Rape, Yes, Yes, Yes, um. No. Rape?

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by blowero *
**The question is whether John clearly understood beyond a reasonable doubt. And his answer to her suggests that he didn’t take it as a clear indication that she wanted to stop, but as a request for reassurance that he cared about her.

**I guess we’ll have to disagree. IMO, his answer says, “No, sweetheart, my ignoring your request to stop shouldn’t imply I don’t care for you. Of course I do.”

** Also, you’re not taking into account that on cross-examination she admitted that she never “officially” told him she did not want to have sex. Those are HER words.

**I am taking it into account. I just also take into account all her words, including those I cited, the same ones even the dissenting justice did not dispute. To me, her saying that she did not “officially” tell him no is not contradictory to her other statements, not necessarily. I can see her responding to cross examination regarding, “Did you ‘officially’ state to the defendant, ‘No, sex is out of the question,’?” with an “I guess not.” We’re at a disadvantage not having the transcript. But my point continues to be that we shouldn’t select just those portions of her testimony that serve to show ambiguity when considered out of context. We should consider all of her testimony, and (from what we’ve seen at least) some of it was not ambiguous regarding her wishes.

**Now, what happened after that is another matter. I just don’t think the case hinges on these first events.

**Again, we’ll have to disagree. To me, in a rape case, everything hinges upon the moment when the victim indicates she does not want to have sex. Everything after is framed by that moment. I realize you’re interpreting those first events differently.

**Yes, that part is clear - all the judges agreed. Although even THAT wasn’t clear up to this point - they actually went against precedent in this case. But the issue isn’t whether the principle of law is correct - there was no disagreement on that; the issues are 1) Whether consent was clearly withdrawn beyond a reasonable doubt, and 2) Whether saying “give me another minute” constitutes forcing her to have sex. I still think it’s a tough call. **

Your prior objection that I responded to was:

**Plus, shouldn’t the obvious ambivalence of someone who tells a guy he should “wait and respect that I don’t want to do this” right after she just spent 5 minutes ON TOP OF HIM be a factor?

**I took that to mean, “How can he think she didn’t want to have sex when she just had consensual sex with him?,” which is, of course, the whole crux of the legal point in question. Given your response, I guess I’m not sure what your point was.

[Cheesesteak]

Bob Cos, on that last bit, my understanding is that during the 5min she was on top, she was being raped. That was not part of the consentual act. I (and blowero, apparently) am of the opinion that it should be rather easy for someone in that position to end the sex act. The fact that she did not end the sex act suggests a choice on her part to continue the act.

[Cheesesteak]

BTW, saying “I have to go home” is an ambiguous statement. I’ve said that and had that said to me while with a woman (though not during sex itself) when its meaning is “I need to go soon.” It’s getting late, you’re smooching or whatever, and they’re letting you know they’re going to have to go. They’re NOT indicating a desire to stop immediately, especially when they turn right back and continue 2sec after the statement.

People use that statement all the time, and rarely does it mean that the current activity has to stop NOW. It’s often used as a warning to your companion that time is short. Frankly, considering her own words about why she said ‘I got to go home’

I had to get home so my mom wouldn’t suspect anything

suggests to me that this interpretation is fairly accurate.

[Texican]

[She] told him that, “if he really did care about me, he wouldn’t be doing this to me and if he did want a relationship, he should wait and respect that I don’t want to do this.”

The way I read this is, if he didn’t really care about her, and didn’t really want a relationship, it was ok to go ahead and fuck her.

[Lamia]

*Originally posted by Cheesesteak *
**BTW, saying “I have to go home” is an ambiguous statement. I’ve said that and had that said to me while with a woman (though not during sex itself) when its meaning is “I need to go soon.” It’s getting late, you’re smooching or whatever, and they’re letting you know they’re going to have to go. They’re NOT indicating a desire to stop immediately, especially when they turn right back and continue 2sec after the statement.

People use that statement all the time, and rarely does it mean that the current activity has to stop NOW. It’s often used as a warning to your companion that time is short.**

Perhaps. But she did not just say “I have to go home.” She said it, then the defendant asked for more time to finish up. She replied, “No, I have to go home.” He asked for more time again, and again she said no, she had to leave. Does that sound like someone who just wanted her partner to hurry up, or like someone who wanted him to stop?

I don’t see the ambiguity in this case.

[blowero]

*Originally posted by Bob Cos *
I guess we’ll have to disagree. IMO, his answer says, "No, sweetheart, my ignoring your request to stop shouldn’t imply I don’t care for you. Of course I do."

