17-year-old sexual assault victim could be jailed

Anon wrote:

First of all, where did it say that her attackers won't be jailed?
Second, notice the words "up to". The 180 days in jail and a $500 fine is a maximum sentence. I'm not a legal expert, but from what I can find in ten minutes on Google, she may not face jail at all.

Ok, this is fair. I assumed by "got off easy" they meant reeeeaallly easy. Like, slap on the wrist. I only briefly skimmed the article, which was my mistake. Thank you, Anon, and I'm sorry I missed your comment earlier.

But, still. The fact that she could end up in jail for this kind of disturbs me, and I don't think it's right.

The linked article says that they're yet to be sentenced.

IMO, if you commit a crime, take pictures of it, and show the pictures to people, you've waived any right to privacy.

Wanna keep things secret? Don't take pictures and show them to people.

Gumball wrote:

*If you're wondering if I might mean you, I don't. The person in question knows.

I'm not sure if it's because of my ego or my paranoia, but I feel as if this is directed at me.

I posted a link to the article on my Facebook page. Someone left this response:

Quote :

She should now take personal responsibility seriously. Going to a party and getting stoned to the point of passing out is intentionally setting yourself up for abuse. People ought not take advantage of others but it is far better for a young lady to stay sober and alert when socializing and in general when in the public. The boys were wrong and should be punished with jail time but the "victim's'" actions represent a trend by young ladies of thoughtlessly and willfully behaving in a manner that is screaming for trouble.

True though there is always the need for being responsible for your own saftey, instead of just trusting random strangers nearby to be completely altruistic.Now cue Cyberwulf with the usual DURR VICTIM BLAMING

We don't yet know what the terms of the plea deal are (and likely never will, being juvies and all), or even if it will be accepted. But just because someone has been victimized is no excuse for that victim to break laws themselves.Now cue Cyberwulf with the usual DURR WOMAN HATER

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Quote :

Willingly doing a crime like that forfeits your right to privacy.

My response to this is a really big EHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

we-ell it's kind of ironic that someone decided they had a right to privacy after they took pictures of themselves assaulting this girl and showed them to at least one other person

Understood. This may be completely illogical and probably comes from my gut more than my head, but I'm a bit resistant to the idea of anyone deserving to have basic human rights taken away, y'know?

I can't say I'm exactly sad to know that any future wives or in-laws or whatever are just a quick Twitter archive search away from knowing what these guys did.

Hell with wives, employers!

"Hm, I like this candidate we just interviewed but let's run a quick background check--oh my it seems he has been known to rape women--since we hire a lot of women he's probably not the best choice."

It makes me smile.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

I'm not sure if it's because of my ego or my paranoia, but I feel as if this is directed at me.

*cough*demoted,lookitup*cough*

the asylum wrote:

True though there is always the need for being responsible for your own saftey, instead of just trusting random strangers nearby to be completely altruistic.Now cue Cyberwulf with the usual DURR VICTIM BLAMING

We don't yet know what the terms of the plea deal are (and likely never will, being juvies and all), or even if it will be accepted. But just because someone has been victimized is no excuse for that victim to break laws themselves.Now cue Cyberwulf with the usual DURR WOMAN HATER

You don't need to wait for Cyberwulf. Rape is never the fault of the victim, no matter what circumstances she (or he) was raped in. You know what causes rape? Rapists.

As to the second comment, some laws need breaking. Yes, I said it. SOME LAWS NEED BREAKING. It's called civil disobedience.

the asylum wrote:

just trusting random strangers nearby to be completely altruistic

They were her friends, you dumbfuck.

Lady Anne wrote:

As to the second comment, some laws need breaking. Yes, I said it. SOME LAWS NEED BREAKING. It's called civil disobedience.

It's also called being a criminal.

Lady Anne wrote:

the asylum wrote:

True though there is always the need for being responsible for your own saftey, instead of just trusting random strangers nearby to be completely altruistic.Now cue Cyberwulf with the usual DURR VICTIM BLAMING

You don't need to wait for Cyberwulf. Rape is never the fault of the victim, no matter what circumstances she (or he) was raped in. You know what causes rape? Rapists

Did I specifically blame the girl?

No?

Well then.

In a perfect world, I should be able to pull a Die Hard 3 and walk though Harlem with a big sandwich sign reading "I HATE NIGGERS", without being drawn and quartered in the streets. Am I within my rights in this hypothetical situation? Yes. Would then the residents of the neighborhood be within their rights stuffing my severed genitals down my esophagus? In a word, No. The only thing I am guilty of in this scenario is being an idiot.

Is it at all possible that the judge asked for no one to speak about the case in order to protect the identity of the victim as well as the perpetrators? I mean, they're all juveniles, yes? I'd imagine that being the victim of a sexual assault wouldn't be something that I would particularly like everyone who googles my name to be able to find.

Somath Cegem wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

As to the second comment, some laws need breaking. Yes, I said it. SOME LAWS NEED BREAKING. It's called civil disobedience.

It's also called being a criminal.

Some crimes need to be committed.

the asylum wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

the asylum wrote:

True though there is always the need for being responsible for your own saftey, instead of just trusting random strangers nearby to be completely altruistic.Now cue Cyberwulf with the usual DURR VICTIM BLAMING

You don't need to wait for Cyberwulf. Rape is never the fault of the victim, no matter what circumstances she (or he) was raped in. You know what causes rape? Rapists

Did I specifically blame the girl?

