely irrelevant because she had admitted to having been in a relationship with the accused prior to this assault. So why mention the accusation of the accused that she had had an abortion, which she denies? Why then go on and accuse her of having had an abortion? Did he base it on the fact that she was overly drunk? - Does not make sense since that level of intoxication would amount to rape as she would have been unable to consent having not been fully conscious at the time and that drunk.. Did he base it on the fact that she invited him over? Again.. husbands have been found guilty of raping their wives, so this is really a moot point. He accused her of being semi naked in her room when the accused walked into the bedroom and she was half passed out on the bed... It was her bedroom. I am often naked in my bedroom, as I am sure the greater majority of people often are. Again, this does not imply consent. In fact, everything as stated by Buck and by the accused in his confession point towards rape and sexual assault.


ut is that the criteria a prosecuter is supposed to meet?
What do you think it should be or could have been?

You have a confession from the accused and explicit and detailed version of events, and his admitting that she said no twice and had physically rolled away from him.

Do you think that date rape is not rape?

Do you think that when a woman is semi-conscious to unconscious, that she is fair game for sex and it means she has consented?

What if she turns to you and says no? Does no not really mean no when a guy is about to have sex with a woman?

What other criteria should this case have met exactly?

We know that women are most often raped by men they know (spouse, relative, boyfriend, ex spouse/boyfriends, or just men they know in general). So your personal criteria that because she had sex with him in the past when they were in a relationship seems to indicate that it is not rape, amongst other things, is not a valid point in proving she was not raped.

I'll put it this way. Once she says no, then that is when it is meant to stop. If it continues after that point where she has said no, then it is rape. Pure and simple. Plus, if she is not conscious enough or coherent enough to consent, which she was not, then it is also rape. HIs having had sex with her a year before that night is irrelevant. He could have had sex with her 10 minutes before and it would still be rape. Do you know why?

1) She said no.

2) She was so drunk that she was semi-conscious to unconscious.


Or, as I've heard (I've got zip experience with the Criminal Justice system) that the system is so overloaded and the schedules are so full that DAs cut deals as often as possible and really only take a tiny fraction of cases to trial, and this is just an example of what that equates to, that a good percent of victims will never get a chance to face the accused in court?
Or it could be that he felt she somehow invited her own rape and that in his mind, it should not be prosecuted not only because of that, but because he believes the accused's accusation that she had had an abortion over a year prior to the rape occuring and he believes that is motivation for her "having buyers remorse".

This was interesting.

Sexual Assault: Prosecutorial Accounts of Case Rejection (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:3Hj_adPbSmsJ:blog.lib.umn.edu/jbs/maysession/DiscretionProsecutor.pdf+when+should+prosecutors+r eject+a+rape+case&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESig0hWf49GhcYYkPtPVtPTtAW7VfWPtzx0RPUt7 _g5JHQAc8Oy9xwUEekWbP-BAn8Iqj3OJLGwGUJm9kcen47LdfNLUQ5HhxFqLBz6BEqpsof70 iBfUs5qZNWHG5msqUIALhasf&sig=AHIEtbTK5Cl6bcqh5rl5Uuws9t_WRJsOmA)

This was interesting.

Sexual Assault: Prosecutorial Accounts of Case Rejection (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:3Hj_adPbSmsJ:blog.lib.umn.edu/jbs/maysession/DiscretionProsecutor.pdf+when+should+prosecutors+r eject+a+rape+case&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESig0hWf49GhcYYkPtPVtPTtAW7VfWPtzx0RPUt7 _g5JHQAc8Oy9xwUEekWbP-BAn8Iqj3OJLGwGUJm9kcen47LdfNLUQ5HhxFqLBz6BEqpsof70 iBfUs5qZNWHG5msqUIALhasf&sig=AHIEtbTK5Cl6bcqh5rl5Uuws9t_WRJsOmA)

and?

i'm sure i'll get a rash of shit for this, but imo this woman's lack of sense and responsibility was contributory. what in the hell was she doing shitfaced drunk and alone in her home with her ex-boyfriend?

i had a situation like this happen to me about a decade ago. i was a 30 something year old woman with plenty of experience with alcohol and men. nobody forced those 12 or so beers down my throat and nobody forced their way into my house. by the time i realized what was happening it was too late.

it would have been very easy for me to play victim and put all the blame on the man, but i couldn't do that in good conscience.

i think they're equally at fault.

It doesn't matter if she went out in nothing but a loincloth and blue Celtic markings on her tits. Choosing to rape someone is choosing to rape someone, and it is always, always a crime.

Bell, being intoxicated is where things get shady. Compounded by the fact that they were lovers, the combination of the two will put doubt into the minds of any jury. The main one being where the victim is unconscious from being intoxicated. The problem is: you get intoxicated then invite your ex lover home who you had some bitterness towards, perhaps resentment and the jury begins to question what is really going on here.



So, in your opinion, his confession means nothing because she was drunk at the time?

He admitted to raping her and then admitted he felt so bad about it immediately after, he tried to get her to regain consciousness to apologise to her for what he had done to her.

What part of that don't you quite grasp? What part of his admitting and confessing that she had said no and he did it to her anyway is a grey area to you John?


No. Rape is a very serious matter. My own feeling is severe punishment for rapists but this case is not as serious as your average rape case and for violent rape i advocate no release from prison.

So you don't think sticking a finger and then penis in a woman's vagina, against her explicit consent and when she is unconscious is a violent act?

If he'd slapped her around a bit first, that would qualify for you?


Absolutely. Though we are talking about a case where the only witness was semi conscious or even unconscious at times. A case like this is very hard to prove. Unless the other person admits to the wrong doing then i say absolutely he was 100% wrong.
Right.

She was unconscious and semi-conscious during the whole thing. He was sober and conscious enough to recognise that and he then sexually assaulted her and then raped her, after she had said no, while she was in that semi-conscious and unconscious state.

There is nothing to prove John. He confessed. Or did you miss that part?

He confessed to touching her vagina and he confessed that she said no and rolled over and away from him. He confessed that a few moments later he touched her vagina again and again penetrated her with his finger, before raping her with his penis and climaxing inside her. He confessed that she again said no when he climaxed. He confessed that he then realised what he had done and withdrew from her. He confessed that during the whole thing she was lapsing in and out of consciousness. He confessed that he then managed to revive her enough so that he could apologise to her.

So what exactly is there to prove here John?


i'm sure i'll get a rash of shit for this, but imo this woman's lack of sense and responsibility was contributory. what in the hell was she doing shitfaced drunk and alone in her home with her ex-boyfriend?

Oh, a rash of shit doesn't even come close to it Lori.

Tell me, where was his sense of responsibility when he jammed his finger into her vagina and she said no and then decided to do it again and then rape her when she was unconscious?


i had a situation like this happen to me about a decade ago. i was a 30 something year old woman with plenty of experience with alcohol and men. nobody forced those 12 or so beers down my throat and nobody forced their way into my house. by the time i realized what was happening it was too late.
So because you, it seems, were raped when you were 30 something, it gives you the right to blame her for her own rape, a rape that even the rapist confessed to and admitted to?

She's at fault because he decided to take advantage of her being drunk and not conscious half the time? She's at fault that she said no and turned her back on him and he then resumed to rape her after she'd lost consciousness?

What if she'd been drunk in a bar and he'd met her there and taken her outside and raped her against her explicit consent and while she was unconscious? Would she have also been at fault then?

Tell me Lori, when is a woman not to blame for her own rape?


it would have been very easy for me to play victim and put all the blame on the man, but i couldn't do that in good conscience.

So your sex was consentual? You'd said "no"? You'd tried to shove the man away and he ignored you and kept on going?

You're telling me that if you'd said no and tried to push him away and then lost consciousness, it is still your fault because you were drunk in your own home with a man you'd been involved with and thought you knew him enough to trust him to be in your house with you while you were that drunk? Tell me Lori, I take it you are never drunk in the presence of your husband? What about male relatives and friends?

Bell, we are getting one side here. I cant say from sitting reading (without interviewing the people involved) exactly what transpired. I cannot prosecute people from 9 thousand miles away if you do that then this is not fair justice.

It doesn't matter if she went out in nothing but a loincloth and blue Celtic markings on her tits. Choosing to rape someone is choosing to rape someone, and it is always, always a crime.

i don't think this had anything to do with what she was wearing. i'm not condoning what the man did at all. i'm just saying that her actions contributed to the crime. it seems clear that if she had been responsible, and not put herself at risk, this would have never happened.

do you not agree that getting shitfaced drunk and inviting a man who you know damn well wants to have sex with you into your home while alone is completely irresponsible and contributory? i think prosecutors have to consider these things.

i considered those things in my own experience.

This was interesting.

Sexual Assault: Prosecutorial Accounts of Case Rejection (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:3Hj_adPbSmsJ:blog.lib.umn.edu/jbs/maysession/DiscretionProsecutor.pdf+when+should+prosecutors+r eject+a+rape+case&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESig0hWf49GhcYYkPtPVtPTtAW7VfWPtzx0RPUt7 _g5JHQAc8Oy9xwUEekWbP-BAn8Iqj3OJLGwGUJm9kcen47LdfNLUQ5HhxFqLBz6BEqpsof70 iBfUs5qZNWHG5msqUIALhasf&sig=AHIEtbTK5Cl6bcqh5rl5Uuws9t_WRJsOmA)

Very interesting.

Thank you for that.

The last paragraph of the study makes this even more interesting. He does not believe her. The transcripts make that quite evident.

But it does not answer one vital component to this and she keeps asking him and he keeps not answering that particular point, instead choosing to repeatedly lay the blame on her.

The vital point being the confession of the accused, where he details quite explicitly what happened and what he did and he also gives a very distinct and explicit description of the victim's state during the whole ordeal.

How intoxicated was HE, both at the time, and when he made the confession?
Aside from that I'd say this should have gone to trial, but only due to the confession which he could probably find an excuse to retract, and there isn't anything else to go on. Character 'assasination' is a normal part of most trials and has been known to change the outcome, the prosecutor seemed worried about that - could his thoughts be justified?
I do wonder if some facts are missing, did she say yes too? Was she trying it on with him and saying 'no' (ie giving off mixed intentions, which I think was one point the prosecutor mentioned but with rather flimsy evidence)?

Not saying I agree with him, but there may be other things to consider.

i don't think this had anything to do with what she was wearing. i'm not condoning what the man did at all. i'm just saying that her actions contributed to the crime. it seems clear that if she had been responsible, and not put herself at risk, this would have never happened.

do you not agree that getting shitfaced drunk and inviting a man who you know damn well wants to have sex with you into your home while alone is completely irresponsible and contributory? i think prosecutors have to consider these things.

i considered those things in my own experience.

I'm sorry, but where does it say that she knew he wanted to have sex with her in her home at that time? Remember, this is not about you. So can you show me where it says she knew he wanted to have sex with her? Have a link?

And that still does not mean that it is not rape or "date rape". She said no. She was that intoxicated that she could not have consented anyway. That right there says rape.

But please, link where she said she knew he came to her house wanting to have sex with her... especially in light of the fact that they had not spoken for a year prior to the assault..

The vital point being the confession of the accused, where he details quite explicitly what happened and what he did and he also gives a very distinct and explicit description of the victim's state during the whole ordeal.

The problem is that he is not explicitly detailing what happened. She cannot explicitly detail what happened because she admits to being unconscious. These are bad witnesses to have and unfortunately hard cases to prove.

Did they both go into the house and take their clothes off?

If that was the case, certainly. But the meeting was to inform her of his reasons for not prosecuting the case. The decision had been made before she entered that room. The meeting appears to be her wanting to speak to him to find out why.


So what? The same logic would prevail, if I'm trying to convince her why I'm not going to prosecute I'm going to give her a dose of what she would get on the stand at the hands of the defense and I'll point out how their previous relations and her self description of being "bedfellows" was going to be real problematic to winning the case.

I said NOTHING at all about whether he was guilty or not, only on the likelihood of a conviction. Can you keep to the argument I actually made?

Convicting 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt with the facts as laid out here seems to me to be not that likely. The defense would likely have a field day with this poor woman on the stand and from what I understand, it is exactly this kind of case, that convictions are the least likely.

Arthur

The problem is that he is not explicitly detailing what happened. She cannot explicitly detail what happened because she admits to being unconscious. These are bad witnesses to have and unfortunately hard cases to prove.

Did they both go into the house and take their clothes off?

The links are quite detailed John. Please read them.

I am sorry, are you telling me that a person saying that he fingered her after she had said no, and then touched and fingered her again and then had sex with her while she lapsed in and out of consciousness is not explicit enough for you?

Having dealt with countless of rape cases in my time, this one would be like a gold case to be honest. He said that she was drunk and he recognised and knew she was drunk. Here:


I [the police officer] then asked [redacted] if he realized that the victim was intoxicated prior to coming to her house. He stated 10-15 minutes after he arrived, he knew the victim was drunk. He stated his only intention originally was to lay next to the victim. He did state that he realized the victim was drunk prior to him having sex with her. He stated he has known the victim for 4-5 years and has seen her drunk many times.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/12/ken-buck-refused-rape-victim-case-audio_n_758890.html


Another part of the incident report. He also states that they'd had sex in the past when only one person was drunk. But he also states that she had said no and then he goes on to detail the exact moments she had said no. One was prior to his having sex with her when he was touching her vagina and he admitted that she then rolled away from him. And he advised that she also said no after he had climaxed. He also advised that she was in and out of consciousness during the whole event, so much so that he had to actually work at getting her to regain consciousness so that he could apologise for what he had done.

The transcripts also has the victim saying that she recalls coming to at one point while he was violating her and attempted to not only push him away from her, but also told him no. This on top of his confessing in the incident report.

This is like a dream case for a prosecutor. He confessed and even showed remorse and regret for what he had done to her. He knew she was drunk and he knew he was taking advantage of her and felt bad for it afterward.

So how exactly is this a difficult case for you John?

Do you think that if she's unconscious, then she wasn't raped? I am sorry to have to tell you this, but the opposite is actually true. If someone is unconscious, it means they cannot consent. In this instance, she not only explicitly told him "no", which he admitted to the police, she also turned her back on him and he then continued to rape her, ignoring her attempts to push him off and ignoring her "no" again in the moments she was conscious.

Oh, a rash of shit doesn't even come close to it Lori.

Tell me, where was his sense of responsibility when he jammed his finger into her vagina and she said no and then decided to do it again and then rape her when she was unconscious?

he's responsible for that, admittedly. what he did was absolutely wrong.



So because you, it seems, were raped when you were 30 something, it gives you the right to blame her for her own rape, a rape that even the rapist confessed to and admitted to?

i'm not blaming her for the rape. i'm blaming her for being negligent. contributory negligence.


She's at fault because he decided to take advantage of her being drunk and not conscious half the time? She's at fault that she said no and turned her back on him and he then resumed to rape her after she'd lost consciousness?

no. she's at fault for knowingly and voluntarily consuming so much alcohol that she was rendered unconscious, and for inviting a man into her home while in that state. do you not agree that was completely irresponsible of her?


What if she'd been drunk in a bar and he'd met her there and taken her outside and raped her against her explicit consent and while she was unconscious? Would she have also been at fault then?

Tell me Lori, when is a woman not to blame for her own rape?

i'm not blaming her for the rape. i'm blaming her for being entirely irresponsible with her own body.



So your sex was consentual? You'd said "no"? You'd tried to shove the man away and he ignored you and kept on going?

i wasn't sober enough to say no. i blacked out, came to, said no, and he left.


You're telling me that if you'd said no and tried to push him away and then lost consciousness, it is still your fault because you were drunk in your own home with a man you'd been involved with and thought you knew him enough to trust him to be in your house with you while you were that drunk? Tell me Lori, I take it you are never drunk in the presence of your husband? What about male relatives and friends?

no one has said that was the case with her or myself. i knew that guy was a scumbag, and i thought it was funny that he wanted to have sex with me and wasn't ever gonna get it. and if i really wanted to make sure of that, i shouldn't have consumed an enormous amount of beer and then said sure when he invited himself over to my place (alone) to have yet another.

I'm sorry, but where does it say that she knew he wanted to have sex with her in her home at that time? Remember, this is not about you. So can you show me where it says she knew he wanted to have sex with her? Have a link?

And that still does not mean that it is not rape or "date rape". She said no. She was that intoxicated that she could not have consented anyway. That right there says rape.

But please, link where she said she knew he came to her house wanting to have sex with her... especially in light of the fact that they had not spoken for a year prior to the assault..

how about instead of a link, we consider some common sense?

it WAS rape. i'm not arguing that. i'm arguing how a prosecutor would have to consider her contributory behavior.

she didn't know that her ex would want to have sex with her? really? i don't believe that for one second.

Having dealt with countless of rape cases in my time, this one would be like a gold case to be honest. He said that she was drunk and he recognised and knew she was drunk. Here:

Bell, you are going to prosecute people for being drunk? Just goes to show the trouble you can get into from being intoxicated.

Well then you should have made that point clear in your intro. In any case, their previous consenual relations and her self description of being "bedfellows" was going to be real problematic to winning the case

As to the rest of your BS insinuations, I said NOTHING at all about whether he was guilty or not, only on the likelihood of a conviction.



What "BS insinuation" Arthur?

His confession? You don't believe that he did it, even though he admitted to the whole thing?

They had been in a relationship. So yes, they had been bedfellows. Just as I was a bedfellow to my ex. That, however, does not imply or state consent. In fact, in this instance, we have the alleged accused saying that she said no and that he continued to sexually assualt her and then rape her, regardless of her saying no, regardless of her turning her back on him after rejecting his advances, regardless of the fact that she was so drunk that she then lost consciousness.

Everything we have points to no consent being given. Even Buck admits that at no time she says yes.

So can you please tell me Arthur, why do you think Buck refused to acknowledge or recognise the alleged accused's confession and statement to the police? Can you tell me why he instead decided to concentrate on the accused saying that she had had an abortion and then accusing the victim that she was using that as a motive for the accusation, when he had no proof whatsoever of his accusation? Which again shows that he had completely disregarded the incident report taken by the police which shows fairly extensive questioning of the accused and his admitting to all of it? Why do you think he disregarded that, Arthur?

I'm sorry, but where does it say that she knew he wanted to have sex with her in her home at that time? Remember, this is not about you. So can you show me where it says she knew he wanted to have sex with her? Have a link?

And that still does not mean that it is not rape or "date rape". She said no. She was that intoxicated that she could not have consented anyway. That right there says rape.

But please, link where she said she knew he came to her house wanting to have sex with her... especially in light of the fact that they had not spoken for a year prior to the assault..

The DA didn't say she wasn't raped, he said he didn't think he could win the case.

So the issue is not about this being a rape, it's about whether the DA was justified in not taking her case to trial.

Arthur

Not only that but you are also prosecuting via the internet. This is not ideal and never heard of this happening.

The DA didn't say she wasn't raped, he said he didn't think he could win the case.

So the issue is not about this being a rape, it's about whether the DA was justified in not taking her case to trial.

Arthur

Which again, does not answer why he disregarded the accused's confession and admittance to the whole thing.

Is he justified in ignoring the accused's confession in rejecting the case entirely?

What "BS insinuation" Arthur?

All of the following.


Do you think that date rape is not rape?

Do you think that when a woman is semi-conscious to unconscious, that she is fair game for sex and it means she has consented?

What if she turns to you and says no? Does no not really mean no when a guy is about to have sex with a woman?

What other criteria should this case have met exactly?

We know that women are most often raped by men they know (spouse, relative, boyfriend, ex spouse/boyfriends, or just men they know in general). So your personal criteria that because she had sex with him in the past when they were in a relationship seems to indicate that it is not rape, amongst other things, is not a valid point in proving she was not raped.

I'll put it this way. Once she says no, then that is when it is meant to stop. If it continues after that point where she has said no, then it is rape. Pure and simple. Plus, if she is not conscious enough or coherent enough to consent, which she was not, then it is also rape. HIs having had sex with her a year before that night is irrelevant. He could have had sex with her 10 minutes before and it would still be rape. Do you know why?

1) She said no.

2) She was so drunk that she was semi-conscious to unconscious.

Totally uncalled for since I never said ANYTHING about what is or isn't date rape, what is or isn't rape, was or wasn't she raped etc etc.

ALL I discussed was issues related to likelihood of a conviction and the issue of was it correct for the DA to have such a high chance of success in order to bring a case to trial.

Arthur

Bell, what we are saying is that you cannot be judge, jury and executioner all via the internet no less. Not that there definitely was no crime committed. We are not even getting the full story, how do you want us to render a decision?

Which again, does not answer why he disregarded the accused's confession and admittance to the whole thing.