I don’t disagree. My point was that the legal issue is not what we believe he probably meant, it’s what he meant beyond a reasonable doubt. I can see some doubt there: he might have been thinking that she was just reluctant to have sex with someone she had just met, and that his reassurance that he cared for her would convince her otherwise. But I think you are misunderstanding me here - I don’t agree with what he did, and I don’t even necessarily think that was his state of mind at the time. I just think some doubt exists.

To me, in a rape case, everything hinges upon the moment when the victim indicates she does not want to have sex. Everything after is framed by that moment. I realize you’re interpreting those first events differently. Your prior objection that I responded to was:**I took that to mean, “How can he think she didn’t want to have sex when she just had consensual sex with him?,” which is, of course, the whole crux of the legal point in question. Given your response, I guess I’m not sure what your point was.

Well, let me state my point again for about the 4th time:

While I don’t necessarily disagree with the decision, I don’t think this case is as cut-and-dried as some people are making it out to be.

And you are completely misconstruing my point about her being on top. Her being on top does NOT negate any subsequent objections she may have had. I never said that, so please don’t try to suggest that I did. First of all, you said that she was held on top of him against her will, and I disagreed with THAT statement (only) that you made. He was not applying enough force to hold her there. Second, I merely suggested that the girl’s obvious ambivalence in her actions and statements, and the conditional way that she spoke to him, taken TOGETHER with her admission on cross-examination that she never “officially” told him to stop, might tend to cast some doubt on how John would have interpreted her saying: “If he really did care about me, he wouldn’t be doing this to me and if he did want a relationship, he should wait and respect that I don’t want to do this.”

If she said: “No, John - STOP IT!!” - It WOULD be cut-and-dried.
If she said: “Help - I’m being raped!” - It WOULD be cut-and-dried.

But she said: “If he really did care about me, he wouldn’t be doing this to me and if he did want a relationship, he should wait and respect that I don’t want to do this.” - which is quite a bit more ambivalent. Not as cut-and-dried.

I’m not even saying you’re wrong, I just don’t see how it’s SO obvious that that statement is equivalent to saying “Stop it right now”, as you seem to think it is.

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by blowero *
**But I think you are misunderstanding me here - I don’t agree with what he did, and I don’t even necessarily think that was his state of mind at the time. I just think some doubt exists.

**I’m not misunderstanding you at all. I’m just disagreeing with you. I’m not saying your interpretation is outrageous or that you are trying to justify the behavior of two obvious pricks. I just don’t agree with your spin (as you don’t with mine).

**Well, let me state my point again for about the 4th time:

While I don’t necessarily disagree with the decision, I don’t think this case is as cut-and-dried as some people are making it out to be.

**Yep, I get it. Again, I don’t agree with you, but I get it. I was just sharing my perspective, as you were. Perhaps I should cease and desist, since it seems to be getting you in a dither.

**
And you are completely misconstruing my point about her being on top. Her being on top does NOT negate any subsequent objections she may have had. I never said that, so please don’t try to suggest that I did.

**I don’t believe I did.

**First of all, you said that she was held on top of him against her will, and I disagreed with THAT statement (only) that you made. He was not applying enough force to hold her there.

**Yep, I understood that point.

**Second, I merely suggested that the girl’s obvious ambivalence in her actions and statements, and the conditional way that she spoke to him, taken TOGETHER with her admission on cross-examination that she never “officially” told him to stop, might tend to cast some doubt on how John would have interpreted her saying: “If he really did care about me, he wouldn’t be doing this to me and if he did want a relationship, he should wait and respect that I don’t want to do this.”

**No, that’s not the sequence of statements that we exchanged our views on, so if anyone is misconstruing something, I don’t think it’s me. Again (for the second time;)), I’ll point out that, whatever you intended, you said this:

**Plus, shouldn’t the obvious ambivalence of someone who tells a guy he should “wait and respect that I don’t want to do this” right after she just spent 5 minutes ON TOP OF HIM be a factor?

**There are three clear things from this statement: (1) You seem to understand full well that she told this guy she didn’t want to do this, (2) you interpreted the facts to show that she stated this after she spent five minutes on top of him during consensual sex, and (3) you felt that her behavior prior to the statement is justification, to at least some extent, for someone to ignore her wishes because she may have meant something else.

I pointed out then, and I will now, that the law contemplates this exact scenario and says, no, her prior behavior is NOT a factor, not if she withdrew consent. If she didn’t clearly withdraw consent (which I UNDERSTAND is your contention), then it’s all moot. But your point would still be illogical, as you’ve drawn it.

