(06-08-2016 12:56 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  That isn't true. Nobody has partially blamed the girl. Pointing out that getting wasted, losing complete control of your ability to function, is a bad choice is not blaming the victim in any manner whatsoever.

Saying that she made a mistake, which implies it as a contributing factor, is in fact placing some blame on the girl. I am not sure how this is even questionable.

(06-08-2016 02:23 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-08-2016 12:56 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  That isn't true. Nobody has partially blamed the girl. Pointing out that getting wasted, losing complete control of your ability to function, is a bad choice is not blaming the victim in any manner whatsoever.

Saying that she made a mistake, which implies it as a contributing factor, is in fact placing some blame on the girl. I am not sure how this is even questionable.

It's very questionable. There's a plethora of "contributing factors" that don't add up to any amount of "blame". If she had been uglier, maybe it wouldn't have happened. If she had avoided the frat party to begin with, it wouldn't have happened. Women, just being the weaker sex can contribute to them being raped. The "blame" always belongs to the rapist, 100%, no question. As Terry said, this wasn't an accident and you don't parcel the responsibility out. It's not like this were a car accident and one person didn't have the right of way but the person who did was driving much too fast. Then there can be partial responsibility. This was an intentional attack. A very clear assailant and victim.

(06-08-2016 02:55 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  If she had been uglier, maybe it wouldn't have happened.

This right here, made me laugh very hard.

Yeah, that's the solution, girls need to get uglier. The more ugly girls, the fewer get that will get trucked (do you like my alternate word play)?

(06-08-2016 08:11 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  quo,

Why don't you ask her? Ask her why she decided to make that one of the key points of her message. She wanted to make it clear that she made a mistake, and to warn others against making the same mistake.


Please ... can someone explain to me why this concept is so offensive, to some people?????

Why do people --- in an utterly false manner --- immediately throw out rape apologist/blame shifting accusations when this discussion point comes up????? It makes you seem like a sheep/simpleton, that you can't even consider such an obvious point of the discussion.

So this is your sister, would you feel the same way?

(06-08-2016 02:23 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-08-2016 12:56 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  That isn't true. Nobody has partially blamed the girl. Pointing out that getting wasted, losing complete control of your ability to function, is a bad choice is not blaming the victim in any manner whatsoever.

Saying that she made a mistake, which implies it as a contributing factor, is in fact placing some blame on the girl. I am not sure how this is even questionable.

Leaving your door unlocked, continuing to date someone who you don't trust, letting an old friend who just got out of jail move in etc., (and someone does harm to you) can all be classified as a mistake......
but not victim blaming. We all make mistakes that does not mean that if someone harms us that we are to blame.

If you are talking about a crime, and you point out "mistakes" made by a party involved, that is giving them a percentage of the blame, even if a minute amount. That is the very definition of mistake: the error you made that contributed to the action/crime in question. And that is assigning blame, even if a small amount, and that is utterly wrong. Mturn gave a perfect example of it above, even if he did not intend to. No matter how often you repeat and say it is no,t that is exactly what it is: assigning blame.

(06-09-2016 08:53 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  If you are talking about a crime, and you point out "mistakes" made by a party involved, that is giving them a percentage of the blame, even if a minute amount. That is the very definition of mistake: the error you made that contributed to the action/crime in question. And that is assigning blame, even if a small amount, and that is utterly wrong. Mturn gave a perfect example of it above, even if he did not intend to. No matter how often you repeat and say it is no,t that is exactly what it is: assigning blame.

No it isn't assigning blame.

(06-07-2016 12:16 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Got to love capitalism in this country.

- You had cigarettes and lung cancer.
- Still have sugar and diabetes/heart disease.
- Next we need to go after the booze industry, for enabling this craziness in young people.

Already tried - and that social experiment failed.

you should Google "the blame game," and you will find this is a textbook example. It IS assigning blame, because you are saying, in essence, that had she not drank (to excess), this would not have happened. Therefor, she shares some responsibility for the result. This is what you are saying, when you say she, or someone in that position, made a mistake. It is similar, for example, to say if a man was driving his car, and he was hit by a drunk driver who ran a red light while driving 25 miles over the speed limit, but it turned out the accident victim had a suspended license for unpaid tickets, he shares blame in the accident, even if he did nothing wrong, because had he not been driving while his license was suspended, he would not have been on the road to be hit (note that such examples are actually used to reduce penalties in accidents). That is a case of assigning blame tot he victim (granted, again this one actually happens, but I use it to point it out). Same here.