Is he justified in ignoring the accused's confession in rejecting the case entirely?

Don't know, what you posted doesn't seem to answer that question, I'm sure there might be some reason he felt it wouldn't stand up to cross examination though.

Indeed, in reading the original link, there is this quote about that police report that you omitted:


The report itself was detailed and graphic. And while the circumstances that made Buck doubt the case's viability were noted throughout,

So, since we have not seen any of these "NOTES THROUGHOUT" it would appear that we have not seen the entire report.


Arthur

The DA didn't say she wasn't raped, he said he didn't think he could win the case.


Are you sure about that? To quote Mr Buck about whether she had been raped or not:


(153) KB: I’m telling you that’s what the circumstances suggest, to people, including myself, who have looked at it. Although, you never said the word yes, but the appearance is of consent.



Now, if there is an "appearance of consent" in his opinion, it basically means that he does not think she has really been raped. When it is actually quite clear that she was raped. She knew it, the police knew it and so did the alleged perpetrator, when he admitted to police that she had said no more than once before and during sex, when he admitted to police that she was too drunk to consent and when he admitted to police that she was not really conscious during quite a bit of his assault on her. And most importantly, he admitted it to the police and to her when he managed to bring her to consciousness afterwards and said he was sorry for what he had done to her.

So how does Mr Buck think that she had consented? As a solicitor who has actually prosecuted more rapists than I wish to count, this is a cut and dried case of date rape. He even confessed to all of it. There is no grey area regarding consent. We have the alleged rapist admitting himself that not only did she say no more than once, we also have him admitting that she was so drunk that she was semi-conscious and at times unconscious. I have gotten convictions with much much less.

Having read that transcript, do you know what stands out the most? The fact that he accuses her of aborting the accused's baby.

But one of the biggest reasons why he did not think that she was raped? When he later referred it to "buyer's remorse".


Indeed, in reading the original link, there is this quote about that police report that you omitted:
The link was there and I encouraged people to read it. However, the sentence you quoted actually continues. Here is the sentence in full:


And while the circumstances that made Buck doubt the case's viability were noted throughout, there also were aspects of the file that seemed to invite further legal probing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/12/ken-buck-refused-rape-victim-case-audio_n_758890.html


Funny that, huh?

Do you know what is one of the most despicable things about this whole thing?

The fact that he seems to threaten her if she decided to pursue this by seeking other legal means to prosecute her rapist.

However, it seems that more information has come to light about this, which makes it seem even more interesting to determine why Mr Buck decided to not take this case.


In establishing whether there were grounds to arrest the suspect, Greeley police had the victim phone the suspect from the police station. That call was recorded and entered into evidence.

In the call, this exchange takes place:


Victim: “You do realize that … it’s rape.”

Suspect: “Yeah, I do.”

Victim: “Like in a number of different ways, because I didn’t want to do it and because I was intoxicated and because I was afraid.”

Suspect: “Yes I do. I know.”


http://coloradoindependent.com/63925/suspect-in-troubling-05-buck-case-said-he-knew-it-was-rape



You can also download a full transcript of the phone call that the victim made at the request of the police at that link.

So, yet another confession (granted, not one that can be used in court), aside from the incident report itself. In the transcript, he also pleads with her to not report the rape to the police. She already had and that call is called a pretext call and one she did when asked by the police to do so. Based on this, the police then decided to take it further and we then have his confession and detail of events which all indicate that she was raped, by his own confession.

In the transcript of that pretext call, the victim asks him how he got into her house? She questions his reasons for coming to her house knowing that she was that drunk and that she was going to bed. She even tells him that she could not understand how or why he had raped her as they had discussed rape before as he knew that she was a rape advocate and he admits it also. He also tells her over and over again how sorry he was. She asks him what made him drive to her house that night and he says, he cannot remember. It seems from the call that she had previously told him how to get into her house, and she questions him about it and he admits that he knew she was very drunk and was going to bed, so he drove to her house, jimmied the door to get in because he wanted to lie down in bed next to her, where the rape then occured.

Again, how is this not rape? How can he think that she consented? In the transcript of the conversation between Mr Buck and the victim, he accuses her as not having her top on when he came over. Now we know, from that phone call, that she was already in bed when he arrived and that he decided to drive over there of his own volition, knowing that she was drunk and about to go to bed and knowing how to get into the house. He admitted to her in that call that he knew at the time that it was rape. He admitted this to the police later as well.

And how can he possibly say that he would not get a conviction?

i don't think this had anything to do with what she was wearing. i'm not condoning what the man did at all. i'm just saying that her actions contributed to the crime. it seems clear that if she had been responsible, and not put herself at risk, this would have never happened.

do you not agree that getting shitfaced drunk and inviting a man who you know damn well wants to have sex with you into your home while alone is completely irresponsible and contributory? i think prosecutors have to consider these things.

i considered those things in my own experience.

Congrats you get the Stephanie Meyer award for destroying femonism and woman's rights

how can he possibly say that he would not get a conviction?

Well as you point out, that call is not going to get into the trial, as for the question, well we don't know, because your link does NOT include the complete police report.
You know the one with "the circumstances that made Buck doubt the case's viability were noted throughout".

Show us the notes, because without them how can you possibly question the prosecuter without knowing what these were?

You know the defense is going to get them during discovery, and then what?

As you've seen on this board, even the edited info you've provided hasn't convinced all of us, now has it? If just one of those questioning this was on the jury then he'd lose. Which is probably the same thing the prosecuter was seeing, that he couldn't convince 12 people either, and we haven't even seen all of what he had to work with.

Your continuing claim that it was rape is rather pointless, since that isn't the question at all. It's only what the prosecuter felt he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that counts.

Arthur

i'm not blaming her for the rape. i'm blaming her for being negligent. contributory negligence. inother wordws your blaming her




no. she's at fault for knowingly and voluntarily consuming so much alcohol that she was rendered unconscious, and for inviting a man into her home while in that state. do you not agree that was completely irresponsible of her? this may come as a shock to you but its not what she did in no way shape or form make her culpable




i'm not blaming her for the rape. i'm blaming her for being entirely irresponsible with her own body. yes you are whether your intelectually capable of admiting that to yourself or not is irrelevant the fact you feel the need to keep saying your not means you recognize that for all intents and purposes that what it looks like you doing(which is true because you are in fact doing it)

Well as you point out, that call is not going to get into the trial, as for the question, well we don't know, because your link does NOT include the complete police report.
You know the one with "the circumstances that made Buck doubt the case's viability were noted throughout".

Show us the notes, because without them how can you possibly question the prosecuter without knowing what these were?

You know the defense is going to get them during discovery, and then what?

As you've seen on this board, even the edited info you've provided hasn't convinced all of us, now has it? If just one of those questioning this was on the jury then he'd lose. Which is probably the same thing the prosecuter was seeing, that he couldn't convince 12 people either, and we haven't even seen all of what he had to work with.

Your continuing claim that it was rape is rather pointless, since that isn't the question at all. It's only what the prosecuter felt he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that counts.

Arthur

Believe me Arthur, if I had a link to the whole incident report, I would have linked it.

But he clearly states that he thinks she consented. How can she have consented if she was so drunk that she passed out? How can she have consented if she actually said no (by the rapists own admittance) in the few moments of lucidity?

From what I have read thus far, I see nothing that would indicate that this case was not winnable. Quite the contrary. This would have been a guarranteed conviction. The man had forced his way into her home while she was asleep, and it was something he admitted to doing. He admitted that he knew about what constituted rape, as they had spoken of it when they were together. He admitted he knew he was raping her as he did it. He then went on to admit to her not only being too drunk to consent, but also admitted that she had said no at least twice.. to the police. Again, how can Buck then turn around and say that he did not think he would get a conviction?

The jury would have been made aware that they had been in a sexual relationship in the past. Again, moot point in this instance since they had been separated for over a year and they had not even spoken for a year until that night. And again, their having had sex in the past does not amount to consent that night, more than a year after they had separated and a year since they'd even spoken to each other. Then we have the fact that he accused her in the transcript to having been in a state of undress when he walked into her bedroom. But we now know, and he would have been made aware of this also, that he knew she was that drunk and going to bed when he decided to go to her house, jimmy the door open and then go into her bedroom to lie down next to her as she slept when he then decided to start touching her. Does Mr Buck think that she should have been more appropriately dressed when going to bed? Who here does not sleep naked in case someone breaks into their house while they are asleep and rapes them?

But according to Mr Buck in his conversation with the victim, this was an important factor in refusing the case.


As you've seen on this board, even the edited info you've provided hasn't convinced all of us, now has it? If just one of those questioning this was on the jury then he'd lose. Which is probably the same thing the prosecuter was seeing, that he couldn't convince 12 people either, and we haven't even seen all of what he had to work with.
Could it be because in the past, when we have discussed rape cases before, many on this forum have issues even understanding the basics of consent and when consent can be given, regardless of what the law states?

And I am sure that Mr Buck will feel vilified that a religious nutbag, forum troll and you seem to agree with him.:)

this may come as a shock to you but its not what she did in no way shape or form make her culpable

Maybe, but that's not the way everyone in the jury is likely to see it.

As Lori has said, she thinks the woman's behavior was contributory.

Guess what, it only takes one person who feels the same as Lori to derail the conviction.

Which is the issue here. The prosecuter did not think, based on the facts of the case that he could prevail in court.

Arthur

Believe me Arthur, if I had a link to the whole incident report, I would have linked it.

Which is the point, you don't have all the evidence and yet you are ready to render a verdict?


From what I have read thus far, I see nothing that would indicate that this case was not winnable. Quite the contrary. This would have been a guarranteed conviction.

Key word in that is SO FAR.
Buck on the other hand had the ability to read the ENTIRE report and also meet with the actual people and see how they would appear to the jury.
BIG DIFFERENCE
Given that the links provide so much info, why do you think that the parts of the report that included: "the circumstances that made Buck doubt the case's viability were noted throughout", wasn't provided to us?


The man had forced his way into her home while she was asleep, and it was something he admitted to doing. He admitted that he knew about what constituted rape, as they had spoken of it when they were together. He admitted he knew he was raping her as he did it. He then went on to admit to her not only being too drunk to consent, but also admitted that she had said no at least twice.. to the police. Again, how can Buck then turn around and say that he did not think he would get a conviction?

Maybe because he had the ENTIRE police report?


Could it be because in the past, when we have discussed rape cases before, many on this forum have issues even understanding the basics of consent and when consent can be given, regardless of what the law states?

What does what you discussed before I joined the forum have to do with my comments?
I'm guessing that if you did as poor a job of presenting your case as you have done in the threads that I've debated with you that you blew those as well.
And indeed it wasn't really an issue with this case either as far as we know, I'm reasonably convinced Buck understands the law, the issue had to do with what he felt he could convince a jury of.


And I am sure that Mr Buck will feel vilified that a religious nutbag, forum troll and you seem to agree with him.:)

And so since you can't make your case you descend into personal attacks.

Guess I should of seen that coming.

I argue about merits of the case and you can't see past your anger.

Arthur

The DA didn't say she wasn't raped, he said he didn't think he could win the case. Are you sure about that? To quote Mr Buck about whether she had been raped or not:


(153) KB: I’m telling you that’s what the circumstances suggest, to people, including myself, who have looked at it. Although, you never said the word yes, but the appearance is of consent.
Now, if there is an "appearance of consent" in his opinion, it basically means that he does not think she has really been raped.

Seems like you aren't against doing a little "quote mining" to make your case.

Let's look at that statement in context of what he says before:

First he gives an analogy to the Ramsey case:


We have looked at this from a lot of different angles. We have to fulfill our ethical obligation that this case would have an expectation of proof beyond reasonable doubt before a jury. That is in conflict with the law. “We may think we know who killed the Ramsey girl, but if we can’t prove it, we can’t bring a case forward.” … And that’s where we’re coming from with this decision.

So the analogy is quite clear, he thinks a crime has been committed, but if he can't prove it he can't bring a case forward.

And then he brings a very interesting set of info, that is missing from ALL your snippets, about WHY he has concerns that it will have the "appearance of consent":


(139) KB: Because when you look at what happened earlier in the night, all the circumstances, based on his statements and some of your statements, indicate that you invited him to come to your apartment… that you told him how to get in …. It would appear to me and it appears to others that you invited him over to have sex with him

Or when he points out to her what she told the first police officer:


KB: Do you recall your answer to police officer in your first interview, the police officer asked if you said no, you said I don’t recall.

For a prosecuter, that's a big hurdle to get over.

Arthur

Maybe, but that's not the way everyone in the jury is likely to see it.

As Lori has said, she thinks the woman's behavior was contributory.

Guess what, it only takes one person who feels the same as Lori to derail the conviction.

Which is the issue here. The prosecuter did not think, based on the facts of the case that he could prevail in court.

Arthur

probably but that is because juries are filled with people like you and Lori rather than people like Bells and I.

What you mean is by people who consider all the evidence and don't jump to premature conclusions based on quote mined snippets off the web?

Thank heavens.

Because I believe a judicial system is better if it allows an occasional guilty man to go free then if it convicts an occasional innocent man.
Which is why we put the burden of proof on the prosecuter and ask for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict.


Arthur

I have to admit, what got me about this case, the killer for me, was when he accused her of having had an abortion and used it as a threat in case she did go public. That is inexcusable.


He didn't use that as a threat.
He said if she filed a suit to compel prosecution, then it would be public and the accused lawyers would know the things he knew and bring them out.


(250) M#2: we’ve talked about a motion to compel prosecution, and that’s the only other option. Ultimately that’s going to be [Name redacted] decision. But that’s really the only option…. Whether or not we’re going to do that, I don’t know. Incredibly high burden …

(255) KB: Be aware of something, if this, if you file this motion, it will be very public, publicly covered event. There are a lot of things that I have a knowledge of, that I would assume (name of possible suspect redacted) knows about and that they have to do with, perhaps, your motives for (unintelligible) and that is part of what our calculation has been in this.

Clearly there is no threat there, he's just telling her all of this info she's so far kept secret, but told him will come out, but it would come out from the DEFENSE side. Of course at this time he thought she had had an abortion but he subsequently learned that while they had talked of having an abortion, she had miscarried.

Arthur

Okay, I'm confused. We have an allegation of rape. We have what appears to be a confession from the accused. We have a prosecutor that still doesn't want to go forward with what should be one of the easiest convictions of anyone's career. What about this isn't perfectly clear?

Ah, but we have a few people looking for any reason they can find to justify the prosecutor's decision:



Cases where the two parties involved, knew each other (sexually) and were intoxicated are hard to prosecute.

They are hard to prosecute when the issue is what we refer to as "he said, she said". That is not the issue here. The accused confessed. This should not be a difficult prosecution.



One of his jobs is to challenge the defendent, as the defense will do in court, to see how she responds, so things he challenges her with are very likely to be framed from the point of view of what he expects the defense would do.

As he said: "he must only prosecute cases in which he has a reasonable chance of convicting someone, and this was not one of those cases".


• • •

The same logic would prevail, if I'm trying to convince her why I'm not going to prosecute I'm going to give her a dose of what she would get on the stand at the hands of the defense and I'll point out how their previous relations and her self description of being "bedfellows" was going to be real problematic to winning the case ....

.... Convicting 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt with the facts as laid out here seems to me to be not that likely. The defense would likely have a field day with this poor woman on the stand and from what I understand, it is exactly this kind of case, that convictions are the least likely.

This is the United States of America, and while husbands and wives are generally bedfellows, it does not follow under any law that a wife is obliged to provide sexual comfort just because she shares a bed with her husband. Additionally, I have been in what some might call "tempting" situations before, sharing a bed with a woman. On one occasion, the woman declined the spare bedroom I offered her; we smoked pot together that included "shared" hits. On another it was a former girlfriend. On a third, it was the longest night of my life, in a hotel room with a beautiful young woman, while two of my friends had sex on the other bed. Or there was the time the drunk stripper and I had fooled around together in my car outside her house right before she decided she didn't want to go home and came back to my place. On any of those occasions, and more to be certain, I might have been able to harass my bedfellow into sex, and I might have gotten away with it. But that would not have changed the impropriety of the conduct, nor justified it, and even had I won consent, it would still have been rape.

The courtroom logic you offer falters on a similar consideration to John99's point. There is a confession. In order to get around that, the defense is going to have to challenge that confession. If they can't get it thrown out, then they'll have to put the accused on the stand.

The idea that convincing twelve jurors to accept a confession is somehow difficult speaks poorly either of Mr. Buck as a prosecutor, or the jurors as people.



i'm sure i'll get a rash of shit for this, but imo this woman's lack of sense and responsibility was contributory. what in the hell was she doing shitfaced drunk and alone in her home with her ex-boyfriend?

Clive Barker, in Imajica, spins a fantasy wherein men and women are not merely separate genders, but separate species perpetually at war with one another. That's all well and fine for a fantasy novel, but is this how we should view the real world?

I would hope not.

Your sort of argument reminds me of a discussion we had here at Sciforums a couple years back that featured an infamous argument:


"i know men should act responsibly, but we're literally animals. animals don't ask permission. i am in no way encouraging or condoning rape, its a horrific bestial thing, but i feel people are getting too caught up in morality and stuff, and missing some of the facts.

again, rape is bad. but if you pull the pin out of a grenade, is it your fault or the grenade's when it blows up?" (#1878878/119 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1878878&postcount=119))

The idea that men and women cannot be alone together under various circumstances without something sexual happening is part of the reason there is a War of the Sexes that continues even today. It's the twenty-first century. You know, when I watch the Fenix capsule extract another miner from a bad situation in Chile, I get a certain rush of abstract pride: This is the human species.

And when I read the argument that a woman shouldn't be able to get drunk and keep whatever company she wishes without being raped, I feel a certain tinge of abstract shame: This is the human species?

That my daughter should literally live in fear as she grows older is bad enough. Her womanhood should not be a curse. Her humanity should not be a curse.

That we might give over to such curses is an indictment of the human species.

What confuses me is how anyone can find this situation confusing. That is, sure, one might wonder why a prosecutor would not wish to go forward with what should be an open and shut case. But it blows my mind to find people—for whatever reasons—advocating rape. And, yes, that is what people are doing. That may not be their intent, but that is the effect.

You do realize that the statute of limitations has not run out on this?

No and rolling away means NO.


What's the use of buying women drink then?

Okay, I'm confused. We have an allegation of rape. We have what appears to be a confession from the accused. We have a prosecutor that still doesn't want to go forward with what should be one of the easiest convictions of anyone's career. What about this isn't perfectly clear?


A) We haven't seen ALL the evidence

The original link included this:
The report itself was detailed and graphic. And while the circumstances that made Buck doubt the case's viability were noted throughout, ”
So, since we have not seen any of these "NOTES THROUGHOUT" it would appear that we have not seen the entire report.

B) She told the Officer in the initial review that she couldn't recall if she said no. This would be a HUGE problem for the prosecuter in the trial.

C) She admits inviting him to her apartment. The defense would use this as the first evidence of consent.

D) She admits telling him how to get in. The defense would use this as the second evidence of consent.

E) She knew she had invited him and was partially naked when he got there. The defense would used this as the third evidence of consent. When added to the fact that she doesn't recall telling him no, the defense would have most likely been able to give reasonable doubt to some jurors about it not being consensual.

F) She refers to them as "Bedfellows" (we haven't seen how she specifically makes the reference, as in past tense or current, but you can't presume it was past tense).

G) They have had consensual sex before, indeed she got pregnant by him (I know this isn't an excuse for rape, but the prosecuter knows it will influence some members on the jury, just human nature)

So that's an awful lot of "beyond a reasonable doubt" hurdles a prosecuter has to get over to get 12 jurors to convict on.
The supposed confession is his biggest asset, but given all of the above, a decent defense lawyer (IMHO) would still likely get one or more jurors to his side.

So

This discussion is NOT about was it rape or not.
We would need to see ALL the evidence and hear from both parties to make that determination.

This discussion is about was the DA justified in his decision to not bring the case to trial.

From the above, I can see why some would think so and others would not think this was winnable, but as you know, it's a judgement that DA's make all the time and they consider all the factors and can actually talk to the people and understand their community, so given all of the above, I would not presume to know that he was wrong in his assessment of the case.

Arthur

The original link included this:


The report itself was detailed and graphic. And while the circumstances that made Buck doubt the case's viability were noted throughout,

So, since we have not seen any of these "NOTES THROUGHOUT" it would appear that we have not seen the entire report.

An interesting manipulation of the sentence:


And while the circumstances that made Buck doubt the case's viability were noted throughout, there also were aspects of the file that seemed to invite further legal probing.