So, thanks for the subsequent clarification, but, no, I don’t think I misconstrued anything.

**If she said: “No, John - STOP IT!!” - It WOULD be cut-and-dried.
If she said: “Help - I’m being raped!” - It WOULD be cut-and-dried.

But she said: “If he really did care about me, he wouldn’t be doing this to me and if he did want a relationship, he should wait and respect that I don’t want to do this.” - which is quite a bit more ambivalent. Not as cut-and-dried.

**Italics added. I think the highlighted phrase is absolutely unambiguous, even within the context of that sentence. You don’t. OK…

**I’m not even saying you’re wrong, I just don’t see how it’s SO obvious that that statement is equivalent to saying “Stop it right now”, as you seem to think it is. **

Sorry, but “I don’t want to do this,” does seem to me to equate with that statement quite nicely. YMMV.

[Tommyturtle]

Doesn’t all this debate about what she said versus what she may have meant constitute “reasonable doubt” and thus this guy (no matter what most of us personally may think of him as a person) shouldn’t of been convicted of rape.

We have the advantage of hindsite and reading about what she meant when she said what she did…while he on the other hand had to make a decision during the actual act of coitus.

If we cannot come to a uniform aggreement now then how can we expect this guy to do so at the time?

[Lamia]

*Originally posted by darren *
**Doesn’t all this debate about what she said versus what she may have meant constitute “reasonable doubt” and thus this guy (no matter what most of us personally may think of him as a person) shouldn’t of been convicted of rape.
**

We are not the jurors or justices responsible for making the call in this case. Apparently they felt that there was no reasonable doubt as to whether or not a reasonable person would have understood that the young woman in question had expressed dissent or the withdrawl of consent. That we haven’t reached a consensus here has no bearing on that. The title of the forum is Great Debates after all, if we didn’t debate things people would feel let down!

[blowero]

*Originally posted by Bob Cos *
There are three clear things from this statement: (1) You seem to understand full well that she told this guy she didn’t want to do this, (2) you interpreted the facts to show that she stated this after she spent five minutes on top of him during consensual sex, and (3) you felt that her behavior prior to the statement is justification, to at least some extent, for someone to ignore her wishes because she may have meant something else.

Nope, not even close. This debate has become pointless. You are taking things out of context, isolating them, and then making blithe generalizations which you attribute to me. I’m outa here…

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by blowero *
**Nope, not even close. This debate has become pointless. You are taking things out of context, isolating them, and then making blithe generalizations which you attribute to me. I’m outa here… **

Oh, bullshit. Yes, this has become pointless because you got all twisted out of shape over some hallucinatory slight, and you now continue to refuse to acknowledge statements that you made, statements that seem very clear in what they suggest.

You think I’m misinterpreting your statement? Show why. It’s easy. Done all the time in GD. If you demonstrate to me how your statement could reasonably be interpreted in another way, I’ll happily concede the point.

You don’t want your point of view discussed? Yep, stay out the debate. That’d be a good strategy.

See ya.

[Nightime]

Bob - People that willfully misinterpret are no fun to argue with. You isolated every line in Blowero’s post and treated each line as a stand alone argument.

Blowero:

Plus, shouldn’t the obvious ambivalence of someone who tells a guy he should “wait and respect that I don’t want to do this” right after she just spent 5 minutes ON TOP OF HIM be a factor?

If you look at previous sentences, which said that the guy had a cast and was not keeping the girl there with force, then this sentence becomes more clear. She could have left any time she wanted, but she didn’t. That changes the way the guy would interpret her words. The girl is telling him that she has to go home so her mom won’t be suspicious and that if he really respected her he wouldn’t continue. Coming from someone who is actively participating, staying of their own free will, and who could leave at any time, her statements are ambiguous. If she is that worried about her mom getting suspicious, then why doesn’t she just leave?

Of course, if he was keeping her there with force or a threat of force then it was obviously rape.

[Lamia]

*Originally posted by Nightime *
**
If you look at previous sentences, which said that the guy had a cast and was not keeping the girl there with force, then this sentence becomes more clear. She could have left any time she wanted, but she didn’t. That changes the way the guy would interpret her words. The girl is telling him that she has to go home so her mom won’t be suspicious and that if he really respected her he wouldn’t continue. Coming from someone who is actively participating, staying of their own free will, and who could leave at any time, her statements are ambiguous. If she is that worried about her mom getting suspicious, then why doesn’t she just leave?