(06-09-2016 09:17 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  you should Google "the blame game," and you will find this is a textbook example. It IS assigning blame, because you are saying, in essence, that had she not drank (to excess), this would not have happened. Therefor, she shares some responsibility for the result. This is what you are saying, when you say she, or someone in that position, made a mistake. It is similar, for example, to say if a man was driving his car, and he was hit by a drunk driver who ran a red light while driving 25 miles over the speed limit, but it turned out the accident victim had a suspended license for unpaid tickets, he shares blame in the accident, even if he did nothing wrong, because had he not been driving while his license was suspended, he would not have been on the road to be hit (note that such examples are actually used to reduce penalties in accidents). That is a case of assigning blame tot he victim (granted, again this one actually happens, but I use it to point it out). Same here.

No that is what You are saying Those are your words not mine.

It's a separate conversation imo. The rapist bares all responsibility for the rape, no question about that. We should all be aware of our surroundings for safety concerns. Unfortunately women are more vulnerable and are at a higher risk. I have a daughter and a son on the way. We've already discussed with my daughter, who's seven about people not being allowed to touch her and not talking to strangers and such. When she reaches college age we'll certainly discuss what using good judgement means in the situations she's likely to face. And my son too, although that conversation will be a bit different. Not walking down dark alleyways and hanging out with shady characters are not the safest choices. Doing so and coming to regret it may be a mistake but it doesn't make you responsible for any crimes that are committed against you. Implying so is victim blaming and victim blaming, especially in rape cases, has the effect of lessening the crime in peoples opinion. It shouldn't be done. Talk to your daughters and sons about the dangers of the world but don't go on the internet and say "well she was drunk". My $0.02.

(06-09-2016 09:00 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  No it isn't assigning blame.

I say it is but we are to blame for our mistakes, even if others are to blame for taking advantage of them.

A guy walks down an alley at 2:00 a.m. quite a bit drunk after five beers at the bar.

He knows that it is unsafe walking alone in the alley at night but does it anyway. He is in a hurry to get home.

Being intoxicated, he does not pay close attention to his surroundings.

Another guy with a knife guts the first guy like a fish behind a dumpster in the alley and leaves the victim with his steaming intestines lying in the alley next to his corpse.

Then, the assailant mutilates the corpse further with his knife, robs the dead body and goes on his way but is apprehended later and the dead guy's wallet and the bloody knife are recovered.

At trial, the guy who knifed the first guy should get a much lesser sentence since the first guy should have known better, should not have let himself get so impaired and should have acted smarter.

That victim of that intentional tort, that murderous assault, was guilty of "contributory negligence".

That "negligence" should be a mitigating factor that benefits the assailant and successfully reduces his punishment, an "affirmative defense", if you will.

Instead of the death penalty, life in prison or a 25 year sentence, the assailant gets a 3-5 year prison term.

Right?

(06-09-2016 10:34 AM)TerryD Wrote:  A guy walks down an alley at 2:00 a.m. quite a bit drunk after five beers at the bar.

He knows that it is unsafe walking alone in the alley at night but does it anyway. He is in a hurry to get home.

Being intoxicated, he does not pay close attention to his surroundings.

Another guy with a knife guts the first guy like a fish behind a dumpster in the alley and leaves the victim with his steaming intestines lying in the alley next to his corpse.

Then, the assailant mutilates the corpse further with his knife, robs the dead body and goes on his way but is apprehended later and the dead guy's wallet and the bloody knife are recovered.

At trial, the guy who knifed the first guy should get a much lesser sentence since the first guy should have known better, should not have let himself get so impaired and should have acted smarter.

That victim of that intentional tort, that murderous assault, was guilty of "contributory negligence".

That "negligence" should be a mitigating factor that benefits the assailant and successfully reduces his punishment, an "affirmative defense", if you will.

Instead of the death penalty, life in prison or a 25 year sentence, the assailant gets a 3-5 year prison term.

Right?

Are you seriously suggesting that those situations are the same?

One involves intentionally murdering and robbing a victim. The other involves rape. Both terrible crimes but different crimes and different circumstances.

Even the justice system agrees there is different degrees of murder for example. First degree, 2nd degree. Involuntary manslaughter. Self defense. Don't act like all crimes are the same.

(06-09-2016 11:02 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 10:34 AM)TerryD Wrote:  A guy walks down an alley at 2:00 a.m. quite a bit drunk after five beers at the bar.

He knows that it is unsafe walking alone in the alley at night but does it anyway. He is in a hurry to get home.

Being intoxicated, he does not pay close attention to his surroundings.

Another guy with a knife guts the first guy like a fish behind a dumpster in the alley and leaves the victim with his steaming intestines lying in the alley next to his corpse.

Then, the assailant mutilates the corpse further with his knife, robs the dead body and goes on his way but is apprehended later and the dead guy's wallet and the bloody knife are recovered.

At trial, the guy who knifed the first guy should get a much lesser sentence since the first guy should have known better, should not have let himself get so impaired and should have acted smarter.

That victim of that intentional tort, that murderous assault, was guilty of "contributory negligence".