(Stein (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/12/ken-buck-refused-rape-victim-case-audio_n_758890.html))

Among those aspects seeming to invite further legal probing would probably be the confession:


He states after more questioning that maybe once or twice the victim said no. He stated he thought the victim did say no while he was fingering her. He stated he does recall her rolling away and saying no. He stated he agreed and then a short time later began touching the victim's back and again inserting his fingers into her vagina... he stated after he had intercourse with the victim and climaxed, that he pulled out. He stated when he did so, the victim was barely conscious and that's when he realized he had done something wrong. [Redacted] stated he thought the victim did say no shortly after he had climaxed, and while he was still inside of her.

(ibid)

That is a confession.


B) She told the Officer in the initial review that she couldn't recall if she said no. This would be a HUGE problem for the prosecuter in the trial.

But the accused confessed.


C) She admits inviting him to her apartment. The defense would use this as the first evidence of consent.

D) She admits telling him how to get in. The defense would use this as the second evidence of consent.

E) She knew she had invited him and was partially naked when he got there. The defense would used this as the third evidence of consent. When added to the fact that she doesn't recall telling him no, the defense would have most likely been able to give reasonable doubt to some jurors about it not being consensual.

The implication of consent means nothing juxtaposed against the accused's acknowledgment that the victim explicitly attempted to decline sexual contact.

Implications of consent do not forfeit a woman's right to explicitly refuse that consent.


F) She refers to them as "Bedfellows" (we haven't seen how she specifically makes the reference, as in past tense or current, but you can't presume it was past tense).

The use of the word "were" is a strong implication. Still, though, it's irrelevant. Not even a married woman is obliged to provide sex for her "bedfellow" husband on demand.


G) They have had consensual sex before, indeed she got pregnant by him (I know this isn't an excuse for rape, but the prosecuter knows it will influence some members on the jury, just human nature)

How does prior sexual contact and consent equal a reasonable doubt to contest the words of the accused? How does prior sexual contact and consent equal a reasonable doubt at all?


So that's an awful lot of "beyond a reasonable doubt" hurdles a prosecuter has to get over to get 12 jurors to convict on.

That says a lot about how the prosecutor views the citizens of Colorado.


The supposed confession is his biggest asset, but given all of the above, a decent defense lawyer (IMHO) would still likely get one or more jurors to his side.

And a jury in Florida once acquitted an accused rapist based on what the woman was wearing when she was "not raped". The prosecutor didn't even try. That's the thing. No attempt to make the accused plead. Plead out, plead down, plead at all.


This discussion is NOT about was it rape or not.
We would need to see ALL the evidence and hear from both parties to make that determination.

This discussion is about was the DA justified in his decision to not bring the case to trial.

One side of the discussion hinges on that very question. For instance, some think arguable interpretations of what implies consent outweigh explicit refusals. Or, at least, they expect a Colorado jury to think so. Did her mouth say no, but her closed eyes say yes?


From the above, I can see why some would think so and others would not think this was winnable, but as you know, it's a judgement that DA's make all the time and they consider all the factors and can actually talk to the people and understand their community, so given all of the above, I would not presume to know that he was wrong in his assessment of the case.

And suddenly we're back to Eden. Or, rather, just outside its gates. Nakedness is evil, because it can only be sexual. We're back to an archaic sexism where no is yes, and the fact of prior sexual contact and consent equals standing license for all time.

Certainly, a juror in Colorado might make whatever excuses they can for a rapist. But when you have a suspect admitting violation of CRS 18-3-404(1)(a) (http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll/cocode/1/2dc8f/2f703/2fd52/2fe27?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0#JD_18-3-404), one wonders what instructions a judge might give a jury that would empower them to acquit.

The effect of such an outlook as you describe is vast. It classifies humanity according to sex. It places the burden of men's behavior on women in such a manner as to assign liability to women according to how much they drink, or who they keep company with. It places sexual contact prominently in how a woman is expected to view the world and her fellow human beings. It is a driving fire of the War of the Sexes. Is the problem that Buck sees the argument that way, or that he expects a jury will?
____________________

Notes:

Stein, Sam. "Ken Buck Explained To Alleged Rape Victim Why He Wouldn't Take Her Case". The Huffington Post. October 12, 2010. HuffingtonPost.com. October 13, 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/12/ken-buck-refused-rape-victim-case-audio_n_758890.html

Colorado Revised Statutes. Michie's Legal Resources. (n.d.) Michie.com. October 13, 2010. http://www.michie.com/colorado/

Except her own words would leave doubt once the defense attorney gets his hooks into it:

Excerpt from conversation:


KB: Do you recall your answer to police officer in your first interview, the police
officer asked if you said no, you said I don’t recall.”
(168) V: I said I’m pretty sure that I said no, but I cannot be 100% sure. And at
that point, it was because I said I couldn’t be sure that I had actually verbalized. I
know that that I had done my best to say no but I couldn’t be sure. I did push the
suspect away, told him know, passed out.” (reading from police report).

You also have to remember this is not a political issue and her own lawyer can decide to take it elsewhere. The part, as i said, where the issue would fall apart is the intoxication and other factors. A defense attorney would tear it apart.

People commit homicides while intoxicated and dont even remember it so if you are conscious, unconscious it puts doubt because you have to be certain yourself what transpired.

Except her own words would leave doubt once the defense attorney gets his hooks into it:

Excerpt from conversation:



You also have to remember this is not a political issue and her own lawyer can decide to take it elsewhere. The part, as i said, where the issue would fall apart is the intoxication and other factors. A defense attorney would tear it apart.

People commit homicides while intoxicated and dont even remember it so if you are conscious, unconscious it puts doubt because you have to be certain yourself what transpired.

Tear what apart, I guess the law might be different there, but the fact that she was intoxicated and unconscious makes it rape by definition, doesn't it? Even if she said yes or didn't say anything, having sex with someone who is not awake is rape, regardless.

Tear what apart, I guess the law might be different there, but the fact that she was intoxicated and unconscious makes it rape by definition, doesn't it? Even if she said yes or didn't say anything, having sex with someone who is not awake is rape, regardless.

Read the thread.

Clive Barker, in Imajica, spins a fantasy wherein men and women are not merely separate genders, but separate species perpetually at war with one another. That's all well and fine for a fantasy novel, but is this how we should view the real world?

I would hope not.

Your sort of argument reminds me of a discussion we had here at Sciforums a couple years back that featured an infamous argument:


"i know men should act responsibly, but we're literally animals. animals don't ask permission. i am in no way encouraging or condoning rape, its a horrific bestial thing, but i feel people are getting too caught up in morality and stuff, and missing some of the facts.

again, rape is bad. but if you pull the pin out of a grenade, is it your fault or the grenade's when it blows up?" (#1878878/119 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1878878&postcount=119))

The idea that men and women cannot be alone together under various circumstances without something sexual happening is part of the reason there is a War of the Sexes that continues even today. It's the twenty-first century. You know, when I watch the Fenix capsule extract another miner from a bad situation in Chile, I get a certain rush of abstract pride: This is the human species.

And when I read the argument that a woman shouldn't be able to get drunk and keep whatever company she wishes without being raped, I feel a certain tinge of abstract shame: This is the human species?

That my daughter should literally live in fear as she grows older is bad enough. Her womanhood should not be a curse. Her humanity should not be a curse.

That we might give over to such curses is an indictment of the human species.

What confuses me is how anyone can find this situation confusing. That is, sure, one might wonder why a prosecutor would not wish to go forward with what should be an open and shut case. But it blows my mind to find people—for whatever reasons—advocating rape. And, yes, that is what people are doing. That may not be their intent, but that is the effect.

you probably know that i'm the last one on this forum who would ever argue for a "but i'm a man" excuse. men aren't grenades. there are no pins to pull.

perhaps i worded my response incorrectly, so let me clarify. this guy is admittedly guilty of rape, no question, and this girl is entirely guilty of being irresponsible at best with her own body, no question.

i'm the only one on this forum that even believes in the possibility of a world and a society that's based 100% in love, peace, and joy. a world where people can live without fear. but tiassa, it's really clear that we don't live in that world now. and in regards to my own life, i have no choice but to think that for some reason i've been supernaturally protected. because statistically, and overwhelmingly, i should have been dead a long long time ago. not because people are evil, but because i have been immensely irresponsible with my own life and my own body.

i don't think people should walk around in fear. but i also find it difficult to sympathize with someone who loses a limb while knowingly skipping through a field of land mines. are land mines a crime? hell yes. is skipping through that field a really stupid thing to do? hell yes.

An interesting manipulation of the sentence:

Not at all, it shows that we have not seen all of the police report.

The prosecuter saw it all, talked to the victim and the accused and after all of that declined to prosecute.

Now you arm chair quarterbacks are looking as just some of the info and deciding he made the wrong choice.

Indeed, you are claiming he turned down a slam dunk case.

Not likely.

Indeed, if the victim thought she had that strong a case, she could have filed a motion to compel prosecution, but she didn't.

Arthur

Read the thread.

I have, is having sex with an intoxicated person or an unconscious person not rape there? I didn't see it mentioned anywhere in the thread. The jury might have their own morals but they have to decide if a rape took place, both parties say that it did by the definition of rape.

That says a lot about how the prosecutor views the citizens of Colorado.

I presume he is more aware of how they decide on these issues then you are.


And a jury in Florida once acquitted an accused rapist based on what the woman was wearing when she was "not raped". The prosecutor didn't even try. That's the thing. No attempt to make the accused plead. Plead out, plead down, plead at all.

And there you go, the Florida case just shows that juries are inclined to find reasonable doubt even on what someone was wearing. Prosectuters indeed have a hard time prevailing in rape cases, particularly when there is a past history of consensual sex and no physical injuries. In this case, where the victim invited him over, told him how to get in the house, was waiting half naked and then said she didn't recall if she said no, that was going to be a real problem to the prosecuter. Could he over come it with the accused statements? Maybe, but to say there weren't real challenges in this case is, frankly, silly.


One side of the discussion hinges on that very question. For instance, some think arguable interpretations of what implies consent outweigh explicit refusals. Or, at least, they expect a Colorado jury to think so. Did her mouth say no, but her closed eyes say yes?

No it doesn't the DA didn't say he thought she wasn't raped, he said he didn't think he could prove the case.


And suddenly we're back to Eden. Or, rather, just outside its gates. Nakedness is evil, because it can only be sexual. We're back to an archaic sexism where no is yes, and the fact of prior sexual contact and consent equals standing license for all time.

Again, no we are not back anywhere, this is about what a prosecuter thinks he can convince a jury of.
You keep bringing it back to the question of was it rape, and that's not the issue. See the Ramsey analogy he gives. He's not questioning the crime, only the ability to convict.



The effect of such an outlook as you describe is vast. It classifies humanity according to sex. It places the burden of men's behavior on women in such a manner as to assign liability to women according to how much they drink, or who they keep company with. It places sexual contact prominently in how a woman is expected to view the world and her fellow human beings. It is a driving fire of the War of the Sexes. Is the problem that Buck sees the argument that way, or that he expects a jury will?

Would you really convict him based only on what you know right now?

I've not ever said she wasn't raped, from what I've seen it would appear so, but we are NOT the jury, we have not seen all the evidence or heard from the defendent.

So give it a rest.

The issue isn't "Do you think it was rape?", it is "Should the DA have brought the case given all we know?"

Like I said before it's a judgement that DA's make all the time and they consider all the factors and have the complete police report and talk to the people and understand their community, so given all of the above, I would not presume to know that he was wrong in his assessment of the case, nor do I think you are wrong for thinking he should have.

Arthur

perhaps i worded my response incorrectly, so let me clarify. this guy is admittedly guilty of rape, no question, and this girl is entirely guilty of being irresponsible at best with her own body, no question.

I would pair that consideration with:


i don't think people should walk around in fear. but i also find it difficult to sympathize with someone who loses a limb while knowingly skipping through a field of land mines. are land mines a crime? hell yes. is skipping through that field a really stupid thing to do? hell yes.

Roger Waters sang, "By the grace of God almighty, and the pressures of the marketplace, the human race has civilized itself. It's a miracle."

It won't be the grace of God that leads us to "a society that's based 100% in love, peace, and joy", but, rather, the pressures of the marketplace.

The problem with the land-mine analogy is that land-mines are, like grenades, a mechanical process. And if men aren't grenades, it's not simply because there are no pins to pull, but because they are human beings, and allegedly capable of thought and rational assessment.

And in excusing even one rapist because the victim somehow had it coming only reinforces a world in which women, especially, should calculate their actions according to fear.


• • •



Not at all, it shows that we have not seen all of the police report.

The prosecuter saw it all, talked to the victim and the accused and after all of that declined to prosecute.

And that includes the prosecutor seeing the admission by the accused to violating CRS 18-3-404(1)(a).


Indeed, if the victim thought she had that strong a case, she could have filed a motion to compel prosecution, but she didn't.

Do, please, outline the legal procedures under Colorado law. Then we can start estimating the cost of a lawyer to undertake that process. And then we can refer ourselves back to the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/12/ken-buck-refused-rape-victim-case-audio_n_758890.html) article: "A source close to the woman told The Huffington Post that, as a college student, she did not have the money 'to hire an attorney and pay for it herself.'"

And then we can start figuring out how that means she didn't think she had a strong case.
____________________

Notes:

Stein, Sam. "Ken Buck Explained To Alleged Rape Victim Why He Wouldn't Take Her Case". The Huffington Post. October 12, 2010. HuffingtonPost.com. October 13, 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/12/ken-buck-refused-rape-victim-case-audio_n_758890.html

Not at all, it shows that we have not seen all of the police report.

The prosecuter saw it all, talked to the victim and the accused and after all of that declined to prosecute.

Now you arm chair quarterbacks are looking as just some of the info and deciding he made the wrong choice.

Indeed, you are claiming he turned down a slam dunk case.

Not likely.

Indeed, if the victim thought she had that strong a case, she could have filed a motion to compel prosecution, but she didn't.

Arthur

to quote the rapist
that is when I knew I did something wrong the only issue is with stuck up conservative jurors who might have Victorian era views on females but to us people living in the 21 first century this is rape and young lady in question did nothing wrong and to excuse someone's primitive blaming the victim attitude of a DA no less is down right contemptible.

I would pair that consideration with:



Roger Waters sang, "By the grace of God almighty, and the pressures of the marketplace, the human race has civilized itself. It's a miracle."

It won't be the grace of God that leads us to "a society that's based 100% in love, peace, and joy", but, rather, the pressures of the marketplace.

The problem with the land-mine analogy is that land-mines are, like grenades, a mechanical process. And if men aren't grenades, it's not simply because there are no pins to pull, but because they are human beings, and allegedly capable of thought and rational assessment.

And in excusing even one rapist because the victim somehow had it coming only reinforces a world in which women, especially, should calculate their actions according to fear.



i am in no way excusing the rapist or saying that she had it coming. i think the mechanical aspect of the analogy is entirely false. i'm saying that given what we do know about the human race...that they are capable of thought and rational assessment, and will use that for good or evil given their intentions, that she did not practice any type of discernment in this situation. what was her rational assessment of the situation? she decided to get shitfaced drunk, and isolate herself with a guy that she probably never did trust on some level (or they'd still be together), and that she knows (from experience) is sexually attracted to her. what were her intentions? did she think he just wanted to talk? WHAT GUY JUST WANTS TO TALK? did she think he was there to hold her hair while she puked?

come on!

Except her own words would leave doubt once the defense attorney gets his hooks into it:

Excerpt from conversation:



You also have to remember this is not a political issue and her own lawyer can decide to take it elsewhere. The part, as i said, where the issue would fall apart is the intoxication and other factors. A defense attorney would tear it apart.

People commit homicides while intoxicated and dont even remember it so if you are conscious, unconscious it puts doubt because you have to be certain yourself what transpired.

true but your overlooking the fact it also renders her incapable of giving consent and without a direct yes we must assume a lack of consent

the only issue is with stuck up conservative jurors who might have Victorian era views on females but to us people living in the 21 first century this is rape and young lady in question did nothing wrong and to excuse someone's primitive blaming the victim attitude of a DA no less is down right contemptible.

He didn't blame the victim. He likened it to the Ramsey case, and that is clearly a crime and no one thinks that poor girl had it coming do they?
So his discussion was not at all about blaiming the victim but about what he thought he could prove in court beyond a reasonable doubt.
Her statements that night made that difficult to do, particularly the one where she said she didn't recall telling him no, or where she referred to their relationship as "bedfellows" or admitted inviting him to her room that night and told him how to get in and was then waiting for him half naked. (just like defendents have the right to remain silent, in rape cases like this, so should victims, until they have council)

So while you might think all of that is "blaming the victim", it's not, it is though a legal barrier to proving rape beyond a reasonable doubt to 12 jurors and that's what the DA has to weigh because out justice system is, by design, oriented with the burden of proof being on the accuser, and thus the defense would have quite a bit of leeway in discrediting this woman's testimony.

Again, you are attacking a straw man, no one is saying it wasn't rape.
People are questioning if, against a strong defense, could the DA prevail in court.
They aren't the same thing.

Arthur

i am in no way excusing the rapist or saying that she had it coming. i think the mechanical aspect of the analogy is entirely false. i'm saying that given what we do know about the human race...that they are capable of thought and rational assessment, and will use that for good or evil given their intentions, that she did not practice any type of discernment in this situation. what was her rational assessment of the situation? she decided to get shitfaced drunk, and isolate herself with a guy that she probably never did trust on some level (or they'd still be together), and that she knows (from experience) is sexually attracted to her. what were her intentions? did she think he just wanted to talk? WHAT GUY JUST WANTS TO TALK? did she think he was there to hold her hair while she puked?

come on!
I think your letting your religious ideology and hatred female sexual equality cloud your opinion. guess what if a young lady wants to drink and invite guys thzts her preogative despite your puranical notions women don't need chaperones. Your still trying to blame her with your well if she were a prude like me this wouldn't have happened attitude.

He didn't blame the victim. He likened it to the Ramsey case, and that is clearly a crime and no one thinks that poor girl had it coming do they?
So his discussion was not at all about blaiming the victim but about what he thought he could prove in court beyond a reasonable doubt.
Her statements that night made that difficult to do, particularly the one where she said she didn't recall telling him no, or where she referred to their relationship as "bedfellows" or admitted inviting him to her room that night and told him how to get in and was then waiting for him half naked. (just like defendents have the right to remain silent, in rape cases like this, so should victims, until they have council)

So while you might think all of that is "blaming the victim", it's not, it is though a legal barrier to proving rape beyond a reasonable doubt to 12 jurors and that's what the DA has to weigh because out justice system is, by design, oriented with the burden of proof being on the accuser, and thus the defense would have quite a bit of leeway in discrediting this woman's testimony.

Again, you are attacking a straw man, no one is saying it wasn't rape.
People are questioning if, against a strong defense, could the DA prevail in court.
They aren't the same thing.

Arthur

No I am attacking the position of the DA that both he and his defender like yourself are to craven to come out and say honestly. He is blaming her and your defending that Victorian BS

No I am attacking the position of the DA that both he and his defender like yourself are to craven to come out and say honestly. He is blaming her and your defending that Victorian BS

PJ, what part of "statute of limitations is not up" did you not understand? The DA is saying that with all the information the Defense attorney would shoot holes into it so that no jury would convict given the circumstances. You have to remeber there only needs to be reasonable doubt and the defense would love this case because reasonable doubt is her words in the police report.


KB: Do you recall your answer to police officer in your first interview, the police
officer asked if you said no, you said I don’t recall.”
(168) V: I said I’m pretty sure that I said no, but I cannot be 100% sure. And at
that point, it was because I said I couldn’t be sure that I had actually verbalized. I
know that that I had done my best to say no but I couldn’t be sure. I did push the
suspect away, told him know, passed out.” (reading from police report).

That is the main thing because it was freshest in her mind at the time. Accusing people and calling them names is not warranted because they deal in reality and the mebers of sciforum are not on trial here. If it is fair....or not fair blame the defense attorneys.

Do, please, outline the legal procedures under Colorado law. Then we can start estimating the cost of a lawyer to undertake that process.

Actually motions like this should not be expensive, and she indeed had a lawyer at that hearing.


Motions may be made in the form of an oral request in open court, which is then summarily granted or denied orally. But today, most motions (especially on dispositive issues that could decide the entire case) are decided after oral argument preceded by the filing and service of legal papers. That is, the movant is usually required to serve advance written notice along with some kind of written legal argument justifying the motion.

There are also low cost legal services available to those without money in criminal cases like this, so while it isn't a slam dunk, it's also not exactly that big of a barrier.

What role, if any, do you think her being an advocate against sexual assault played in the prosecuters decision?