Of course, if he was keeping her there with force or a threat of force then it was obviously rape. **

According to the opinion, she says she tried to get up and leave but he kept pulling her back. Sounds like force to me. One could argue how much force, and the defense apparently did if they brought in his cast, etc., but how high do we want to set the bar here? It’s only rape if the rapist uses a lot of force and hurts the victim real bad?

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by Nightime *
**Bob - People that willfully misinterpret are no fun to argue with. You isolated every line in Blowero’s post and treated each line as a stand alone argument.

**Jesus. Perhaps you and blowero could actually spend some time analyzing what was actually said instead of assigning unworthy motives and tossing around bullshit statements like “willfully misinterpret.”

**If you look at previous sentences, which said that the guy had a cast and was not keeping the girl there with force, then this sentence becomes more clear. She could have left any time she wanted, but she didn’t. That changes the way the guy would interpret her words. The girl is telling him that she has to go home so her mom won’t be suspicious and that if he really respected her he wouldn’t continue. Coming from someone who is actively participating, staying of their own free will, and who could leave at any time, her statements are ambiguous. If she is that worried about her mom getting suspicious, then why doesn’t she just leave?

Of course, if he was keeping her there with force or a threat of force then it was obviously rape. **

How much more clearly can I say this: I understand perfectly that Blowero said she was, at least initially, having sex consensually. I don’t need an endless repetition of the argument for this, because I heard it. In fact, the only way that my response makes sense is if I conceded that fact for argument’s sake. And that’s exactly what I did when I said, way back when:

**She said she was still held against her will, even when she was on top of him. But even if you don’t buy that, the law is already clear that if consent is withdrawn, then it’s rape, even if it was at one point consensual.

**Notice the words I italicized. This means that my argument with regard to this particular point is NOT dependent upon a belief that the first 5 minutes of sex was rape.

My response to blowero should not suggest the rest of his argument is without merit. But his statement is not logical. Let’s try again. He said:

**Plus, shouldn’t the obvious ambivalence of someone who tells a guy he should “wait and respect that I don’t want to do this” right after she just spent 5 minutes ON TOP OF HIM be a factor?

**The answer to this question is, no, it should not be a factor. Please look at the word that I italicized. Telling someone she does not want to have sex AFTER having consensual sex is NOT in any way invalidated by the fact that consensual sex took place FIRST. It is NOT a factor. This is not isolating a sentence to mistate blowero’s argument. It is responding to a flatly asked unambiguous question.

If the girl was displaying ambivalence, then by definition the 5 minutes of consensual sex (if you buy blowero’s interpretation) was juxtaposed against her wish NOT to have sex subsequently. If she did not withdraw her consent, then there was NO AMBIVALENCE inherent in the situation.

I will state yet again that the law contemplates this EXACT circumstance, and guards against it. You may argue to your heart’s content that she did not withdraw consent, and if you are right, that fact, by itself, is what should exonorate the two fine young men in question. But if she did communicate her desire NOT to have sex, her prior consent would not invalidate that withdrawal of consent. She could have screwed him consensually not just for 5 minutes but all night, she could have screwed every guy in the house voluntarily, and that fact would NOT be a factor in determining whether or not her subsequent withdrawal of consent was “real.” IT IS NOT A FACTOR. Get it?

Question asked and answered. Feel free to continue the proud tradition established in this thread of pretending that “I don’t want to do this” can have multiple meanings.

[Cheesesteak]

She claims that she was being RAPED during those 5min. She claims that she had withdrawn consent BEFORE spending 5min on top. BEFORE having the ability to easily extricate herself from the situation. She claims she was FORCED to have sex while on top. IMHO, that is nonsense, forcing a person to have sex from the bottom. The leverage is all wrong, and the strength required substantial, and not apparently used, because she had no bruises, and he had a cast on. Unless her description is all wrong (she said he put pressure on her hips) there’s no way he held her in place by force. You’d have to wrap your arms around their back to have a hope in hell of keeping them down.

As far as I’m concerned, if that part of the story is bogus, the whole thing goes. She can’t just say “well, he may not have forced me THEN, but later, he did.” You can’t just pick and choose the point at which she withdrew consent.

Just withdrawing consent isn’t enough, if he didn’t force her to have sex it shouldn’t be rape. Forcing her to have sex implies that she tried to do something different. You can’t be sitting on top of a guy, having sex while saying “I don’t want to” and call it rape, you actually have to try and NOT have sex at some point.

[Lamia]

*Originally posted by Cheesesteak *
Just withdrawing consent isn’t enough, if he didn’t force her to have sex it shouldn’t be rape.