That "negligence" should be a mitigating factor that benefits the assailant and successfully reduces his punishment, an "affirmative defense", if you will.

Instead of the death penalty, life in prison or a 25 year sentence, the assailant gets a 3-5 year prison term.

Right?

Are you seriously suggesting that those situations are the same?

One involves intentionally murdering and robbing a victim. The other involves rape. Both terrible crimes but different crimes and different circumstances.

Even the justice system agrees there is different degrees of murder for example. First degree, 2nd degree. Involuntary manslaughter. Self defense. Don't act like all crimes are the same.

Why, yes I am suggesting the situations are similar for the purposes of this thread.

They differ only in the degree of the assault. How otherwise are the crimes "different"?

The "legal principles" are the same. I used an extreme example on purpose.

Rape is the intentional sexual assault on a human being.

It is similar to the "intentional murdering and robbing of a victim" in that the assailant intended the harm to the victim.

In both cases, neither victim "asked for it".

Both involve heinous intentional assaults on the innocent victim.

They are not different "circumstances".

Why are you treating intentional murder and intentional rape differently from the actions and criminal intent of the assailant?

My point is that in neither scenario should the "negligence" of the victim be a factor in the sentence of the assailant.

(06-09-2016 10:34 AM)TerryD Wrote:  A guy walks down an alley at 2:00 a.m. quite a bit drunk after five beers at the bar.

He knows that it is unsafe walking alone in the alley at night but does it anyway. He is in a hurry to get home.

Being intoxicated, he does not pay close attention to his surroundings.

Another guy with a knife guts the first guy like a fish behind a dumpster in the alley and leaves the victim with his steaming intestines lying in the alley next to his corpse.

Then, the assailant mutilates the corpse further with his knife, robs the dead body and goes on his way but is apprehended later and the dead guy's wallet and the bloody knife are recovered.

At trial, the guy who knifed the first guy should get a much lesser sentence since the first guy should have known better, should not have let himself get so impaired and should have acted smarter.

That victim of that intentional tort, that murderous assault, was guilty of "contributory negligence".

That "negligence" should be a mitigating factor that benefits the assailant and successfully reduces his punishment, an "affirmative defense", if you will.

Instead of the death penalty, life in prison or a 25 year sentence, the assailant gets a 3-5 year prison term.

Right?

What? I don't see where you're going with that or why that's relevant. Seeing as you're on the side of never blaming the victim at all in any way, I'm guessing you're trying to make some kind of defense for the defendant to lighten his sentence because the other guy made a bad choice of walking down the alley.

If so, the fact remains that people who make poor choices (in this case, first getting drunk and then walking down a dark alley) deserve blame for their own demise even if the ultimate blame lies with the criminal. It was not wise to drink til' he could barely think, then walk down somewhere dark where he could get shanked.

(06-09-2016 11:08 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Why, yes I am suggesting the situations are similar for the purposes of this thread.

They differ only in the degree of the assault. How otherwise are the crimes "different"?

The "legal principles" are the same. I used an extreme example on purpose.

Rape is the intentional sexual assault on a human being.

It is similar to the "intentional murdering and robbing of a victim" in that the assailant intended the harm to the victim.

In both cases, neither victim "asked for it".

Both involve heinous intentional assaults on the innocent victim.

They are not different "circumstances".

Why are you treating intentional murder and intentional rape differently from the actions and criminal intent of the assailant?

My point is that in neither scenario should the "negligence" of the victim be a factor in the sentence of the assailant.

Wrong, the act of murder is killing someone and there's no coming back from that, thus the penalty is more extreme than any other crime. Rape is harmful and a vicious crime but in no way equal to murder, especially cold blooded murder.

There are brutal, horrific and unspeakable rapes but that doesn't appear to be the case here. In this case, it looked like, in addition to being possessed by "liquid courage," the criminal was probably some desperate guy who couldn't get laid fair and square that saw his opportunity to fulfill his biological needs. He probably wanted to get laid and be done with it and without anyone knowing, including the victim. He probably had no intention of doing any physical harm to her.

Not saying what he did was right and that he wasn't beyond wrong for taking advantage of her but comparing this crime to murder? That's taking it too far. Seems to me he was a desperate guy or someone with a high sex drive (or both) looking to get "20 minutes of action" as his dad put it.

No, my point is that you never blame the victim of a violent assault, ever.

Others seem to want to make an "exception" to this rule, but only for rape victims.

I do not.

(06-09-2016 11:38 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 10:34 AM)TerryD Wrote:  A guy walks down an alley at 2:00 a.m. quite a bit drunk after five beers at the bar.

He knows that it is unsafe walking alone in the alley at night but does it anyway. He is in a hurry to get home.

Being intoxicated, he does not pay close attention to his surroundings.