Arthur

No I am attacking the position of the DA that both he and his defender like yourself are to craven to come out and say honestly. He is blaming her and your defending that Victorian BS

Do you understand the reference to the Ramsey case?

Since he used that as an example (it's in his neck of the woods) do you think he blames the little girl for her own murder?

No, obviously not.

Do you think he believes the Ramsey murder was not a crime?

NO, obviously not.

He said, like the Ramsey case, they might think they knew who committed the crime but they didn't think they could prove the case in court.

It's fine for you to think that he could, but it's not fine for you to ascribe motives for which you have no evidence.

Arthur

I have been in what some might call "tempting" situations before, sharing a bed with a woman. On one occasion, the woman declined the spare bedroom I offered her; we smoked pot together that included "shared" hits. On another it was a former girlfriend. On a third, it was the longest night of my life, in a hotel room with a beautiful young woman, while two of my friends had sex on the other bed. Or there was the time the drunk stripper and I had fooled around together in my car outside her house right before she decided she didn't want to go home and came back to my place. On any of those occasions, and more to be certain, I might have been able to harass my bedfellow into sex, and I might have gotten away with it. But that would not have changed the impropriety of the conduct, nor justified it, and even had I won consent, it would still have been rape.
I'd like you to expand on this. Even if you get consent it's still rape? This is because you "harassed" your bedfellow? What constitutes harassment sufficient to over ride actual consent?

There's a difference between a cad and a rapist.

Good lessons to be learned here afa alcohol intoxication.

Okay, I'm confused. We have an allegation of rape. We have what appears to be a confession from the accused. We have a prosecutor that still doesn't want to go forward with what should be one of the easiest convictions of anyone's career. What about this isn't perfectly clear?

Ah, but we have a few people looking for any reason they can find to justify the prosecutor's decision:



They are hard to prosecute when the issue is what we refer to as "he said, she said". That is not the issue here. The accused confessed. This should not be a difficult prosecution.



This is the United States of America, and while husbands and wives are generally bedfellows, it does not follow under any law that a wife is obliged to provide sexual comfort just because she shares a bed with her husband. Additionally, I have been in what some might call "tempting" situations before, sharing a bed with a woman. On one occasion, the woman declined the spare bedroom I offered her; we smoked pot together that included "shared" hits. On another it was a former girlfriend. On a third, it was the longest night of my life, in a hotel room with a beautiful young woman, while two of my friends had sex on the other bed. Or there was the time the drunk stripper and I had fooled around together in my car outside her house right before she decided she didn't want to go home and came back to my place. On any of those occasions, and more to be certain, I might have been able to harass my bedfellow into sex, and I might have gotten away with it. But that would not have changed the impropriety of the conduct, nor justified it, and even had I won consent, it would still have been rape.

The courtroom logic you offer falters on a similar consideration to John99's point. There is a confession. In order to get around that, the defense is going to have to challenge that confession. If they can't get it thrown out, then they'll have to put the accused on the stand.

The idea that convincing twelve jurors to accept a confession is somehow difficult speaks poorly either of Mr. Buck as a prosecutor, or the jurors as people.



Clive Barker, in Imajica, spins a fantasy wherein men and women are not merely separate genders, but separate species perpetually at war with one another. That's all well and fine for a fantasy novel, but is this how we should view the real world?

I would hope not.

Your sort of argument reminds me of a discussion we had here at Sciforums a couple years back that featured an infamous argument:


"i know men should act responsibly, but we're literally animals. animals don't ask permission. i am in no way encouraging or condoning rape, its a horrific bestial thing, but i feel people are getting too caught up in morality and stuff, and missing some of the facts.

again, rape is bad. but if you pull the pin out of a grenade, is it your fault or the grenade's when it blows up?" (#1878878/119 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1878878&postcount=119))

The idea that men and women cannot be alone together under various circumstances without something sexual happening is part of the reason there is a War of the Sexes that continues even today. It's the twenty-first century. You know, when I watch the Fenix capsule extract another miner from a bad situation in Chile, I get a certain rush of abstract pride: This is the human species.

And when I read the argument that a woman shouldn't be able to get drunk and keep whatever company she wishes without being raped, I feel a certain tinge of abstract shame: This is the human species?

That my daughter should literally live in fear as she grows older is bad enough. Her womanhood should not be a curse. Her humanity should not be a curse.

That we might give over to such curses is an indictment of the human species.

What confuses me is how anyone can find this situation confusing. That is, sure, one might wonder why a prosecutor would not wish to go forward with what should be an open and shut case. But it blows my mind to find people—for whatever reasons—advocating rape. And, yes, that is what people are doing. That may not be their intent, but that is the effect.

I remember this one.

I could use that argument to justify a lot of things...

If we accept for argument's sake that certain men can't help rape, and that failing to dress modestly enough around men 'causes' rape and is akin to removing the pin from a grenade, it follows from there that a lot of behaviours simply 'can't be helped'...

If the man can't help it, then neither can I, and you should just consider me an animal when I break someone's cervical spine for touching me (yeah, I nearly did this to someone...I won't go into detail...) and accept that I can't help it. After all, they chose to pull that 'pin' out of the 'grenade'.

Consistency is an awesome thing.

I'd like you to expand on this. Even if you get consent it's still rape? This is because you "harassed" your bedfellow? What constitutes harassment sufficient to over ride actual consent?

There's a difference between a cad and a rapist.

I don't know where the line between harassment and annoyance is, but harassing or threatening consent out of someone is still considered rape. Because obviously if you have to harass them they probably don't want to have sex with you.

I'd like you to expand on this. Even if you get consent it's still rape? This is because you "harassed" your bedfellow? What constitutes harassment sufficient to over ride actual consent?

Once consent is refused, any attempt to manipulate consent risks classification as harassment, molestation, or assault, depending on the conduct.

Let's say I didn't touch her, but instead interfered with her sleep by pestering her. Sure, denying someone sleep is just fine, according to some legal experts, in a war theatre with terror suspects, but I don't see how it works with someone in their own home just so I can get laid.

Maybe I try to touch, massage, and otherwise stimulate someone into consent. After that first, "No," all of that contact is violative. How it is classified—e.g., harassment, molestation, or assault—depends on each state's laws.

Sometimes the difference between a cad and a rapist is whether or not a prosecutor is willing to enforce the law.

Imagine a situation. A woman you know only from some occasions of heavy drinking, starting at a local bar, decides to come back to your place. She kisses you once, open-mouthed, and even borrows some clothes to sleep in. She allows you to see her changing, and yes, that satin g-string has its temptational value. She refuses the spare room, and asks to share your bed with you. In bed, she curls up against you for physical contact.

At what point has she really consented to have sex with you? Is sexual intercourse the only possible interpretation of her behavior? Or maybe she's drunk, and just doesn't want to feel lonely in some strange place.

So when she notices your hand on her ass, she says, "Please don't."

What next? Do you try your luck? Try to tease and stimulate her into desire? Maybe presume she's playing hard to get, and if you just "take control", you can get some tail?

And maybe it would work. Maybe that is what she wants.

Or maybe you respect her request, take your hand off her ass, and go to sleep.

And when you see her at the bar again a few days later, what will that situation be? Will you sheepishly apologize for feeling her up? Or will you be apologizing for raping her?

I can deal with apologizing for feeling her up. And I can appreciate the gentle kiss, the thanks for being so nice, and the reassurance that I don't need to apologize for grabbing her ass.

I don't ever want to apologize for raping someone. Best way to do that is to accept that no means no.

One way you get close to people is when they trust you. Trust involves a recognition that another can cause you harm. And they trust—that is, they believe or accept—that you won't.

And if you're not selfish, not a sex machine, not a grenade or land mine, it's not especially difficult to respect that trust.


• • •



i'm saying that given what we do know about the human race...that they are capable of thought and rational assessment, and will use that for good or evil given their intentions, that she did not practice any type of discernment in this situationl what was her rational assessment of the situation? she decided to get shitfaced drunk, and isolate herself with a guy that she probably never did trust on some level (or they'd still be together), and that she knows (from experience) is sexually attracted to her.

I think the amount of presumption in that is problematic.


what were her intentions? did she think he just wanted to talk? WHAT GUY JUST WANTS TO TALK? did she think he was there to hold her hair while she puked?

If her expectation should be that men should not be trusted to conduct themselves properly, society has more than a few problems to work out.

By the goddess, madam, the number of women I've been permitted to simply hang out with, and occasionally sleep beside? I cannot imagine what my life would be like without the friends I've had along the way. And sure, there were some long, conflicted nights in there. But neither do I know who or what I would be had I not learned what I could of those nights.

And it does get easier if people stop looking at each other so primarily as potential sexual mates.

I am allowed by circumstance to accept that other people—other human beings—might seek close comfort both emotional and physical, without transgressing to sexual contact. If I am allowed, why should a woman not be? Because it is simply easier to give over to fear, desire, and indecency?

If the only difference between what I am allowed to expect of other people compared to this unfortunate rape survivor is the fact of her womanhood, well, frankly, I don't know where to begin.

Tiassa, no means NO period.

There are certain situations where there may be some extenuating circumstances. For example:

Being in a number of relationships i have said no to my female partner and they persisted and i, after awhile, willingly participate.

Contrast this to another time when i met a woman, who i knew causally, and when we were alone she became agressive and i said "NO" she persisted and i physically got her off of me. The reason was because i didnt want to take any chances of ending up with a STD.

So in the first case, living with these women and saying no but i gave in would not mean they forced me because i agreed and consented but not by saying "Yes" mind you. So there is no blanket robot way to respond to these situaations.

Once consent is refused, any attempt to manipulate consent risks classification as harassment, molestation, or assault, depending on the conduct.

Let's say I didn't touch her, but instead interfered with her sleep by pestering her. Sure, denying someone sleep is just fine, according to some legal experts, in a war theatre with terror suspects, but I don't see how it works with someone in their own home just so I can get laid.

Maybe I try to touch, massage, and otherwise stimulate someone into consent. After that first, "No," all of that contact is violative. How it is classified—e.g., harassment, molestation, or assault—depends on each state's laws.

Sometimes the difference between a cad and a rapist is whether or not a prosecutor is willing to enforce the law.


The prosecuter doesn't get to enforce the law, the JURY does.
And you need all 12 to agree that the evidence supports that conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.

And if you're both in bed together by mutual consent with no evidence of physical coercion, there is not a prosecuter in this world who would take ANY of those suggested offenses to a jury trial.

You don't seem to differentiate what is against the letter of the law and what a prosecuter can actually win in a trial.

And like it or not, Prosecuters are judged (and promoted and get raises) based on their conviction rate, so they will typically not go with a long shot.
Indeed, they tend to go much more for SURE THINGS and since the amount of cases the typical prosecuter has on his docket at any given time is fairly high, this bar to prosecution is also pretty high.

The chance of getting a conviction of Rape of someone who was invited over, is in bed with them partially clothed, isn't a stranger, has previously had consensual sex and with no physical evidence of coercion is pretty damn low.

Which is as it SHOULD be.

Arthur

i am in no way excusing the rapist or saying that she had it coming. i think the mechanical aspect of the analogy is entirely false. i'm saying that given what we do know about the human race...that they are capable of thought and rational assessment, and will use that for good or evil given their intentions, that she did not practice any type of discernment in this situation. what was her rational assessment of the situation? she decided to get shitfaced drunk, and isolate herself with a guy that she probably never did trust on some level (or they'd still be together), and that she knows (from experience) is sexually attracted to her. what were her intentions? did she think he just wanted to talk? WHAT GUY JUST WANTS TO TALK? did she think he was there to hold her hair while she puked?

come on!

You haven't read the trascript of the call the police had her do, did you?

She didn't isolate herself with a guy while she was drunk. She had apparently spoken to him on the phone and he then realised she was drunk. She had apparently mentioned that she was going to bed when she terminated the call. He then decided to drive to her house, jimmy the door open and came in and found her semi-conscious and very drunk in her home and in her bed and from Mr Buck, we come to learn that she was in a state of semi-undress. At one point in the call she makes to him, which was recorded by the police mind you, she asks him why had he come over and he responds with "I don't know". She asks him if he knew it was rape, since as a rape advocate, it seems she had educated him about rape and what constitutes rape, and he responds with "yeah".

But lets go back to when he has entered her house while she was half passed out in bed, because according to the police transcript, he wanted to lie down next to her. That was when the sexual assault began and he admitted to all of it, he admitted it to her in the police pretext call and he admitted to having raped her and to her having said "no" at least twice, to the police.

So, to use your excuse for the rapist, lets apply this to you. Next time you are at home, do not drink or get drunk. If you do, you should then be barred from calling anyone you know and have some sort of trust with (especially one you know understands rape and what constitutes rape since you have educated them about it before), just in case they decide to drive to your after you have gone to bed, jimmy your door open and come into your bedroom and rape you while you are half passed out drunk. You know, because we apparently now know the human species and know that is what all men of the human species do.:rolleyes:

Do you see how ridiculous that proposition is? It would be like telling you to never ever get drunk in the presence of your husband, just in case he decides to rape you, even after you have told him no and tried to push him off while in a semi-conscious state. Because it seems in your world, your husband being a male of the human species, that is what he will be doing to you if you get drunk.:rolleyes:

------------------------------------------------

There is one thing about this case that several of you cannot seem to grasp.

She said no. He confessed to the police that she said no when he had started fingering her. He confessed, that she had said no when he had climaxed in her.

That is established. We know that is what she said and we know he admitted it to the police and we also know that he knew what he had done was bad because he also admitted to the police directly that he had tried to then get her conscious to apologise to her.

So can someone tell me, based on that, how Mr Buck can then turn around and tell the victim that he thinks that she had implied consent? We know she had said no when he started to touch her vagina. But Mr Buck ignores that entirely in his discussion with the victim and tells her that because she was drunk, in her house and in her bed, not to mention in a state of undress, when the man entered her room, then as far as he is concerned, it is somehow implied that she had consented. But we also know that the man had then lain down next to her and then started to touch her, at which point she said no and rolled over away from him. So where is the implied consent?

Is it possible that Mr Buck had an issue with date rape? Is it possible that he thinks a woman getting drunk alone at home and being semi-naked when she goes to bed is inviting her rape when her ex then decides, of his own volition to drive to her house, knowing that she is drunk and going to bed, jimmies open the door and then enters her room and rapes her? Does anyone here believe that telling a man you've known for years on the phone that you're drunk and going to bed (a man you had not spoken to for a year but had been in a relationship with for quite a while and someone who had known you for over 4 years), while you are home alone, implying consent?

You know, this is what I do not understand about this case. At no time were the actions in any way, implying consent. Mr Buck's comments to the victim imply that as soon as you know your rapist and because you may have had sex consentually in the past with your rapist, that suddenly, that rapist will always have implied consent. In other words, a woman can divorce a man and a year later speak to him on the phone and boom, instant consent. Even if she has said the word "no" to him when he enters her house without her knowledge, gets into her bed and starts to touch her sexually. That is what Mr Buck implied in his words to the victim. And that is what people like John, Lori and Arthur seem to believe and worse still, seem to excuse.

I have taken this case to a couple of friends of mine, who are still prosecutors. I gave them the transcripts and the articles I have linked here, as well as told them that this is all the police incident report we can see and that apparently Mr Buck had written all over the rest of it, detailing why he thinks it is not rape. Their answer? Those 2 paragraphs where the alleged perpetrator admits to her having said no and describes how she was not in a state to even consent, that there is no way in hell he would not have been able to get a conviction. I asked them to review the whole thing. Like me, they prosecuted sexual assault cases, on both adults and children. I'll put it this way, these types of cases where the perpetrator admits everything to the police and describes it in that kind of detail is usually what is given to those who are new to the department, as it is virtually impossible to stuff it up. Why? Because you have a full confession to the police.

And yet, Mr Buck seems to believe otherwise and instead, rambles about how the victim did not remember at first saying "no". Which is often common. But the perpetrator remembers since he was sober enough to not only remember and know that she had said no, he was also sober enough to know that what he had done was bad. Mr Buck also believes that prior sexual relationship seems to imply consent. It does not. At all. His mentioning her words that they had been "bedfellows" in the past when they were in a relationship, does not mean that she had consented. Quite the contrary, even the perpetrator admitted that at no time did he have actual consent, quite the contrary, he admitted to the police that he was told "no", twice. Mr Buck then accuses the victim of having had an abortion in the past and that was what the perpetrator had accused her of. The victim replies that it was a miscarriage. I am curious as to whether Mr Buck believes that once you fall pregnant with a man, whether that gives the man consent to eternity, even if the woman says no. That aside, Mr Buck's accusation to the victim that she had an abortion reeks of dragging his personal feelings about abortion and about women into his job. Huge no no.

We know from the transcript and from listening to that conversation that at no time did he offer her any understanding or even compassion. Quite the contrary, his manner of speaking to her in that recording sounded cold and callous.

This again shines through when he later goes on to describe the victim as suffering from "buyers remorse" and when he again later on describes the facts of the case as pitiful.

What is equally pitiful are those who are quite literally grasping at straws to defend him and also, to defend the rapist in this case.

What is equally pitiful are those who are quite literally grasping at straws to defend him and also, to defend the rapist in this case.

No one is defending the accused (that I've seen) the issue is did the DA have enough to go to trial?

You think yes, but there are certainly reasons why he might not of, including the fact that we haven't seen all of the police report, particularly her interview.

A) the Call is NOT under oath and will never be used in the trial, so it has no bearing on the DA's ability to convict.

B) She told the original officer that she couldn't recall if she said no. That is a HUGE problem for the prosecution because the obvious defense to that is she said YES. Sure the police report of what he said afterward is damaging, but so is hers.

Indeed, when you read the transcripts, it's clear she has no recollection of that night and is always asking the accused what happened. But in his phone conversation he is quite clear in that he says she was awake and taking part (at least at the start), so that's going to be his position on the stand.

Can the defense put the kibosh on the "confession". Maybe not, but good chance they will paint it in a better light.

C) She does admit to inviting him over. The defense will use that as evidence of consent.
D) She does tell him how to get in. The defense will use that as evidence of consent.
E) After inviting him over and telling him how to get in, she is in bed half naked. The defense will use that as evidence of consent.
F) He will probably testify that she took an active part as he related in the phone call, regardless of what she said, ie. implied consent.
G) In one official statement that will be used at trial she refers to them as "Bedfellows". We don't know exactly in what sense it was used, but the DA is concerned about it and if you don't know how it was used how can you dismiss it?
H) The DA brings this up to her: "when you look at what happened earlier in the night, all the circumstances", but without explanation (since she apparently knows what he is referring to), we don't know, but it could be significant.

There are less than 12 people responding to this thread, but just from the various comments, it doesn't look like you could get a conviction from this crowd, so why do you think the DA could when the accused will probably act like a choir boy on the stand and have a skilled defense lawyer representing him?

Arthur

Bell, where does it say "jimmy" the door open?

All i see about that is:


The victim, then a 21-year-old student, had admitted she was intoxicated and invited her alleged attacker to her apartment. Her alleged attacker was also a former lover, though she said she hadn't seen him for more than a year.

It was in the phone transcript.


How did you get into the apartment, was the front door unlocked or ... how did you get in?
Yeah, yeah, it was unlocked.
. And my door?
Uh ... your door? Oh, you told me to, uh, just jimmy it open with like a, a card or something.
Oh, okay.
So, uh, that's what Idid.
Hmm. So when, was I even awake when you got there?
Urn .. .I, I called out your name and you rolled over to say hi and I was like, "Hello," you know. "How you doing?"

And it was referenced in the transcript between the girl and the DA.


(139) KB: Because when you look at what happened earlier in the night, all the circumstances, based on his statements and some of your statements, indicate that you invited him to come to your apartment… that you told him how to get in …

Now what's interesting about this exchange is it is another reference to information that we have yet to see, but that the DA based his decision on.

What happened earlier in the night? We don't know.

But apparently it was important to the DA to mention it.

He didn't describe what happened, because she knew what he was referring to, but we don't.

Arthur

The prosecuter doesn't get to enforce the law, the JURY does.

Take it up with the Yale Law Review (http://www.jstor.org/pss/793367):


Failure of public prosecutors to enforce state laws has evoked in several states a variety of constitutional and legislative responses ....

Of course, maybe things have changed over the last sixty years.


Citing an appearance of conflict, San Juan County Prosecutor Randy Gaylord has asked the state Attorney General to take over enforcement of the Shoreline Management Act at the gravel pit barge landing site. In a letter dated January 14, 2003, he wrote: "The commissioners have directed this office to prepare a contract to acquire all of the gravel pit property...For this reason we believe you are in a better position to objectively review and take appropriate action."