Yes it should. The law used to require rape victims to prove that they’d attempted to fight off their attackers, but it was changed when lawmakers finally realized that such requirements only serve to punish victims by holding them to a different standard than the victims of all other crimes, and that this different standard in some cases places the victim in greater danger.

It’s a shame that some people still have a 1950s mentality about rape, but thankfully you’re in the minority.

[blowero]

I’m curious, Bob Cos - since I’m not even participating in this thread anymore, how long do you plan to continue assaulting that one isolated sentence of mine?

[Tommyturtle]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamia

We are not the jurors or justices responsible for making the call in this case. Apparently they felt that there was no reasonable doubt as to whether or not a reasonable person would have understood that the young woman in question had expressed dissent or the withdrawl of consent. That we haven’t reached a consensus here has no bearing on that.

---

But Lamia are we not doing now exactly what presumably the jury was SUPPOSED to be doing while sitting in judgement of this guy? If at this late date even with the benefit of hindsite WE can’t decide with a reasonable certainty whether this was rape…since both sides no matter their position have creditable arguments…isn’t that EXACTLY what a reasonable doubt is?

Is it possible the jurors might of simply decided the guy was a scum bag and whether it was REALLY rape or not it would be a good idea to have one strike on him while they had a chance.(Juries have been known to let someone OFF if they believe the circumstances warrant it despite the law…isn’t there a chance that they thought while there MIGHT be “reasonable doubt” the guy was worthy of punishing nonetheless?)

[Nightime]

Lamia:

According to the opinion, she says she tried to get up and leave but he kept pulling her back. Sounds like force to me.

I was under the impression that she said she couldn’t even feel the pressure from his arms (or arm, considering he had a cast), let alone be stopped from leaving by them. If he was indeed forcibly preventing her from leaving, then it was rape.

One could argue how much force, and the defense apparently did if they brought in his cast, etc., but how high do we want to set the bar here? It’s only rape if the rapist uses a lot of force and hurts the victim real bad?

What you have to remember is that this is not a typical situation. In most rapes the victim never consents to having sex. So there really isn’t a “bar” that the force has to reach over. Rape can occur without any force, because the issue is consent.

Consent is a positive action. If that positive action does not happen, then it is rape, regardless of the force applied.

However, in this atypical case the withdrawal of consent is the positive action. It is not rape, unless that withdrawal of consent happened. And force is relevant because if the girl continues having sex of her own free will, rather than being forced, then it is possible that the guy would not understand that consent is being withdrawn.

Bob Cos:

Question asked and answered. Feel free to continue the proud tradition established in this thread of pretending that “I don’t want to do this” can have multiple meanings.

You are insisting on taking one sentence and ignoring its context. Since I don’t understand your interpretation I can’t argue with it. Perhaps we should just let this particular part of the argument die.

I will point out that the reason it is relevant that she was not forced to stay and participated of her own free will, is that that fact influences the way her words would be interpreted. You ask what meanings “I don’t want to do this” could have. Have you considered that it could easily be interpreted as “I’m going to leave?” If the guy was not forcing her to stay, then he would have no reason to think she couldn’t leave whenever she wanted. He would have no reason to think there was even a chance that he could rape her, because if she wanted to leave she could. His response to learning that she was likely going to leave was to try and reassure her and convince her not to leave. Why should the guy be legally required to push her off of him, when she is equally capable of getting off on her own?

[Lamia]

*Originally posted by darren *
**
But Lamia are we not doing now exactly what presumably the jury was SUPPOSED to be doing while sitting in judgement of this guy?
**

Uh, no. We are discussing the issue for fun, knowing that no matter what anyone says here it can have no possible affect on the verdict or sentencing in the case in question. If you think that’s what jurors are supposed to do, I sure hope you never get called in for jury duty.

**
If at this late date even with the benefit of hindsite WE can’t decide with a reasonable certainty whether this was rape…since both sides no matter their position have creditable arguments…isn’t that EXACTLY what a reasonable doubt is?
**

Uh, no. Reasonable doubt is when jurors or justices, after seeing all the evidence and hearing all the testimony, not to mention studying the various legal arguments and precedent, still are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. Whether or not other people who had nothing to do with the trial and who at most have read the opinion of the court (and I suspect that many people here have still not read the whole thing) think there’s still room left to debate the issue on a board devoted to debate is irrelevant.

Of course, you’re free to contact the Supreme Court of California and inform the justices that you know what constitutes reasonable doubt better than they do and that they’d best let that poor boy go free because a couple of people on the Internet think that maybe that girl didn’t really really not wanna do it.