No?

Well then.

In a perfect world, I should be able to pull a Die Hard 3 and walk though Harlem with a big sandwich sign reading "I HATE NIGGERS", without being drawn and quartered in the streets. Am I within my rights in this hypothetical situation? Yes. Would then the residents of the neighborhood be within their rights stuffing my severed genitals down my esophagus? In a word, No. The only thing I am guilty of in this scenario is being an idiot.

That wouldn't be civil disobedience.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Entirely relevant video

Lady Anne wrote:

the asylum wrote:

True though there is always the need for being responsible for your own saftey, instead of just trusting random strangers nearby to be completely altruistic.Now cue Cyberwulf with the usual DURR VICTIM BLAMING

We don't yet know what the terms of the plea deal are (and likely never will, being juvies and all), or even if it will be accepted. But just because someone has been victimized is no excuse for that victim to break laws themselves.Now cue Cyberwulf with the usual DURR WOMAN HATER

You don't need to wait for Cyberwulf. Rape is never the fault of the victim, no matter what circumstances she (or he) was raped in. You know what causes rape? Rapists.

As to the second comment, some laws need breaking. Yes, I said it. SOME LAWS NEED BREAKING. It's called civil disobedience.

OMG ur so EDGY and REBELLIOUS i bet ur parents ttly h8 u

Stupid bitch.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

the asylum wrote:

True though there is always the need for being responsible for your own saftey, instead of just trusting random strangers nearby to be completely altruistic.Now cue Cyberwulf with the usual DURR VICTIM BLAMING

We don't yet know what the terms of the plea deal are (and likely never will, being juvies and all), or even if it will be accepted. But just because someone has been victimized is no excuse for that victim to break laws themselves.Now cue Cyberwulf with the usual DURR WOMAN HATER

You don't need to wait for Cyberwulf. Rape is never the fault of the victim, no matter what circumstances she (or he) was raped in. You know what causes rape? Rapists.

As to the second comment, some laws need breaking. Yes, I said it. SOME LAWS NEED BREAKING. It's called civil disobedience.

OMG ur so EDGY and REBELLIOUS i bet ur parents ttly h8 u

Stupid bitch.

I love you, too, Mikey.

Lady Anne wrote:

I love you, too, Mikey.

Well, someone has to, I guess.

Spoiler:

the asylum wrote:

In a perfect world, I should be able to pull a Die Hard 3 and walk though Harlem with a big sandwich sign reading "I HATE NIGGERS", without being drawn and quartered in the streets. Am I within my rights in this hypothetical situation? Yes. Would then the residents of the neighborhood be within their rights stuffing my severed genitals down my esophagus? In a word, No. The only thing I am guilty of in this scenario is being an idiot.

haha "perfect world" you're a goddamn lunatic

Lady Anne wrote:

Somath Cegem wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

As to the second comment, some laws need breaking. Yes, I said it. SOME LAWS NEED BREAKING. It's called civil disobedience.

It's also called being a criminal.

Some crimes need to be committed.

And this was one of them? This was such a massive injustice and there where no other options or ways to protest this other than breaking the law?

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume that she didn't construct a detailed statistical chart listing all the possible actions she could have taken. Due to her life becoming twisted beyond comprehension.

I guess I mostly don't understand why it would be so hard for someone who didn't have some sort of a problem with women to go easy on her for being angry about her rapists' identities being protected. Especially since (I think) no one here has anything to do with this case, so basically anything any of us have to say on the subject is opinion.

Hawaiian Shirt wrote:

I guess I mostly don't understand why it would be so hard for someone who didn't have some sort of a problem with women to go easy on her for being angry about her rapists' identities being protected. Especially since (I think) no one here has anything to do with this case, so basically anything any of us have to say on the subject is opinion.

I can understand her being angry, I cannot understand nor will I ever condone law breaking, I just can't, it's not how I'm wired.

the asylum wrote:

In a perfect world, I should be able to pull a Die Hard 3 and walk though Harlem with a big sandwich sign reading "I HATE NIGGERS", without being drawn and quartered in the streets. Am I within my rights in this hypothetical situation? Yes. Would then the residents of the neighborhood be within their rights stuffing my severed genitals down my esophagus? In a word, No. The only thing I am guilty of in this scenario is being an idiot.

In a perfect world, anything done to you in this scenario would be considered a misdemenor.

Freezer wrote:

the asylum wrote:

In a perfect world, I should be able to pull a Die Hard 3 and walk though Harlem with a big sandwich sign reading "I HATE NIGGERS", without being drawn and quartered in the streets. Am I within my rights in this hypothetical situation? Yes. Would then the residents of the neighborhood be within their rights stuffing my severed genitals down my esophagus? In a word, No. The only thing I am guilty of in this scenario is being an idiot.

In a perfect world, anything done to you in this scenario would be considered a misdemenor.

In a perfect world, he'd pull this in Whitey, Whiteingstown, and still get his ass beat.

Quote :

I can understand her being angry, I cannot understand nor will I ever condone law breaking, I just can't, it's not how I'm wired.

Well if you consider that the boys who raped her were probably around her same age, they were almost old enough that they wouldn't get a gag order and everyone would know what scummy thing they did anyway. So it's not so much breaking the law as bending it a teensy weensy bit.