(San Juan Islander (http://www.sanjuanislander.com/county/prosecutor/enforcement.shtml))


And you need all 12 to agree that the evidence supports that conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt ....

.... The chance of getting a conviction of Rape of someone who was invited over, is in bed with them partially clothed, isn't a stranger, has previously had consensual sex and with no physical evidence of coercion is pretty damn low.

A jury faced with a defendant who acknowledges violating the statute in question has a low chance of conviction?


Which is as it SHOULD be.

Yes. Admitting guilt is insufficient to establish guilt. Exactly as it should be. Right? Because, well, the implicit and interpretive is much more meaningful and indicative than the explicit.
____________________

Notes:

Howard, W. "District Court Discipline of State Prosecutor for Failure to Enforce State Laws". Yale Law Journal. 1947. JSTOR.org. October 13, 2010. http://www.jstor.org/pss/793367

San Juan Islander. "Prosecutor won't enforce permit violations at gravel pit". January 20, 2003. SanJuanIslander.com. October 13, 2010. http://www.sanjuanislander.com/county/prosecutor/enforcement.shtml

Take it up with the Yale Law Review (http://www.jstor.org/pss/793367):


Failure of public prosecutors to enforce state laws has evoked in several states a variety of constitutional and legislative responses ....

Of course, maybe things have changed over the last sixty years.


Citing an appearance of conflict, San Juan County Prosecutor Randy Gaylord has asked the state Attorney General to take over enforcement of the Shoreline Management Act at the gravel pit barge landing site. In a letter dated January 14, 2003, he wrote: "The commissioners have directed this office to prepare a contract to acquire all of the gravel pit property...For this reason we believe you are in a better position to objectively review and take appropriate action."

(San Juan Islander (http://www.sanjuanislander.com/county/prosecutor/enforcement.shtml))



A jury faced with a defendant who acknowledges violating the statute in question has a low chance of conviction?



Yes. Admitting guilt is insufficient to establish guilt. Exactly as it should be. Right? Because, well, the implicit and interpretive is much more meaningful and indicative than the explicit.
____________________

Notes:

Howard, W. "District Court Discipline of State Prosecutor for Failure to Enforce State Laws". Yale Law Journal. 1947. JSTOR.org. October 13, 2010. http://www.jstor.org/pss/793367

San Juan Islander. "Prosecutor won't enforce permit violations at gravel pit". January 20, 2003. SanJuanIslander.com. October 13, 2010. http://www.sanjuanislander.com/county/prosecutor/enforcement.shtml


Semantics.
Those articles are using the term "Enforce" to mean for the DA to take it to a jury.

But the reality is, it is the Jury that determines if a defendent is guilty and thus enforces the law.



I'm not a lawyer, but that DA was well aware of that Police report of the supposed confession and that clearly didn't seal the deal for him.

Why do you think that is?

Both you and Bells insist that this was a SLAM DUNK, but yet the DA obviously didn't agree with that and wouldn't proceed.

Can you offer ANY reason why he wouldn't, besides what he said, that he didn't think he could get a conviction?

Are YOU more knowledgeable of the case and facts than he is?

Arthur

Once consent is refused, any attempt to manipulate consent risks classification as harassment, molestation, or assault, depending on the conduct.I recall seeing something to that effect as part of the university code of conduct, but is that an actual law anywhere? Furthermore, has anyone ever been charged and/or convicted of rape in such a situation? First she says no, then she says yes? I don't mean under duress like at the point of a gun. But rather that she first said no and then she later clearly and definitively changed it to a yes.

What man hasn't tried to turn a no into a yes?

Let's say I didn't touch her, but instead interfered with her sleep by pestering her. Sure, denying someone sleep is just fine, according to some legal experts, in a war theatre with terror suspects, but I don't see how it works with someone in their own home just so I can get laid.
Is she your prisoner? She's free to go home if you're "pestering" her and interfering with her sleep. Or to tell you to get the hell out if you're at her place. "Pestering" is not rape. If she finds your sexual advances so off putting, perhaps you shouldn't be together in the first place.

Maybe I try to touch, massage, and otherwise stimulate someone into consent. After that first, "No," all of that contact is violative. How it is classified—e.g., harassment, molestation, or assault—depends on each state's laws.Look, everyone knows there's no and there's no. Woman can go around at rallies saying "NO MEANS NO!", but that's not how they act in real life. There's a different tone of voice to a real no. A different body language. It's like at the end of a concert when the band steps off the stage and says, "Thank you, goodnight!", you know they don't mean it. Not until the lights go on in the theater.

Your wife/girlfriend says no, playfully, and you start to massage her. She doesn't object to this. In the process, she gets excited too and no becomes yes. That's rape?

On the other hand, you try to intiate sex and she firmly says no. You wait for her to fall asleep and jerk off.

When you've been with someone a while, you can tell the difference between a real no and a "I might be convinced" no.

Imagine a situation. A woman you know only from some occasions of heavy drinking, starting at a local bar, decides to come back to your place. She kisses you once, open-mouthed, and even borrows some clothes to sleep in. She allows you to see her changing, and yes, that satin g-string has its temptational value. She refuses the spare room, and asks to share your bed with you. In bed, she curls up against you for physical contact.

So when she notices your hand on her ass, she says, "Please don't."

What next?
We're drunk. We've kissed. She comes to my place. Refuses the guest bedroom, undresses in front of me, rubs up against me and then objects when I finally touch her?

I'd be pretty incredulous, but if she made if clear she really wasn't interested in sex, fine.

And when you see her at the bar again a few days later, what will that situation be? Will you sheepishly apologize for feeling her up? Or will you be apologizing for raping her?I'd be coldly polite but not pursue any further relationship with her. Given the scenario you've presented, I'd consider her to be some kind of psycho prick tease. Unless there's more to the story that you haven't mentioned.

Imagine a situation. A woman you know only from some occasions of heavy drinking, starting at a local bar, decides to come back to your place. She kisses you once, open-mouthed, and even borrows some clothes to sleep in. She allows you to see her changing, and yes, that satin g-string has its temptational value. She refuses the spare room, and asks to share your bed with you. In bed, she curls up against you for physical contact.

At what point has she really consented to have sex with you? Is sexual intercourse the only possible interpretation of her behavior? Or maybe she's drunk, and just doesn't want to feel lonely in some strange place.

So when she notices your hand on her ass, she says, "Please don't."

What next?

Well after all that any red blooded male is going to have a yard arm a hard long.

So one way or another, you are going to cum before you get to sleep and any normal red blooded woman, after kissing and undressing in front of you and curling up next to you in bed, wouldn't make that just your problem.

She doesn't have to have intercourse though, there are other methods of handling the situation.

But if I was told to not only not touch her but to handle it myself, I'd probably just call her a cab.

Arthur

The prosecuter doesn't get to enforce the law, the JURY does.
And you need all 12 to agree that the evidence supports that conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.




actually neither do it is the exucitive branches role to enforce the law

Semantics.

Indeed.


Those articles are using the term "Enforce" to mean for the DA to take it to a jury.

But the reality is, it is the Jury that determines if a defendent is guilty and thus enforces the law.

And since we're splitting hairs, a judge can vacate a jury verdict, or a defendant can plead guilty and skip the whole jury thing altogether.


I'm not a lawyer, but that DA was well aware of that Police report of the supposed confession and that clearly didn't seal the deal for him.

Why do you think that is?

It could be that he let personal sentiment get in the way of enforcing the law. He wouldn't be the first, and certainly wouldn't be the last.


Both you and Bells insist that this was a SLAM DUNK, but yet the DA obviously didn't agree with that and wouldn't proceed.

Can you offer ANY reason why he wouldn't, besides what he said, that he didn't think he could get a conviction?

That he has attitudes toward women similar to yours, and didn't want to prosecute a young man for taking what he thought was rightfully his.


Are YOU more knowledgeable of the case and facts than he is?

This isn't a particularly difficult issue to see. A prosecutor has a suspect admitting to violating the law, and chooses not to go forward. Whatever reasons he offers are, for quite obvious reasons—e.g., having a confession—suspect.


So one way or another, you are going to cum before you get to sleep and any normal red blooded woman, after kissing and undressing in front of you and curling up next to you in bed, wouldn't make that just your problem.

Says you.


But if I was told to not only not touch her but to handle it myself, I'd probably just call her a cab.

Like I said: attitudes toward women.


• • •



I recall seeing something to that effect as part of the university code of conduct, but is that an actual law anywhere? Furthermore, has anyone ever been charged and/or convicted of rape in such a situation? First she says no, then she says yes? I don't mean under duress like at the point of a gun. But rather that she first said no and then she later clearly and definitively changed it to a yes.

What man hasn't tried to turn a no into a yes?

That will be a long search.


Is she your prisoner? She's free to go home if you're "pestering" her and interfering with her sleep. Or to tell you to get the hell out if you're at her place. "Pestering" is not rape. If she finds your sexual advances so off putting, perhaps you shouldn't be together in the first place.

And if I'm in her home, as with Mr. Buck's refusal to prosecute?

However, for me sexual gratification is not a deal-breaker for whether or not a woman is welcome in my home.

Sometimes, "Not tonight, dear," just isn't bullshit.


Look, everyone knows there's no and there's no. Woman can go around at rallies saying "NO MEANS NO!", but that's not how they act in real life. There's a different tone of voice to a real no. A different body language. It's like at the end of a concert when the band steps off the stage and says, "Thank you, goodnight!", you know they don't mean it. Not until the lights go on in the theater.

Congratulations, sir. You are capable of leaving me speechless.

No, really, there is absolutely nothing I can say to that it doesn't say for itself alrady.


Your wife/girlfriend says no, playfully, and you start to massage her. She doesn't object to this. In the process, she gets excited too and no becomes yes. That's rape?

On the other hand, you try to intiate sex and she firmly says no. You wait for her to fall asleep and jerk off.

When you've been with someone a while, you can tell the difference between a real no and a "I might be convinced" no.

To the one, that's a risk one chooses to take. To the other, I'm not sure it's applicable in this particular circumstance.


We're drunk. We've kissed. She comes to my place. Refuses the guest bedroom, undresses in front of me, rubs up against me and then objects when I finally touch her?

I'd be pretty incredulous, but if she made if clear she really wasn't interested in sex, fine.

For me it's not a matter of incredulity. But maybe it's a broader outlook on sex, too. I can find comfort in a woman that doesn't involve piledriving her loins; her human mystery extends well beyond sexual intercourse.


I'd be coldly polite but not pursue any further relationship with her. Given the scenario you've presented, I'd consider her to be some kind of psycho prick tease.

This is part of what I don't understand: How is it that a woman is measured in terms of the sexual gratification she gives?

"Psycho prick tease," as such, is a comfort a man invents for his own sake. In other words, it can't be that there is value in other forms of contact, but that she must necessarily be out to torture us.

It's not that there aren't psycho prick teases out there, but as a general measure, it assesses a woman according to whether or not she puts out.


Sure, I agree. But a drunken woman you don't know very well who comes back to your place and wants to spend the night in your bed? But refuses to have sex? Are there some extenuating circumstances you're not mentioning? It just seems very weird.

No, that's the thing. Sure, we had some strange adventures together, but why does her on that particular occasion behavior mean she wants to have sex? It's so removed from my outlook that I'm grasping at straws and falling back to basic psychology. We can leave it as a rhetorical question—indeed, we'd probably be better off if we did—but isn't there anything polymorphously sexual that gives you a thrill? There are sides of me that I enjoy that don't involve sexual intercourse, and I'm probably better off not sharing with anyone else. The idea that someone might take sexual comfort in me without sexual intercourse just doesn't seem so bizarre to me. I'd even go so far as to say that, in a Freudian context, it would be healthier for people if they actually found more of those outlets for themselves.

If sexual intercourse is the standard against which we measure a person or a situation, we are binding ourselves as well.

No one is defending the accused (that I've seen) the issue is did the DA have enough to go to trial?


Did you fail to read the transcript where he was speaking to her?


You think yes, but there are certainly reasons why he might not of, including the fact that we haven't seen all of the police report, particularly her interview.

Again, moot point. The perpetrator confessed to doing it, in his interview with the police. Or did that also escape you?


A) the Call is NOT under oath and will never be used in the trial, so it has no bearing on the DA's ability to convict.

No. But the incident report where he confessed in detail, where he said she had said no twice and where he said that she was so drunk she was semi-conscious to unconscious has a massive bearing on the DA's ability to convict.

It would be like saying a DA says he cannot get a murder conviction even though the perpetrator tells police that yes, he did do it. Those two paragraphs indicate to me that Mr Buck was so intent on blaming a rape victim for her own rape that he plainly and openly overlooked a confession from a perpetrator. It was plain by the fact that he failed to even take on the case and it was even plainer from the manner in which he spoke to her. She asked him repeatedly about the perpetrator's confession and admittance of guilt in the police report and he told her that while she did not say yes, the consent in his opinion was intended.

So where does "no" not mean no? If you're trying to stick your finger or dick in a woman and she says no and rolls over, do you think that means yes? Is she consenting, in your opinion?

In this case, we have a drunk woman saying no twice. And we have a man continuing his sexual assault on her and then raping her. That, under any definition, is rape.


B) She told the original officer that she couldn't recall if she said no. That is a HUGE problem for the prosecution because the obvious defense to that is she said YES. Sure the police report of what he said afterward is damaging, but so is hers.

She did not say yes.

Do you how we know that? Because her rapist stated that she said no, and that she said no twice. Because her rapist said that she was so drunk that she was barely conscious. But that she had told him no twice.

At no time does he say that she said yes. On the contrary, he says that she said no and that he then managed to bring her back to consciousness to ask for her forgiveness.

Do you understand now?

Now, as to her not remembering if she said no.

Do you understand that if a woman is unconsciousness or semi-conscious or so drunk that she is in that state that she cannot give consent? Do you understand that she cannot legally give consent if she is that drunk? Yes? No?


Indeed, when you read the transcripts, it's clear she has no recollection of that night and is always asking the accused what happened. But in his phone conversation he is quite clear in that he says she was awake and taking part (at least at the start), so that's going to be his position on the stand.
Actually no. In the transcript, she asked him why he did not stop when she asked him to and tried to push him off.

Do you know what a pretext call is? What the purpose behind a pretext call is? The police will often get partners who have been raped to do such calls or face to face interviews to see if the rapist will even admit to it. Victims are often coached in not leading the perpetrator but to get them to talk about it, which is exactly what she does in that call. Then she slips up and tells him that she remembers trying to push him off and asks him why he didn't stop at that point.


Can the defense put the kibosh on the "confession". Maybe not, but good chance they will paint it in a better light.

You're telling me they can put a better light on 'I started fingering her and she said no and rolled away.. So after a few moments I started again and then entered her, while she was in and out of consciousness'?


C) She does admit to inviting him over. The defense will use that as evidence of consent.
Do you know what date rape means?

If we were to use your judgement, it would mean that anytime a woman invites a man to her house for whatever reason, then it is consent. We know it is not. For example, if I hire an electrician to come to my house and then invite him in when comes to my door, it is not consent for him to have sex with me.


D) She does tell him how to get in. The defense will use that as evidence of consent.
She told him how to get in? Lets say the electrician comes to my house and I tell him to jimmy the door to get in as I am busy in the kitchen. Is that evidence of consent?

She may have told him how to get in. But when he started to touch her, she told him "no". No means no. Yes, it is that simple.


E) After inviting him over and telling him how to get in, she is in bed half naked. The defense will use that as evidence of consent.
Actually no. The call transcripts make that quite clear. She asks him how he managed to get into her house and then asks him how he managed to get into her bedroom. She also asks him why he had come over. But again, that is all beside the point.

With rape, she could have undressed him and rubbed his penis till it got hard if she wanted to. But as soon as she says no, it is a withdrawal of consent. Again, yes, it is that simple.


F) He will probably testify that she took an active part as he related in the phone call, regardless of what she said, ie. implied consent.
How?

We know from his own confession that she was so drunk she was barely conscious and that at times, she was not conscious at all. And we also know from his own confession that she told him no twice.


G) In one official statement that will be used at trial she refers to them as "Bedfellows". We don't know exactly in what sense it was used, but the DA is concerned about it and if you don't know how it was used how can you dismiss it?
Again, do you understand that a husband can and has been found of raping his wife? That sharing a bed with someone is not implied consent? That as soon as a woman says "no", and we know she did in this instance because even he admitted that she did, then any consent is immediately withdrawn? Do you understand that about rape and rape laws?


H) The DA brings this up to her: "when you look at what happened earlier in the night, all the circumstances", but without explanation (since she apparently knows what he is referring to), we don't know, but it could be significant.

Again, she said no and he had confessed that she said no.

Which he completely disregards. He is talking about things that happened before she said no.

Do you understand that bit yet? That no matter what happened before, the fact that she said no and then was not in a conscious state means that there was no legal consent? It really is that simple Arthur. My 5 year old could get this.


There are less than 12 people responding to this thread, but just from the various comments, it doesn't look like you could get a conviction from this crowd, so why do you think the DA could when the accused will probably act like a choir boy on the stand and have a skilled defense lawyer representing him?
We have less than 12 people and we have 3 defending a rapist.

Says more about you than about the rest of us. But let me remind you of something. If there was a jury, said jury would have been selected and I can assure you, the 3 of you would never have made it on any jury that involves a rape trial. Not just because you 3 seem to believe that a woman invites a rape, but because the 3 of you would not be intelligent enough to be selected by either the prosecution or the defense.

That side, those 12 people would have seen that he confessed to the police. That is if it even went to trial. Confession like that would mean a conviction regardless..

So why do you think he refused to take on the case? He had a confession. It is a slam dunk case. He'd only have lost it if he failed to turn up to court. Could it be that he has a problem with date rape, with women and with abortions?

Did you fail to read the transcript where he was speaking to her?


Again, moot point. The perpetrator confessed to doing it, in his interview with the police. Or did that also escape you?


No. But the incident report where he confessed in detail, where he said she had said no twice and where he said that she was so drunk she was semi-conscious to unconscious has a massive bearing on the DA's ability to convict.

It would be like saying a DA says he cannot get a murder conviction even though the perpetrator tells police that yes, he did do it. Those two paragraphs indicate to me that Mr Buck was so intent on blaming a rape victim for her own rape that he plainly and openly overlooked a confession from a perpetrator. It was plain by the fact that he failed to even take on the case and it was even plainer from the manner in which he spoke to her. She asked him repeatedly about the perpetrator's confession and admittance of guilt in the police report and he told her that while she did not say yes, the consent in his opinion was intended.

So where does "no" not mean no? If you're trying to stick your finger or dick in a woman and she says no and rolls over, do you think that means yes? Is she consenting, in your opinion?

In this case, we have a drunk woman saying no twice. And we have a man continuing his sexual assault on her and then raping her. That, under any definition, is rape.


She did not say yes.

Do you how we know that? Because her rapist stated that she said no, and that she said no twice. Because her rapist said that she was so drunk that she was barely conscious. But that she had told him no twice.

At no time does he say that she said yes. On the contrary, he says that she said no and that he then managed to bring her back to consciousness to ask for her forgiveness.

Do you understand now?

Now, as to her not remembering if she said no.

Do you understand that if a woman is unconsciousness or semi-conscious or so drunk that she is in that state that she cannot give consent? Do you understand that she cannot legally give consent if she is that drunk? Yes? No?


Actually no. In the transcript, she asked him why he did not stop when she asked him to and tried to push him off.

Do you know what a pretext call is? What the purpose behind a pretext call is? The police will often get partners who have been raped to do such calls or face to face interviews to see if the rapist will even admit to it. Victims are often coached in not leading the perpetrator but to get them to talk about it, which is exactly what she does in that call. Then she slips up and tells him that she remembers trying to push him off and asks him why he didn't stop at that point.


You're telling me they can put a better light on 'I started fingering her and she said no and rolled away.. So after a few moments I started again and then entered her, while she was in and out of consciousness'?


Do you know what date rape means?

If we were to use your judgement, it would mean that anytime a woman invites a man to her house for whatever reason, then it is consent. We know it is not. For example, if I hire an electrician to come to my house and then invite him in when comes to my door, it is not consent for him to have sex with me.


She told him how to get in? Lets say the electrician comes to my house and I tell him to jimmy the door to get in as I am busy in the kitchen. Is that evidence of consent?

She may have told him how to get in. But when he started to touch her, she told him "no". No means no. Yes, it is that simple.


Actually no. The call transcripts make that quite clear. She asks him how he managed to get into her house and then asks him how he managed to get into her bedroom. She also asks him why he had come over. But again, that is all beside the point.