Another guy with a knife guts the first guy like a fish behind a dumpster in the alley and leaves the victim with his steaming intestines lying in the alley next to his corpse.

Then, the assailant mutilates the corpse further with his knife, robs the dead body and goes on his way but is apprehended later and the dead guy's wallet and the bloody knife are recovered.

At trial, the guy who knifed the first guy should get a much lesser sentence since the first guy should have known better, should not have let himself get so impaired and should have acted smarter.

That victim of that intentional tort, that murderous assault, was guilty of "contributory negligence".

That "negligence" should be a mitigating factor that benefits the assailant and successfully reduces his punishment, an "affirmative defense", if you will.

Instead of the death penalty, life in prison or a 25 year sentence, the assailant gets a 3-5 year prison term.

Right?

What? I don't see where you're going with that or why that's relevant. Seeing as you're on the side of never blaming the victim at all in any way, I'm guessing you're trying to make some kind of defense for the defendant to lighten his sentence because the other guy made a bad choice of walking down the alley.

If so, the fact remains that people who make poor choices (in this case, first getting drunk and then walking down a dark alley) deserve blame for their own demise even if the ultimate blame lies with the criminal. It was not wise to drink til' he could barely think, then walk down somewhere dark where he could get shanked.

(06-09-2016 11:08 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Why, yes I am suggesting the situations are similar for the purposes of this thread.

They differ only in the degree of the assault. How otherwise are the crimes "different"?

The "legal principles" are the same. I used an extreme example on purpose.

Rape is the intentional sexual assault on a human being.

It is similar to the "intentional murdering and robbing of a victim" in that the assailant intended the harm to the victim.

In both cases, neither victim "asked for it".

Both involve heinous intentional assaults on the innocent victim.

They are not different "circumstances".

Why are you treating intentional murder and intentional rape differently from the actions and criminal intent of the assailant?

My point is that in neither scenario should the "negligence" of the victim be a factor in the sentence of the assailant.

Wrong, the act of murder is killing someone and there's no coming back from that, thus the penalty is more extreme than any other crime. Rape is harmful and a vicious crime but in no way equal to murder, especially cold blooded murder.

There are brutal, horrific and unspeakable rapes but that doesn't appear to be the case here. In this case, it looked like, in addition to being possessed by "liquid courage," the criminal was probably some desperate guy who couldn't get laid fair and square that saw his opportunity to fulfill his biological needs. He probably wanted to get laid and be done with it and without anyone knowing, including the victim. He probably had no intention of doing any physical harm to her.

Not saying what he did was right and that he wasn't beyond wrong for taking advantage of her but comparing this crime to murder? That's taking it too far. Seems to me he was a desperate guy or someone with a high sex drive (or both) looking to get "20 minutes of action" as his dad put it.

This is simply "excuse mongering" for a rapist.

Corbett (#55),

"You come off like ... an accused rapist" <--- that's you accusing me of being a rapist.
"It's not incorrect" <--- that's you confirming that you're accusing me of being a rapist.

You should apologize. But I don't expect you to. You'll continue with the middle school crap.



Terry (#58),

So you agree that a person who is incapacitated by alcohol is not (legally, or otherwise) capable of giving consent. OK. I agree.

But then answer me this: how is it possible that a person who is incapacitated by alcohol is still capable of acting out an intention? In fact, how is it possible to still have/maintain an intention, at that point?

It doesn't seem reasonable to me, that the human brain is incapable of the one, while capable of the other -- at that point of incapacitation.



sierra (#65),

No doubt if it was my sister, I would be more emotion about the situation. I am human, after all.

However, I'd like to think that I'd hold to the same general principle that I'm holding to now: if evidence is found that a crime was committed, then criminal charges should be brought. If the accused won't settle with the D.A., then a trial should be had and they should attempt to convince a jury that the evidence proves the crimes occurred.

That's what I would want, in that case. Which is what happened in this case.



Terry (#78),

In that (grotesque) example, evidence would be found of a murder. The murderer should be charged with murder, and either accept a deal with the D.A. or go to trial. That wouldn't be any different than if it had been done in broad daylight, against a victim who hadn't consumed an ounce of alcohol.

No one, including myself, has argued anything to the contrary.


Simply, we're pointing out -- correctly in my opinion -- that, in your scenario for example, the guy did make a mistake by becoming incapacitated from consuming alcohol. Now granted, in the case of a crazed, knife-wielding man and you have no weapon, you probably wouldn't be able to defend yourself even if you were sober. So your scenario isn't really equivalent.

In this Stanford case, if she hadn't made the mistake of becoming blackout-wasted, she could've kneed the guy in the nuts, pushed him away, said "NO", etc. Who knows what would've happened. But I'm certain that the young man didn't go out that night looking to rape someone.