With rape, she could have undressed him and rubbed his penis till it got hard if she wanted to. But as soon as she says no, it is a withdrawal of consent. Again, yes, it is that simple.


How?

We know from his own confession that she was so drunk she was barely conscious and that at times, she was not conscious at all. And we also know from his own confession that she told him no twice.


Again, do you understand that a husband can and has been found of raping his wife? That sharing a bed with someone is not implied consent? That as soon as a woman says "no", and we know she did in this instance because even he admitted that she did, then any consent is immediately withdrawn? Do you understand that about rape and rape laws?


Again, she said no and he had confessed that she said no.

Which he completely disregards. He is talking about things that happened before she said no.

Do you understand that bit yet? That no matter what happened before, the fact that she said no and then was not in a conscious state means that there was no legal consent? It really is that simple Arthur. My 5 year old could get this.


We have less than 12 people and we have 3 defending a rapist.

Says more about you than about the rest of us. But let me remind you of something. If there was a jury, said jury would have been selected and I can assure you, the 3 of you would never have made it on any jury that involves a rape trial. Not just because you 3 seem to believe that a woman invites a rape, but because the 3 of you would not be intelligent enough to be selected by either the prosecution or the defense.

That side, those 12 people would have seen that he confessed to the police. That is if it even went to trial. Confession like that would mean a conviction regardless..

So why do you think he refused to take on the case? He had a confession. It is a slam dunk case. He'd only have lost it if he failed to turn up to court. Could it be that he has a problem with date rape, with women and with abortions?

bells they choose stupid people for juries not smart people. the stupid are easier to influence.

I'm not quite sure why she couldn't sue him in a court of law? Perhaps the jury would have found him innocent. Or not. But, it's really up to the jury isn't it? I mean, it seems that this man made up his mind of how the jury would decide - well, what's the point in having a jury???

The only reason I could suspect is that the prosecutor was so sure that they jury would come back with a not guilty that he didn't want to set a precedent for future cases resulting in even more people found innocent?

Bells,
You think that police report equates to an slam dunk conviction.
I don't, and apparently neither did the DA.
I think that on the defense stand he would get a chance to explain those statements and with a good defense lawyer it wouldn't end up nearly as damaging.
See the Phone transcript.
Note that the Phone Transcript was BEFORE the police transcript and it tells a different story of her participation.

Iwas conscious?
Yeah.
Did Ido anything?
Yeah.
What did Ido?
Urn ... just, uh, normal, you know, uh, normal (inaudible) and all that.
Normal what?
(Inaudible)
Okay. Did I touch you at all?
Yeah. And that's ... that's what, that's what Ithought what was going on

And when you use statements like:

With rape, she could have undressed him and rubbed his penis till it got hard if she wanted to. But as soon as she says no, it is a withdrawal of consent. Again, yes, it is that simple.
It just shows you aren't thinking in terms of a sucessful prosectution at a trial.
It might be Rape as defined by law, but if those are the facts a prosecuter won't bring it to trial, and that is the issue here, not is it rape, but can you prove it is rape:

And is it true that you invited him over to your house that night?
Yes
And is it true that you then proceeded to undress him?
Yes
And is it true that you rubbed his penis until he had an erection?
Yes
And isn't it true that the sex was consenual?
NO!

Good luck with that jury.

That's what you seem to be missing, his ability to prevail in court.

You claim it was a slam dunk, but the DA obviously doesn't agree.

You think the defense's ability to create "the appearance of consent", based on he actions is without merit as far as prevailing with the jury.
But of course it is. The defense lawyer prevails if he simply creates reasonable doubt on this issue with one juror.
With all those things I listed, in the hands of a good defense attorney, there is a good chance one juror could be swayed, because remember, the defense is going to be able to put some jurors in the pool that their jury selection analysis shows will be ameanable to this argument.

As for the DA's decision.

He's the DA.
He deals with putting bad guys away all the time, including rapists.
He has only so much time and so many cases he can try.
He deals with deciding who he can or can't get a conviction on all the time.
He knows the kind of juries he will face and their attitude towards issues raised in this case.
In this case, he decided he didn't have a good chance and so he declined.
Which frees him to spend his time on cases he thinks he can get a conviction on.

You might disagree with his decision but without evidence that doesn't give you the right to denigrate his character.

Unless you have some actual EVIDENCE to suggest that DA has a problem with date rape or with women (there was no abortion in this case), then present it.

Arthur

Do you understand now?

...

Do you know what date rape means?

...

If we were to use your judgement, it would mean that anytime a woman invites a man to her house for whatever reason, then it is consent.

...

Do you understand that about rape and rape laws?



Bells,
Again I ask you to STOP with this BS.
I am ONLY discussing the DA's decision to take this to trial.
I am also quite aware of what a Defense Attorneys role is and that is to convince a jury that certain ACTIONS on the part of the Defendent can in fact can create "the appearance of Consent"
That's the ONLY hurdle the defense has to get over is that the Defendent, (presumably also intoxicated to some extent), thought he had her consent.

Doesn't mean he did.

But if the Defense lawyer can use her statements to show that he was invited over, that he was told how to get into her room, that he didn't physically force her and that she wasn't passed out when it started, then given the totality of the event, even with his statements to the police, I believe a good attorney could indeed probably prevail with at least one juror.

So quit with the lectures on what is or isn't rape, or to presume I am not aware of what is or isn't rape or consent etc etc. it's no more relevant to this discussion than explaining what murder is in the Ramsey case.

Arthur

It could be that he let personal sentiment get in the way of enforcing the law. He wouldn't be the first, and certainly wouldn't be the last.

Could be, but if that WAS the case, then there would likely be a PATTERN to this.

Got one?


That he has attitudes toward women similar to yours, and didn't want to prosecute a young man for taking what he thought was rightfully his.

WTF are you talking about?
What attitude towards women do I supposedly have?


This isn't a particularly difficult issue to see. A prosecutor has a suspect admitting to violating the law, and chooses not to go forward. Whatever reasons he offers are, for quite obvious reasons—e.g., having a confession—suspect.

No, the issue is simply; Does he think he can get a conviction, and in deciding that remember he has evidence we don't.
For instance, why is the defendent worried that he will pull Felicia into this? What role did she play? What was the DA referring to when he talked about events that had transpired earlier in the night?
Where is HER transcript where she tells the officer that she doesn't remember if she said no?

See we don't really have all the facts do we?



Says you.
Yeah, the way you laid it out it appears that the woman is being sexual and trying to arouse you.
The KEY is that part where you said she undressed in front of you.
Women don't undress in front of a man unless they are TRYING to arouse them. She had the option of changing in another room, and in which case she would be sending quite a different message.


Like I said: attitudes toward women.
Not at all, I wouldn't be comfortable letting a woman who is sending those kind of mixed messages spend the night in my bed.

Consider:

Crying Rape:

One study looked at the 109 cases of forcible rape that were disposed of in one small midwestern town between 1978 and 1987 (Kanin, 1994). The given town was specifically selected for study because the police department used a uniquely objective and thorough protocol when investigating rape complaints. Among other procedural safeguards, officers did not have the discretion to drop rape investigations if they concluded the complaint was "suspect" or unfounded. Every rape accusation had to be thoroughly investigated and included offering a polygraph to both the accuser and the accused. Cases were only determined to be false if and when the accuser admitted that no rape occurred.

The researchers further investigated those cases that the police, through their investigation, had ultimately determined were "false" or fabricated. During the follow-up investigation, the complainants held fast to their assertion that their rape allegation had been true, despite being told they would face penalties for filing a false report. As a result, 41% of all of the forcible rape complaints were found to be false. To further this study, a similar analysis was conducted on all of the forcible rape complaints filed at two large midwestern public universities over a 3-year period. Here, where polygraphs were not offered as part of the investigatory procedure, it was found that 50% of the complaints were false.

Charles P. McDowell, a researcher in the United States Air Force Special Studies Division, studied the 1,218 reports of rape that were made between 1980 and 1984 on Air Force bases throughout the world (McDowell, 1985). Of those, 460 were found to be "proven" allegations either because the "overwhelming preponderance of the evidence" strongly supported the allegation or because there was a conviction in the case. Another 212 of the total reports were found to be "disproved" as the alleged victim convincingly admitted the complaint was a "hoax" at some point during the initial investigation. The researchers then investigated the 546 remaining or "unresolved" rape allegations including having the accusers submit to a polygraph. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of these complainants admitted they had fabricated their accusation just before taking the polygraph or right after they failed the test. (It should be noted that whenever there was any doubt, the unresolved case was re-classified as a "proven" rape.) Combining this 27% with the initial 212 "disproved" cases, it was determined that approximately 45% of the total rape allegations were false.

Unfortunately, like the two studies presented here, the empirical studies that exist on the frequency of false rape allegations are sparse in number and have notable limitations. Small sample sizes and non-representative samples preclude generalizability. Regardless, the mere number of publicized incidents of false accusations of rape over the last two decades indicates not only a need for further investigation into the problem, but a better understanding of how to identify such cases.

The Truth Behind the Lie
As with all of human behavior, there are numerous reasons why a person would lie about being raped. In the study of false rape allegations in the midwestern town and state universities, over half of the accusers fabricated the rape to serve as a "cover story" or alibi. This included 56% of the non-student and 53% of the student false accusers. The most frequent context and motive for the fabricated rape was consensual sex with an acquaintance that led to some sort of problem for the accuser. The perceived problem was typically something that caused feelings of shame and guilt in the accuser (such as contracting a sexually transmitted disease or becoming pregnant), which was bound to be discovered and received negatively by family or friends.

Approximately half of the accusers who were motivated by a need for an alibi identified the alleged rapist. Their goal was not to harm or cause problems for the acquaintance, but to protect themselves in what they perceived to be a desperate situation. As with most lies, the false rape accusation allowed the accuser to deny responsibility by creating an alternate reality into which to escape.

http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/archive/spring09/15/

Arthur

No one is defending the accused (that I've seen) the issue is did the DA have enough to go to trial? Did you fail to read the transcript where he was speaking to her?

Yeah.
Did you?


(95) Ken Buck: This is a case that is troubling to me. Troubling to Steve (ADA), the nature of a crime is on a such a magnitude…. We have looked at this from a lot of different angles. We have to fulfill our ethical obligation that this case would have an expectation of proof beyond reasonable doubt before a jury. That is in conflict with the law. “We may think we know who killed the Ramsey girl, but if we can’t prove it, we can’t bring a case forward.” … And that’s where we’re coming from with this decision.

Man #2: Is it the prior phone call that was made…

(118) KB: It’s the totality of the circumstance… prior relationship with him… talk to the experts who try rape cases and have not found a prosecutor yet who would …

(130) Victim: His statement says, “When he finished, … (reading police report)… tried to get the victim to wake the victim up so he could apologize.” How is that not “physically helpless, meaning unconscious, asleep, or unable to act” (legal code)

(139) KB: Because when you look at what happened earlier in the night, all the circumstances, based on his statements and some of your statements, indicate that you invited him to come to your apartment… that you told him how to get in …. It would appear to me and it appears to others that you invited him over to have sex with him. Whether that you, at that time, were conscious enough to say yes or no... ?

(147) V: So you’re telling me that previous sexual relations is enough to provide consent, and you’re telling me that because of me calling him and because of previous sexual relations and because I invited him up and told him how to get in, that invited him up for sex...

(153) KB: I’m telling you that’s what the circumstances suggest, to people,
including myself, who have looked at it. Although, you never said the word yes, but the appearance is of consent.

V: Even though, he also stated that I told him no.

KB: He stated that in a phone call that you had with him later.

V: No, that’s not what that says … (reading police report). He stated the victim
did say no, he does recall the victim rolling over and saying no. That’s me saying no during the act, that’s men not giving consent.

KB: Do you recall your answer to police officer in your first interview, the police
officer asked if you said no, you said I don’t recall.”

(168) V: I said I’m pretty sure that I said no, but I cannot be 100% sure.

So it's pretty clear from the opening statement, where he likens the case to the Ramsey case, that he isn't disputing that it was Rape, he is saying he can't prove it.

Too bad the girl cuts him off on statement 118 when he was trying to explain the issues with prosecution.

The rest is about "The APPEARENCE of Consent".

Note he NEVER says she actually consented (and thus that it wasn't rape).

I know it is a subtle difference but it is an important issue when it gets to trial.

The Defense does not have to prove she gave consent, only that there was the appearance of consent.

That's what the DA says he has a problem with and apparently why he doesn't think he can win with a Weld County Jury.

Since he has seen all the evidence and we haven't, has met and talked with both people, so has an idea of how they will come across on the stand (and we haven't) and has experience with how Weld County jurors decide rape cases (and we haven't), I'm going with his judgement unless someone can show that there is some better explanation as to why he didn't proceed with this case.

By the way, that experience with Weld County jurors is not to be ignored. Weld county is ranch country, about 45 people to the square mile, and the attitudes of the people in Weld County might not be the same as those in Seattle say. Again, the prosecuter knows the cross section of people that would be on the jury and that is clearly part of his decision. Since I've never been to Weld county, again, I defer to his judgment.

Arthur

So it's pretty clear from the opening statement, where he likens the case to the Ramsey case, that he isn't disputing that it was Rape, he is saying he can't prove it.


Wait.. What?

You're telling me that a Prosecutor can't prove that he raped her with a confession?

This is what you are going with here? What kind of a dumbarse Prosecutor does not think he can win with a confession? It defies all logic that he gets a confession to the police and he does not think he can get a conviction.

It is laughable.

If you read the transcript where she is speaking to Mr Buck, you will see that she keeps bringing up his confession and he does not address it. Instead, he attacks her personally for inviting her own rape. And then he accuses her of getting an abortion.


The rest is about "The APPEARENCE of Consent".
There is no appearance of consent. She was completely incapacitated and she said no. Having had sex with him in the past is not an appearance of consent. Even if she had had sex with him 5 minutes before, it would not be an appearance of consent. Do you know why?

Because:

a) She said no, by his admission.
b) She was completely incapacitated, by his admission and by hers.

This is first week criminal law stuff Arthur. Overly basic and simple.

At no time was there consent from when he walked into that bedroom. Even if she had said yes in the living room, for example, when she was in the bed and he then entered the bedroom and lay down next to her and touched her and she said no, there was no consent. The fact that she was, by his and her own admission, that incapacitated that she was barely conscious, means that there was no consent. So coupled with her "no".. In no way could there be any appearance of consent.

Once she said no. Once she was that incapacitated.. There was no consent.

Do you understand that bit?

This is the issue here. And she challenges him on it several times. And not once does he address the man's confession, instead choosing to concentrate on her behaviour. Not once does he acknowledge that she was incapacitated and thus, unable to actually give consent. Not once does he address the fact that the rapist said "no".


Note he NEVER says she actually consented (and thus that it wasn't rape).
He tells her that he believes, in his mind, that there is an appearance of consent. There was no such appearance.

You actually contradicted yourself with that comment by the way. If she did not consent, then it is rape. As you said, he never says taht she consented. Therefore, it is rape. I think that's the part that you're not quite grasping.

Without consent, it is rape.

She was virtually totally incapacitated to the point of being unconscious at times. She said no. Those two points mean that she did not consent and the first also means that she was in no position to consent.

I'll give you an example.

Lets say I go out with my husband to a bar and get batshit drunk. We get home and I kiss him passionately and then I go to bed and take off my clothes. He follows shortly after and then starts to touch me. I say no and roll away from him and half pass out from the alcohol. He then starts to touch me again and then has sex with me. I am in and out of consciousness and after he has climaxed inside me, I again tell him no.

Do you think my husband has raped me?

Where is the consent implied? Is it implied consent because I kissed him? Is it implied because we normally share a bed anyway? Is it implied because I was naked in my own bed and going to sleep?

I'll give you a hint..

I was overly drunk and incapable of actually giving consent. I also told him no.


The Defense does not have to prove she gave consent, only that there was the appearance of consent.
Any lawyer, with even an inch of brain matter between their ears would be able to point to several factors. Primarily that he confessed to several things:

1) She said no. Twice. She also rolled away from him, which again, kind of tells you that she did not want him to touch her.

2) She was not in a fit mental state to give consent. Because you know, she was barely conscious.

Any appearance of consent there may have been before he entered that bedroom went out the window with both points 1 and 2.

Any implied or express consent before he entered that bedroom disappeared as soon as she uttered the words "no" and as soon as the fact that she was barely conscious... by his own admission..


The suspect’s own statements to the police investigating the case also seem to confirm that the sex was not consensual, and that he knew that at the time.

“He stated … that maybe once or twice the victim said no. He stated that he thought the victim did say no. He stated he does recall her rolling away and saying no,” the report states.

The suspect also said that at one point he left the bed because she had pushed him away and told him no. But he came back.

“He stated after he had intercourse with the victim and climaxed that he pulled out. He stated when he did so, the victim was barely conscious and that’s when he realized he had done something wrong,” the report states.

Asked to describe the victim’s state of consciousness, the suspect said in the police report, “The victim was laying there and her eyes would open and then close. He stated they were open only a short time and then would close again.”

All of the suspect’s quotes were written by the investigating officer as his account of the conversation.


(Source) (http://coloradoindependent.com/63998/bucks-refusal-to-prosecute-rape-case-seemed-based-on-stereotypes-victim-says)


But lets look at what he law in Colorado says about the excuses that Mr Buck gave to the victim about her implication of consent. He told her that she had invited him over, that she was in a state of undress when he had walked into the bedroom, that they were "bedfellows" previously.. Lets have a quick looksy at what the law has to say about prior relationships and consent, shall we?


(1.5) “Consent” means cooperation in act or attitude pursuant to an exercise of free will and with knowledge of the nature of the act. A current or previous relationship shall not be sufficient to constitute consent under the provisions of this part 4. Submission under the influence of fear shall not constitute consent. Nothing in this definition shall be construed to affect the admissibility of evidence or the burden of proof in regard to the issue of consent under this part 4.


Part 4 Unlawful Sexual Behavior 18-3-401. Definitions (http://www.womenslaw.org/statutes_detail.php?statute_id=5912#statute-top)



How about the "bedfellows" argument Mr Buck put forward. What does the law in Colorado say about that, Arthur? Should we have a look?


Any marital relationship, whether established statutorily, putatively, or by common law, between an actor and a victim shall not be a defense to any offense under this part 4 unless such defense is specifically set forth in the applicable statutory section by having the elements of the offense specifically exclude a spouse.

18-3-409. Marital defense (http://www.womenslaw.org/statutes_detail.php?statute_id=5913#statute-top)



My my..

Now, he accused her of being drunk. We have had people like Lori trying to say that she somehow invited it for being druink, etc. We also have Mr Buck, the supposed prosecutor, also virtually telling her that her actions and her level of inebriation led to her implying consent. So lets see at what happens with consent when someone is so drunk that they lapse in and out of consciousness, shall we? Keep in mind, that we know she was that drunk from the perpetrator's own confession to the police:


18-3-402 Sexual assault

(1) Any actor who knowingly inflicts sexual intrusion or sexual penetration on a victim commits sexual assault if:

(a) The actor causes submission of the victim by means of sufficient consequence reasonably calculated to cause submission against the victim's will; or

(b) The actor knows that the victim is incapable of appraising the nature of the victim's conduct; or

(c) The actor knows that the victim submits erroneously, believing the actor to be the victim's spouse; or

(d) At the time of the commission of the act, the victim is less than fifteen years of age and the actor is at least four years older than the victim and is not the spouse of the victim; or

(e) At the time of the commission of the act, the victim is at least fifteen years of age but less than seventeen years of age and the actor is at least ten years older than the victim and is not the spouse of the victim; or

(f) The victim is in custody of law or detained in a hospital or other institution and the actor has supervisory or disciplinary authority over the victim and uses this position of authority to coerce the victim to submit, unless the act is incident to a lawful search; or

(g) The actor, while purporting to offer a medical service, engages in treatment or examination of a victim for other than a bona fide medical purpose or in a manner substantially inconsistent with reasonable medical practices; or

(h) The victim is physically helpless and the actor knows the victim is physically helpless and the victim has not consented.


Part 4: Unlawful Sexual Behavior 18-3-402 Sexual assault (http://www.womenslaw.org/statutes_detail.php?statute_id=4882#statute-top)




So tell me, where is the appearance of consent? Everything that Mr Buck told the victim that he felt gave an appearance of consent goes against the law itself when it comes to sexual assault and rape, in that the law does not recognise any of it as consent or as giving the appearance of consent.



That's what the DA says he has a problem with and apparently why he doesn't think he can win with a Weld County Jury.

No, what we have here is a DA who tells a rape victim that she invited her own rape, accuses her of having had an abortion and then tells her that he can't win a case with a confession from the rapist because of his own twisted beliefs about her behaviour.

That is what we have. We have a DA who told a rape victim that he can't get a conviction with a confession and admittance of guilt from the rapist.


Since he has seen all the evidence and we haven't, has met and talked with both people, so has an idea of how they will come across on the stand (and we haven't) and has experience with how Weld County jurors decide rape cases (and we haven't), I'm going with his judgement unless someone can show that there is some better explanation as to why he didn't proceed with this case.
You mean in the 2 hours he admitted to looking at it?

The evidence contained a confession to the police by the rapist.

Now, he's either that fucking dumb that he can't read and comprehend a police incident report that includes the confession, or he was that bad of a prosecutor.

There is no excuse for any prosecutor not pursuing a case with a police confession. In all my time in my profession, I have never heard of any prosecutor completely disregarding a police confession by the perpetrator and refusing to take on the case. Not once. In an environment where the amount of convictions you get actually matter.. It is inconceivable that he overlooked and ignored a confession from a rapist and refused to take on the case.

Now, you can agree to stand by his decision and judgement, but I can assure you, he failed badly.


By the way, that experience with Weld County jurors is not to be ignored. Weld county is ranch country, about 45 people to the square mile, and the attitudes of the people in Weld County might not be the same as those in Seattle say. Again, the prosecuter knows the cross section of people that would be on the jury and that is clearly part of his decision. Since I've never been to Weld county, again, I defer to his judgment.

Are you saying that the people of Weld county are so stupid as to not be able to understand a confession? Are you suggesting that the people of Weld county are that dumb that they would ignore a confession entirely?

Does the prosecutor think they are that stupid as to ignore a confession?

Is he projecting his own bias and sexism onto the jury pool maybe? Or his own ability to win a case with a confession?

However, for me sexual gratification is not a deal-breaker for whether or not a woman is welcome in my home.Neither is it for me. But the situation you describe is a very provocative one and the woman's actions up to "please don't" all seemed designed to drive you insane with lust. All that capped with a "please don't" just doesn't jibe.

Sometimes, "Not tonight, dear," just isn't bullshit.
I'm a married man. I"m quite familiar with "Not tonight".

Congratulations, sir. You are capable of leaving me speechless.:cool:

To the one, that's a risk one chooses to take. TI don't see it as a risk at all. A one night stand would be a differnt situation because you wouldn't really know each other at all and there'd be a serious risk of misreading the signals. But I know what my wife means without her even talking.

For me it's not a matter of incredulity. But maybe it's a broader outlook on sex, too. I can find comfort in a woman that doesn't involve piledriving her loins; her human mystery extends well beyond sexual intercourse.There's a time and a place for everything, but foreplay without the pile driving is like opening an elaborately wrapped present only to find an empty box inside.

This is part of what I don't understand: How is it that a woman is measured in terms of the sexual gratification she gives?No one has claimed otherwise. However, she is measured by her actions and doing everything she could to get a guy worked up and then saying "please , no" just isn't nice.

If she wasn't interested in sex, fine. But what she did was like cooking you your favorite meal, setting the table, putting the food on your plate, waiting until you were about to put he fork in your mouth and then saying, "Please don't eat that".

I'm not quite sure why she couldn't sue him in a court of law? Perhaps the jury would have found him innocent. Or not. But, it's really up to the jury isn't it? I mean, it seems that this man made up his mind of how the jury would decide - well, what's the point in having a jury???

The only reason I could suspect is that the prosecutor was so sure that they jury would come back with a not guilty that he didn't want to set a precedent for future cases resulting in even more people found innocent?

She can do many things with this as THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS NOT RUN OUT and afaik there is no statute of limitations in rape cases. She and what had to have been her attorney during the other interview with the DA didnt pursue it further. A political opponent found this 5 days before an election (youll have to check on that as i never heard of these people and dont know when the elections are BUT that is what i read).

The DA pointed out the conflicting remarks and is telling her that the defense attorney will use those to put reasonable doubt into the minds of the jury and from what i read would be a cakewalk due to

A: inviting him over
B: not remembering if she said NO during the encounter in initial statement to police (those statment take precedence usually as they are freshest in the minds of people but she couldn't remember due to being intoxicated.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt

In a case like this now that the facts are coming out doesnt look like the DA made the wrong choice and this is not your average brutal rape case so i cant see this being an issue not that i care about the DA or who wins the election mind you.

Bells,


The alleged rapist admits to having had sex with her and sexually touching her in her home, even after she had said no

That's enough for me. She just said no and he admitted to it. IMO he's done.

Bells,
The appearance of Consent is what the Defense has to show.

Without this caveat:
A current or previous relationship shall not be sufficient to constitute consent under the provisions of this part, no defendent could be charged with rape if they had simply had consensual sex before.

But the key word there is SUFFICIENT, so that definition doesn't mean a defense lawyer can't use the current or previous relationship as part of his explanation to the jury that in the case being tried that there was an appearance of consent.

The more piling on he can do the better.

As to your rant.


Now, he's either that fucking dumb that he can't read and comprehend a police incident report that includes the confession, or he was that bad of a prosecutor.

There is no excuse for any prosecutor not pursuing a case with a police confession. In all my time in my profession, I have never heard of any prosecutor completely disregarding a police confession by the perpetrator and refusing to take on the case. Not once. In an environment where the amount of convictions you get actually matter.. It is inconceivable that he overlooked and ignored a confession from a rapist and refused to take on the case.

So if you think he is THAT FUCKING DUMB, then how come


The Greeley police chief agreed the case wasn’t winnable. So did the Boulder district attorney. The editorial board of The Greeley Tribune agreed with Buck’s decision, but chastised him for saying the jury likely would have seen the woman’s conflicted story as a case of “buyer’s remorse.”
Are they also that fucking dumb?

http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2010/10/13/ken-buck-progressnow-rape/16369/#more-16369

Arthur

Bells,

That's enough for me. She just said no and he admitted to it. IMO he's done.

Unfortunately even with that there are conflicting statements so you need to look at the whole case. And from what i read the defense attorney has enough to put reasonable doubt into the minds of the jurors.

What i find odd is inviting him over, which she admits to and telling him to "jimmy" the door. That part of this is something i dont understand but we really dont have enough information like the parties involved had.

Bells,
That's enough for me. She just said no and he admitted to it. IMO he's done.

jpappl, the discussion isn't about, was it rape, it's about should the prosecuter have taken it to trial?

The prosecuter says, that because of the various statements she made, such as telling the police she could not recall if she said no, that he couldn't win, and so declined.

The Greeley police chief agreed the case wasn’t winnable as did the Boulder district attorney.

Arthur

WTF are you talking about?
What attitude towards women do I supposedly have?

Well, if your post at #79 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2632589&postcount=79) wasn't enough, you also reinforced the point in this one:


Women don't undress in front of a man unless they are TRYING to arouse them. She had the option of changing in another room, and in which case she would be sending quite a different message ....

.... I wouldn't be comfortable letting a woman who is sending those kind of mixed messages spend the night in my bed.

Is sexual intercourse the only possible interpretation of her behavior?


Could be, but if that WAS the case, then there would likely be a PATTERN to this.

Got one?

We'll have to see what else emerges.


No, the issue is simply; Does he think he can get a conviction, and in deciding that remember he has evidence we don't.
For instance, why is the defendent worried that he will pull Felicia into this? What role did she play? What was the DA referring to when he talked about events that had transpired earlier in the night?
Where is HER transcript where she tells the officer that she doesn't remember if she said no?

See we don't really have all the facts do we?

Earlier in the night? I thought Buck was pretty clear about that:


Because when you look at what happened earlier in the night, all the circumstances, based on his statements and some of your statements, indicate that you invited him to come to your apartment... that you told him how to get in .... It would appear to me and it appears to others that you invited him over to have sex with him. Whether that you, at that time, were conscious enough to say yes or no... ?

(Colorado Independent (http://coloradoindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Ken-Buck-transcript.pdf); boldface accent added)

You might have a point, though, Arthur. Buck, like you, seems to think that sex is the center of association between men and women. Perhaps that's something widespread enough among Colorado citizens that we could expect a juror to say, "Well, we have the defendant's acknowledgment that he raped her, but we're not going to convict because even though he raped her and admits it, she asked for it."


Consider ....

I see. So because someone in the past has falsely claimed rape, the fact that the accused admits to raping the victim is immaterial? Explain, again, how that logic works?
____________________

Notes:

Colorado Independent. "Meeting with Ken Buck". (n.d.) ColoradoIndependent.com. October 14, 2010. http://coloradoindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Ken-Buck-transcript.pdf

Unfortunately even with that there are conflicting statements so you need to look at the whole case. And from what i read the defense attorney has enough to put reasonable doubt into the minds of the jurors.

What i find odd is inviting him over, which she admits to and telling him to "jimmy" the door. That part of this is something i dont understand but we really dont have enough information like the parties involved had.

I understand that is more complex then first sight, like many things.

However, if I was a cop and interviewing the guy and he told me.

"I wanted to have sex with her but she said no"

Knowing that they had sex, he just admitted to acting against her wishes.

Doesn't matter if she is confused, he admitted she said no and he had the responsibility to act accordingly.

You can't run into a parked car just because it is parked illegally.

You can't rape someone just because they are drunk.

Adoucette,


The prosecuter says, that because of the various statements she made, such as telling the police she could not recall if she said no, that he couldn't win, and so declined.

As I said above. He apparently admitted to her saying no, and proceeded anyway.

Like I said, you can't rape someone just because they are drunk.

Is sexual intercourse the only possible interpretation of her behavior?

No, but when a woman undresses in front of you down to her satin g sring, as you claimed, when she could have undressed and changed into the clothes you provided her in private, then she is being overtly sexually suggestive.

So, like I said, if she is sending those kind of mixed messages I wouldn't chance her spending the night.

As that article I posted shows a LARGE percent of rape charges turn out to be FALSE, so a wise male does not spend the night with a woman who appears to be sending those kind of conflicting messages. (note, that article had nothing to do with the Weld County case, which you would have thought was obvious from how I used it)



Earlier in the night? I thought Buck was pretty clear about that:

Could be, but it's not exactly clear, and like I said, there is quite a bit we haven't seen, like her statements to the police.

Why do you think that is?

Wouldn't an objective journalist show those as well?

You know he has them, because he has his statements to the police and they would be in the same report.

Arthur

Adoucette,

As I said above. He apparently admitted to her saying no, and proceeded anyway.

Like I said, you can't rape someone just because they are drunk.

Like I said, this isn't a discussion about was it rape or not.

It's a discussion about was the Prosecuter justified in deciding not to take it to trial.

But consider, besides the DA, both the Greeley police chief and the Boulder district attorney also agreed the case wasn't winnable.

Arthur

Like I said, this isn't a discussion about was it rape or not.

It's a discussion about was the Prosecuter justified in deciding not to take it to trial.

But consider, besides the DA, both the Greeley police chief and the Boulder district attorney also agreed the case wasn't winnable.

Arthur

I was answering the OP, when does no mean no.

And to me he admitted to the rape.

Looks of other things muddy the waters when considering taking a case to trial in many instances. They of course have to be careful not to take the case to trial when they don't feel they have enough to convict.

I understand that is more complex then first sight, like many things.

However, if I was a cop and interviewing the guy and he told me.

"I wanted to have sex with her but she said no"

Knowing that they had sex, he just admitted to acting against her wishes.

Doesn't matter if she is confused, he admitted she said no and he had the responsibility to act accordingly.

You can't run into a parked car just because it is parked illegally.

You can't rape someone just because they are drunk.

You have to look at the whole situation and cant go by snippets of information. Also the time elapsed between so yes he tried again and that is when the sexual contact happened.

So now we see two crimes. One would be breaking and entering but then why was he not arrested for that? Because she told him to "jimmy" the door to get in and must be true because she CALLED him on the phone not to stand outside but to come in. Sounds strange to me. I am not saying there were no crimes committed either because we STILL do not have all the information and order of events.

Not to mention her own attorney does not seem to have pursued this further either which afaik he had a right to do.

Looks of other things muddy the waters when considering taking a case to trial in many instances. They of course have to be careful not to take the case to trial when they don't feel they have enough to convict.

So on the one hand you agree but want to disagree with us or actually our interpretation of how this case would go when a defense attorney gets involved?

No, but when a woman undresses in front of you down to her satin g sring, as you claimed, when she could have undressed and changed into the clothes you provided her in private, then she is being overtly sexually suggestive.

Arthur

And it is unfortunate but defense attorneys get people off who did much more\worse and there are dangerous repeat offenders walking the streets too. We can impose the "three strikes" rule but peole fight against it.

So on the one hand you agree but want to disagree with us or actually our interpretation of how this case would go when a defense attorney gets involved?

I agree that it was rape.

I don't know enough about the legal proceedings as to whether they have enough to convict.

Keeping in mind that a lot of people get away with crimes, that doesn't mean a crime didn't occur.

I agree that it was rape.

I don't know enough about the legal proceedings as to whether they have enough to convict.

Keeping in mind that a lot of people get away with crimes, that doesn't mean a crime didn't occur.

Well i agree with you on some points because i have a very low tolerance for these crimes but i cant say that they made a mistake here either because there is a lot of conflicting information. I cant convict someone via the internet either though and regardless we dont have access to the all the information.

Well i agree with you on some points because i have a very low tolerance for these crimes but i cant say that they made a mistake here either because there is a lot of conflicting information. I cant convict someone via the internet either though and regardless we dont have access to the all the information.

Agreed.

What I have been suggesting is that if the defendent himself is admitting that she said no. What relevance is her testimony. She was drunk and can't remember everything but in the end it doesn't matter because he himself agreed that she said no.

It's like if I hit you on the head so hard that you can't remember anything but think I might have done it. After asking me I said yes I did it, but since you can't remember it doesn't matter.

has it been mentioned about the types of women that like to be dominated and therefore when they say No it means they want you to take them with a certain amount of force? ( i only read the first post and the last post) i assume as much with the title of the thread..but i have had several women tell me that this is a true concept...

IE..stop..don't..stop..don't.stop.don't.stop.don't stop. don't stop...

has it been mentioned about the types of women that like to be dominated and therefore when they say No it means they want you to take them with a certain amount of force? ( i only read the first post and the last post) i assume as much with the title of the thread..but i have had several women tell me that this is a true concept...

IE..stop..don't..stop..don't.stop.don't.stop.don't stop. don't stop...

I think it wise to not assume any woman is saying no for that reason.

My wife and I play these games from time to time. But we discuss it ahead of time.

If I made a sexual advance towards my wife and she said no, then I would take it as no. Otherwise, it would be against her will.

I can't imagine a scenario where that would work as an excuse.

Bells,
The appearance of Consent is what the Defense has to show.



Don't you get it yet?

There is no conceivable appearance of consent.

I'll put it simply for you.

As soon as she said no, any appearance of consent disappeared. As soon as she lost consciousness and as soon as she became so drunk that she was semi-conscious, any appearance of consent disappeared.

Mr Buck keeps concentrating on what went on before she said no. Get that?

As I said to you, they could have had sex 5 minutes prior and were on a post coitious break. We know they were not from the man's own confession to the police and to her on the phone. But they could have had sex 5 minutes prior to her saying no. As soon as she said no and as soon as she became that inebriated and that semi-conscious, there was no appearance of consent, because even the law recognises that she was not able to give consent. The law also plainly recognises that there is no consent or even an appearance of consent once she said no.

Buck keeps harping on about what went on in the living room, harping on about her terminology in that they had once been "bedfellows", then accuses her of having an abortion. All moot. Do you know why? Because under Colorado law, once a woman (or man for that matter) becomes that drunk and the other recognises they are that drunk (which he confessed to the police that she was beyond that drunk) and once the word "no" is said, there is no consent.


Without this caveat:

, no defendent could be charged with rape if they had simply had consensual sex before.

But the key word there is SUFFICIENT, so that definition doesn't mean a defense lawyer can't use the current or previous relationship as part of his explanation to the jury that in the case being tried that there was an appearance of consent.


They hadn't spoken for a year prior to that night.

You are so intent on defending Mr Buck and his ridiculous reasoning in this that you fail to actually understand what is put in front of you. I have spoken to great legal minds about this, presented them with everything I have shown here in this thread and every single one of them found it ridiculous that a Prosecutor refused to take on the case because they did not think they could convict with a clear confession.

The law states clearly that if a woman is incapacitated and not in her right mind (passed out drunk qualifies) and if a woman says no, then there is no consent. The law is also clear that any present or past sexual relationship does not imply consent.

There is no way for a defense to be able to create or argue for an appearance of consent because of his confession. Unless they can argue that "no" does not mean no. Unless they can argue that her telling him no again and apparently trying to push him off her does not mean no.

But again, the law in Colorado is quite clear on the matter.


Are they also that fucking dumb?

You mean their saying that after Mr Buck had come out and said that the case was unwinnable? My, are you that naive? Prior to Mr Buck's refusal and then publicly demeaning the victim by accusing her of having buyer's remorse and then telling her the facts of the case, and it seems the police confession were pitiful, the detective in charge of the case had a very different view. As was quoted in the OP, here is what the detective actually wrote in his incident report:


“I advised (the suspect) that I would be requesting a felony summons for sexual assault,” Detective Michael Zeller

Also Arthur, the blog you just linked is so biased that he, like you and Buck, is willing to overlook a confession. In fact, in the blog piece you posted, he is so biased towards Buck, that like Buck and you, he does not mention that the suspect confessed to police at all. You want an idea of his bias, he says it himself:


Voters ought to consider the character of candidates. That should be obvious.

(It’s one of the reasons I have publicly called out appointed Sen. Michael Bennet for launching an unfair – and deeply hypocritical – scorched-earth campaign against Buck. His campaign strategy says enormous things about his character and leadership.)

http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2010/10/13/ken-buck-progressnow-rape/16369/#more-16369


Try harder next time.


As that article I posted shows a LARGE percent of rape charges turn out to be FALSE, so a wise male does not spend the night with a woman who appears to be sending those kind of conflicting messages. (note, that article had nothing to do with the Weld County case, which you would have thought was obvious from how I used it)
He confessed.

You, like Buck, completely overlooks that the guy confessed to the police. He confessed to having sex with her after she said no and while she was too inebriated to actually consent.

So what conflicting message was she sending out while she was unconscious Arthur? I mean, lets say you go out with a woman and she faints in your presence, do you drop your pants and start fucking her immediately because she'd kissed you passionately prior to her fainting? Yes? No?

After all, she gave the appearance of consent before, right? And she wasn't saying "no" when she was unconscious, so you must have consent, right?:rolleyes:

Now, your mental retardation aside, the suspect said no in a confession. The suspect also confessed to knowing she was so drunk that she was barely conscious. Where is the conflicting message there? Did it become conflicting when she passed out after she said no? Are you using the argument that 'well, she didn't fight back or fight him off while she was unconscious, so she must be consenting...?' Is that the reasoning behind Buck's refusal to take on the case?

After all, we've proven, by law, that there was no appearance of consent once he entered that bedroom and found her semi-naked on her own bed because not only was she too drunk to then consent (by his own confession), but she also said no a few times (by his own confession).

My mental retardation?

LOL

You just couldn't stay away from making this into a personal attack could you?

You really need to learn to discuss things in a rational manner without stooping to ad hominum attacks.

Since you can't be civil this will be my last reply to you:

They ALL knew of his confession,

BUT still

The Greeley police chief agreed the case wasn’t winnable.

The Boulder district attorney agreed the case wasn't winnable. (and NO, this was not a public issue at the time, Buck got this opinion after he talked to the girl)

The editorial board of The Greeley Tribune agreed with Buck’s decision.

So there you have it.

People who actually understand the case and the issues and the law and the community don't agree with you.

Either they felt his statements could be defused by a good defense attorney or there were other things in her testimony that we haven't seen that would negate them.

Arthur

Bells,


The suspect also confessed to knowing she was so drunk that she was barely conscious.

Which makes me wonder. If a guy spikes his date's drink with a date/rape drug and has sex with her while she is unconcious is it rape then ?

This is basically what has occurred here the only difference is that she got herself drunk.

There is no excusing his continuation at that point.

If a guy spikes his date's drink with a date/rape drug and has sex with her while she is unconcious is it rape then ?


You actually have to ask?

Yes, that is rape.

Arthur

You actually have to ask?

Yes, that is rape.

Arthur

I asked because it's no different.

Which makes me wonder. If a guy spikes his date's drink with a date/rape drug and has sex with her while she is unconcious is it rape then ?


Giving someone a date rape drug is much more serious and probably has additional cahrges.


This is basically what has occurred here the only difference is that she got herself drunk

Not really.

Some things that a defense attorney would bring up here are "where were you when you were drinking?" How did you get home?" The reason i say they would bring this up is because normally people pass out closer to and in the vicinity of the consumption. See where this goes?

AND i am not saying the guy was not wrong.

I asked because it's no different.

pappl, it is different to drug someone without their knowledge or consent.:rolleyes:

has it been mentioned about the types of women that like to be dominated and therefore when they say No it means they want you to take them with a certain amount of force? ( i only read the first post and the last post) i assume as much with the title of the thread..but i have had several women tell me that this is a true concept...

IE..stop..don't..stop..don't.stop.don't.stop.don't stop. don't stop...

Except when people play scenarios like that, they discuss it ahead of time and agree on a safe word, so when someone wants to say no for real, they can.

Except when people play scenarios like that, they discuss it ahead of time and agree on a safe word, so when someone wants to say no for real, they can.

you are talking husband wife secnarios..(or serious girlfriend) i suppose this could qualify for others also..but the women i have talked to never say anything about that..but then again i suppose the women that i have questioned do not think things through, and tend to be involved in abusive relationships anyway..
btw..i have difficulty being that person for them because i do believe no means no..this is why i have questioned women about this thing..whats to prevent them from crying rape if your 'hangy down thingy' doesn't meet their expectations..

You haven't read the trascript of the call the police had her do, did you?

no i did not. i didn't know the charges also included breaking and entering. that entirely changes my opinion.



But lets go back to when he has entered her house while she was half passed out in bed, because according to the police transcript, he wanted to lie down next to her. That was when the sexual assault began and he admitted to all of it, he admitted it to her in the police pretext call and he admitted to having raped her and to her having said "no" at least twice, to the police.

i never said he didn't rape her bells.


So, to use your excuse for the rapist, lets apply this to you. Next time you are at home, do not drink or get drunk. If you do, you should then be barred from calling anyone you know and have some sort of trust with (especially one you know understands rape and what constitutes rape since you have educated them about it before), just in case they decide to drive to your after you have gone to bed, jimmy your door open and come into your bedroom and rape you while you are half passed out drunk. You know, because we apparently now know the human species and know that is what all men of the human species do.:rolleyes:

i am NOT excusing the rapist.


Do you see how ridiculous that proposition is? It would be like telling you to never ever get drunk in the presence of your husband, just in case he decides to rape you, even after you have told him no and tried to push him off while in a semi-conscious state. Because it seems in your world, your husband being a male of the human species, that is what he will be doing to you if you get drunk.:rolleyes:

no. i, in no circumstances, accept the "but i'm a man" excuse.

and i don't say no to my husband. i have a conjugal duty. it's a tough job. ;)

no i did not. i didn't know the charges also included breaking and entering. that entirely changes my opinion.

He wasn't.
In her phone call to him he said she told him how to get in and she did not dispute that.
When the DA mentioned that she told him how to get in as a reason to not press the charges she did not dispute it then either.

Arthur

No means no. Period. If someone is playing hard to get or trying medieval modesty the no will be weak and accompanied with a strong tug by the wailer. Unless the chap want to be smart and invoke King James biblical english and said he heard 'know' and not 'no' he is facing a tough trial. The lady rolled away from him for crying out loud. She was drunk, a yes from an intoxicated party doesn't count and here we've a no. The guy took advantage of her vulnerability. In a country where dealing justice is done expeditiously, i'll say prosecute. Otherwise out of court settlement will suffice if agreed upon by the victim, who of course should draw the terms.

He wasn't.
In her phone call to him he said she told him how to get in and she did not dispute that.
When the DA mentioned that she told him how to get in as a reason to not press the charges she did not dispute it then either.

Arthur

Again, beside the point.

We have the confession from the alleged suspect that he went into her bedroom after she had gone to bed, got into her bed and started to touch her sexually. She said no, and rolled over away from him. He then started to touch her again and then proceeded to have sex with her as she lapsed in and out of consciousness.


Whatever implied consent or appearance of consent that may have existed prior to that went out the window as soon as she explicitly told him no. Any appearance of consent that existed prior to that disappeared as soon as she lost consciousness and as soon as she was that drunk.

It is interesting that you and Mr Buck seem to just ignore the actual confession and instead concentrate solely on what she did prior to his entering her bedroom after she had gone to bed. In other words, you absolve him of any responsibility and absolve him of his own confession where he admitted to actually raping her after she said no, rolled away from him, lost consciousness and then tried to push him off, and choose instead to lay the blame on her.. Not suprising that someone like Lori agrees with you. She seems to be under the belief that being married means that her husband owns her vagina and she has no right to say no. Or John99, who seems to believe that 'no' really means 'yes' and who seems to believe that being unconscious means that a woman is fair game.

What is interesting, however, is that Mr Buck's position and comments and reasons that he told the victim actually goes against what the law itself dictates.


and i don't say no to my husband. i have a conjugal duty.
Interesting. So you believe you owe your husband sex on demand?

I find it interesting that you don't say no. I personally think you are lying, as there will be times where you will say no. For example, if you're puking your guts out in the toilet and your husband suddenly starts to feel randy, you'll go 'sure honey, fuck me while I puke.. it's my duty'? Or will you say 'no, sorry, feeling like shit at the moment'?

:rolleyes:

Do you believe in marital rape, or that rape can occur in marriage Lori?

and i don't say no to my husband. i have a conjugal duty. it's a tough job. ;)

if you truly think that your an idiot who doesn't respect themself

if you truly think that your an idiot who doesn't respect themself

what in the hell are you talking about? :confused:

i don't have respect for myself because i'm married? that makes no sense.

Interesting. So you believe you owe your husband sex on demand?

I find it interesting that you don't say no. I personally think you are lying, as there will be times where you will say no. For example, if you're puking your guts out in the toilet and your husband suddenly starts to feel randy, you'll go 'sure honey, fuck me while I puke.. it's my duty'? Or will you say 'no, sorry, feeling like shit at the moment'?

:rolleyes:

Do you believe in marital rape, or that rape can occur in marriage Lori?

not in a good marriage.

my husband's not an asshole or an idiot. and while he doesn't "demand" sex, it is the reason we got married. if it wasn't for sex, we'd just be friends.

what in the hell are you talking about? :confused:

i don't have respect for myself because i'm married? that makes no sense.

No if you think someone else owns your body and you have an obligation to have sex with them you have no respect for your self. Don't play stupid your not smart enough to pull it off.

not in a good marriage.
:bugeye:


my husband's not an asshole or an idiot. and while he doesn't "demand" sex, it is the reason we got married.
So he doesn't demand sex, but it's why you got married?


if it wasn't for sex, we'd just be friends.
Ermm okay.

I married my husband because I love him and he makes me happy and I wanted to spend the rest of my life with him. I guess not everyone is the same. You seem to have married your husband because you wanted a regular fuck buddy. To each their own.

It is interesting that you and Mr Buck seem to just ignore the actual confession and instead concentrate solely on what she did prior to his entering her bedroom after she had gone to bed. In other words, you absolve him of any responsibility and absolve him of his own confession where he admitted to actually raping her after she said no, rolled away from him, lost consciousness and then tried to push him off, and choose instead to lay the blame on her.. Not suprising that someone like Lori agrees with you. She seems to be under the belief that being married means that her husband owns her vagina and she has no right to say no. Or John99, who seems to believe that 'no' really means 'yes' and who seems to believe that being unconscious means that a woman is fair game.

What is interesting, however, is that Mr Buck's position and comments and reasons that he told the victim actually goes against what the law itself dictates.


Interesting. So you believe you owe your husband sex on demand?

I find it interesting that you don't say no. I personally think you are lying, as there will be times where you will say no. For example, if you're puking your guts out in the toilet and your husband suddenly starts to feel randy, you'll go 'sure honey, fuck me while I puke.. it's my duty'? Or will you say 'no, sorry, feeling like shit at the moment'?

:rolleyes:

Do you believe in marital rape, or that rape can occur in marriage Lori?

I support tougher sentences for all cases of rape and have stated so. In some countries there is a defense attorney involved though who represents the defendant and what we are doing (seems like most of us are) is looking at some things a defense attorney would bring up.




Greeley Police Chief Jerry Garner said that isn’t the case. He said the case was handled “exactly appropriately” by the DA. “This was a case that would never succeed in court. There was no chance this would result in a conviction,” he said.

At the time, Buck said he sent the police reports to the Boulder County DA’s office for review as well, and that they agreed with his analysis that this would have been a difficult case to prosecute.

The victim also says she showed the case to three different attorneys and was told by each that the case for conviction was much stronger than for acquittal. “None of them could understand why he wouldn’t file charges,” she said.

A rape victims’ advocate in Greeley told the Independent that this case seemed to be a turning point for Buck. The Weld County DA’s office “learned a lesson from that case,” Deana Davies said. Davies is coordinator of the Assault Survivors’ Advocacy Program in Greeley.

“He (Buck) came to us after that case and said, ‘We need to do things differently in the future. How do we do this better?’”

“The way he handled that victim was unfortunate, but he did learn from that experience.” Davies said that shortly after this case, Buck helped start the SART Program (Sexual Assault Review Team), which includes law officers, victim advocates and others who review cases that may fall into gray areas or look difficult to prosecute.

http://www.americanindependent.com/buck%E2%80%99s-refusal-to-prosecute-2005-rape-case-reverberates-in-u-s-senate-race/

You probably support tougher sentences or vigorous prosecution as well. These cases dont just fade away either becasuse there is not satute of limitations on these cases. That mean she can still seek justice.

Again, beside the point.

No it's not.
Had she not told him how to get in, then the DA could have also charged him with breaking and entering and that would have also taken the steam out of a defense lawyers ability to show that his client thought he had the appearance of consent and thus the DA's case would have been much stronger.

But, with the facts as they were, like Buck, the Greeley Police Chief Jerry Garner said “This was a case that would never succeed in court. There was no chance this would result in a conviction,”

Again, people familar with the case and the people and the juries that they deal with knew they couldn't prevail.

I'm sure you are going to come back and say, but for all these reasons it was rape, but what you don't seem to understand is that isn't the issue.


Do you believe in marital rape, or that rape can occur in marriage?

Sure, but I don't believe a prosecuter would bring a case to trial unless there is some physical evidence to suggest serious force or a realistic threat was used.

In my state, that is in fact a requirement (unless you are separated and living apart).

Arthur

No if you think someone else owns your body and you have an obligation to have sex with them you have no respect for your self. Don't play stupid your not smart enough to pull it off.

FAIL.

the entire point of marriage is an obligation.

pray tell, what did you think marriage was about?

FAIL. the only failure here is yours of respecting your self and females in general


the entire point of marriage is an obligation. only if you have a victorian era veiws on sexuality and femonism


pray tell, what did you think marriage was about?

love and respect. Your religiososity has warped your mind. the fact you think you have a duty to have sex because of marriage is fucked up. you need to get some veiws that aren't out of the 1500's.




your whole attitude smacks of laying the blame for rape on the victim. no one has any right to have sex with another person it is a privilage that must be earned.

:bugeye:


So he doesn't demand sex, but it's why you got married?


Ermm okay.

I married my husband because I love him and he makes me happy and I wanted to spend the rest of my life with him. I guess not everyone is the same. You seem to have married your husband because you wanted a regular fuck buddy. To each their own.

you know bells, you really have a knack for intentionally not seeing the big picture, just so you can argue.

are you trying to tell me that sex wasn't a consideration in your marriage?

i love a lot of people. lots of people "make me happy". and i am committed to life long relationships with many people which do not involve sex at all.

the only failure here is yours of respecting your self and females in general

only if you have a victorian era veiws on sexuality and femonism



love and respect. Your religiososity has warped your mind. the fact you think you have a duty to have sex because of marriage is fucked up. you need to get some veiws that aren't out of the 1500's.




your whole attitude smacks of laying the blame for rape on the victim. no one has any right to have sex with another person it is a privilage that must be earned.

oh well yes, because modern society is so accomplished when it comes to marriage. what a load.

i love and respect a lot of people, but i don't have sex with them.

oh well yes, because modern society is so accomplished when it comes to marriage. what a load. well marriage is a aberation against human nature in general but that is a whole


i love and respect a lot of people, but i don't have sex with them.

why not your attitude on sex with your husband shows you view yourself as little more than whore or slut.

Nothing entitles anyone to have sex with someone
Nothing a female does makes her responsible for being raped untill you get those facts into your head your opinions are worthless.


and save the bullshit on how you think it

your whole attitude smacks of laying the blame for rape on the victim. no one has any right to have sex with another person it is a privilage that must be earned.

no it does not.

the blame for the rape is on the rapist. i've reiterated that how many times now?

the blame for being negligent with her safety, in this case, is on the victim.

those are two different things.

the victim could have well been negligent without being raped. and the victim could have well been raped without being negligent.

i know this is really heady, but try.

well marriage is a aberation against human nature in general but that is a whole



why not your attitude on sex with your husband shows you view yourself as little more than whore or slut.

Nothing entitles anyone to have sex with someone
Nothing a female does makes her responsible for being raped untill you get those facts into your head your opinions are worthless.


and save the bullshit on how you think it

do the world a favor and never get married. you obviously don't get it at all.

no it does not.

the blame for the rape is on the rapist. i've reiterated that how many times now? saying something and meaning it aren't the same. your continual attacks against this young lady shows you feel other wise


the blame for being negligent with her safety, in this case, is on the victim. in other words its her fault for not meeting your victorian era notions of female virtues.


those are two different things.

the victim could have well been negligent without being raped. and the victim could have well been raped without being negligent.

i know this is really heady, but try.

There is nothing heady about your crass attempts to blame her for what happened to her.

do the world a favor and never get married. you obviously don't get it at all.

screw you, you conncieted bitch. Don't lecture me on something you willing see as putting your self into bondage on and claim that its purpose. I get marriage you don't. I get rape you don't. I respect woman you don't.

this case should have been prosecuted and this person disbarred for this

screw you, you conncieted bitch. Don't lecture me on something you willing see as putting your self into bondage on and claim that its purpose. I get marriage you don't. I get rape you don't. I respect woman you don't.

this case should have been prosecuted and this person disbarred for this

hahaha. tantrum much?

hypocrite much? i'm expressing my own views, values, and philosophies regarding my own marriage.

let me guess...you've never been married. you've never been a prosecuting attorney.

you call me conceited (i think that's what you were attempting to spell), and yet go on to boast. you're a fool.

saying something and meaning it aren't the same. your continual attacks against this young lady shows you feel other wise

in other words its her fault for not meeting your victorian era notions of female virtues.



There is nothing heady about your crass attempts to blame her for what happened to her.

oh you're so full of shit.

you want to try to tell us that drunk dialing some ex-fuck that you haven't talked to in a year, and giving him instructions on how to get into her apartment isn't stupid?

it's fucking stupid.

how much you wanna bet she never ever does that again?

hahaha. tantrum much? says the whiny little brat


hypocrite much? i'm expressing my own views, values, and philosophies regarding my own marriage. No your stating them as justification for your vilification of the young woman who was raped here. Your essentially blaming her for not living up to your standards. You stating your belief and opinions and I am mocking, which is my right, for the anachronistic and misogynistic crap they are


let me guess...you've never been married. you've never been a prosecuting attorney. correct which is sad that I have a better understanding of both than you


you call me conceited (i think that's what you were attempting to spell), and arrogant hateful and cruel.
and yet go on to boast. I'm not boasting I'm trying to bring you up to speed on modern ethics.
you're a fool. No I am an asshole fed up with your arrogance and complete lack of morality

screw you, you conncieted bitch. ... I respect woman you don't.

Comedy Gold.

Good comedy writers can't compare to you.

Arthur

says the whiny little brat

hypocrite much? i'm expressing my own views, values, and philosophies regarding my own marriage.[/QUIOTE] No your stating them as jsutification for your vilification of the young woman who was rapes here. Your essentially blaming her for not living up to your standards

correct which is sad that I have a better understand ing of both than you

and arrogant hateful and cruel. I'm not boasting I'm trying to bring you up to speed on modern ethics. No I am an asshole fed up with your arrogance and complete lack of morality

well, you're definitely an asshole. and a very deluded one at that. perhaps you'll grow up one day. perhaps you won't. :shrug:

alright ppl..grow up..no insults..

lori..if he has this attitude...

well marriage is a aberation against human nature in general but that is a whole

this needn't be said..

do the world a favor and never get married.

what i will get in on is this comment..

No if you think someone else owns your body and you have an obligation to have sex with them .

those two satements are not mutually inclusive..

when you are married you DO have an obligation to have sex with your partner,if you do not, they will go looking elsewhere for it..

Comedy Gold.

Good comedy writers can't compare to you.

Arthur

i agree. irony is one of my fave forms of comedy.

what i will get in on is this comment.. I'm guessing you and Lori would think I should get married if I thought a woman's place was in the kitchen. Sorry if I think of woman as you know humans that have a right to control their own destinies.


when you are married you DO have an obligation to have sex with your partner,if you do not, they will go looking elsewhere for it..

No you don't. No other person has any right to your body.

well, you're definitely an asshole. and a very deluded one at that. Because I have more respect for your own body than you do??
perhaps you'll grow up one day. perhaps you won't. :shrug: Funny considering from what you have shown here I'm far more grown up than you. Your living in a dream world

Comedy Gold. I see your ass ignorant of comedy as you are everything else

i agree. irony is one of my fave forms of comedy.

than you must laugh your self to sleep considering the irony of you being female yet a misogynist

I'm guessing you and Lori would think I should get married if I thought a woman's place was in the kitchen. Sorry if I think of woman as you know humans that have a right to control their own destinies.

nope that is not what i am saying..i am a guy..and i do not have a problem with the women working and me in the kitchen,,although i do beleive it takes two incomes to make it nowadays..
i am not trying to make this an issue of womens rights..i am saying in a marriage both parties are obligated to serve the others sexual needs, of course this assumes that either party would have a problem with the other sleeping around on them, if you do not want your partner 'cheating' on you, then yes you are responsible for their sexual needs.

this also does not speak to communication in a marriage,as some couples are fine with their partners having sex with other ppl, i think this is a matter of communication.but even in this each partner is obligated to fullfill their partners sexual interests, even if that means giving them permission to sleep around..IOW communicate you do not have a problem with your partner sleeping with others..

than you must laugh your self to sleep considering the irony of you being female yet a misogynist

i don't hate women. you know, you're alarmingly jaded for a 26 year old, and aptly ignorant. my husband has just as much of an obligation to me as i do to him. that is exactly what makes a marriage work. it's called "commitment". it seems that the only thing you're committed to is yourself. good luck with that. ;)

nope that is not what i am saying..i am a guy..and i do not have a problem with the women working and me in the kitchen,,although i do beleive it takes two incomes to make it nowadays..
i am not trying to make this an issue of womens rights..i am saying in a marriage both parties are obligated to serve the others sexual needs, of course this assumes that either party would have a problem with the other sleeping around on them, if you do not want your partner 'cheating' on you, then yes you are responsible for their sexual needs.

this also does not speak to communication in a marriage,as some couples are fine with their partners having sex with other ppl, i think this is a matter of communication.but even in this each partner is obligated to fullfill their partners sexual interests, even if that means giving them permission to sleep around..IOW communicate you do not have a problem with your partner sleeping with others..

i like it in the kitchen...sometimes. ;)

i predict an abundance of unfulfillment and duck butter in this guy's future.

whackwhackwhackwhackwhack.

than you must laugh your self to sleep considering the irony of you being female yet a misogynist

i talk and giggle with my husband before i go to sleep, in his arms, after some great sex.

bliss!!!

what do you do before you go to sleep?

whackwhackwhackwhackwhack.

I see your ass ignorant of comedy as you are everything else

Really?
In a thread about Rape you reply to a woman:

"screw you, you conncieted bitch. ... I respect woman you don't".

So we start out with an implied allusion to you raping her: "screw you"

Then you refer to her as a Female Dog.

But conclude by claiming you RESPECT WOMAN.

LOL

Priceless

(that and your total inability to spell worth a damn or get the terms "You're" vs "Your" correct)

Arthur

Really?
In a thread about Rape you reply to a woman:

"screw you, you conncieted bitch. ... I respect woman you don't".

So we start out with an implied allusion to you raping her: "screw you"

Then you refer to her as a Female Dog.

But conclude by claiming you RESPECT WOMAN.

LOL

Priceless

(that and your total inability to spell worth a damn or get the terms "You're" vs "Your" correct)

Arthur

well said..he discredited himself with his own statement..in one line no less..

Mod Hat — And on that note ....

And this is what it comes to?

Wow. Cool. Okay. Done.