nolanvt wrote:
I don't believe the letter influenced the judge's sentencing. CA judges are incompetent enough on their own when it comes to sentencing criminals.
1. You know the judge reads them (it's probably read in court) and they are taken into account. Whether it influenced the judge (consciously, or subconsciously) is not something you or I can speak to, but I think we can both agree it didn't hurt. Therefore, I'm having a hard time understanding the butthurt aside from your personal desires of punishment/retribution being unfulfilled.
PS - I thought you were a "Prison is for rehabilitation, not punishment" guy? If so, I have a hard time seeing how you would disagree with the sentencing/rationale.
nolanvt wrote:
I don't believe the letter influenced the judge's sentencing. CA judges are incompetent enough on their own when it comes to sentencing criminals.
1. You know the judge reads them (it's probably read in court) and they are taken into account. Whether it influenced the judge (consciously, or subconsciously) is not something you or I can speak to, but I think we can both agree it didn't hurt. Therefore, I'm having a hard time understanding the butthurt aside from your personal desires of punishment/retribution being unfulfilled.
PS - I thought you were a "Prison is for rehabilitation, not punishment" guy? If so, I have a hard time seeing how you would disagree with the sentencing/rationale.
You've got me confused with someone else. Six months is nowhere near enough of a sentence for someone who committed multiple felonies of this nature.
nolanvt wrote:
I don't believe the letter influenced the judge's sentencing. CA judges are incompetent enough on their own when it comes to sentencing criminals.
1. You know the judge reads them (it's probably read in court) and they are taken into account. Whether it influenced the judge (consciously, or subconsciously) is not something you or I can speak to, but I think we can both agree it didn't hurt. Therefore, I'm having a hard time understanding the butthurt aside from your personal desires of punishment/retribution being unfulfilled.
PS - I thought you were a "Prison is for rehabilitation, not punishment" guy? If so, I have a hard time seeing how you would disagree with the sentencing/rationale.
You've got me confused with someone else. Six months is nowhere near enough of a sentence for someone who committed multiple felonies of this nature.
For kissing and fingering? His pants were on. No penis penetration. The judge took these facts and formed his sentence. It looks about right, assuming she didn't consent, which she may have. He will also be labeled a sex offender for the rest of his life.
nolanvt wrote:
I don't believe the letter influenced the judge's sentencing. CA judges are incompetent enough on their own when it comes to sentencing criminals.
1. You know the judge reads them (it's probably read in court) and they are taken into account. Whether it influenced the judge (consciously, or subconsciously) is not something you or I can speak to, but I think we can both agree it didn't hurt. Therefore, I'm having a hard time understanding the butthurt aside from your personal desires of punishment/retribution being unfulfilled.
PS - I thought you were a "Prison is for rehabilitation, not punishment" guy? If so, I have a hard time seeing how you would disagree with the sentencing/rationale.
You've got me confused with someone else. Six months is nowhere near enough of a sentence for someone who committed multiple felonies of this nature.
For kissing and fingering? His pants were on. No penis penetration. The judge took these facts and formed his sentence. It looks about right, assuming she didn't consent, which she may have. He will also be labeled a sex offender for the rest of his life.
She did not consent. I'm glad he'll rightfully be labeled a sex offender. He'll be lucky if he gets out of prison unscathed, which..... hey, don't rape people.
nolanvt wrote:
I don't believe the letter influenced the judge's sentencing. CA judges are incompetent enough on their own when it comes to sentencing criminals.
1. You know the judge reads them (it's probably read in court) and they are taken into account. Whether it influenced the judge (consciously, or subconsciously) is not something you or I can speak to, but I think we can both agree it didn't hurt. Therefore, I'm having a hard time understanding the butthurt aside from your personal desires of punishment/retribution being unfulfilled.
PS - I thought you were a "Prison is for rehabilitation, not punishment" guy? If so, I have a hard time seeing how you would disagree with the sentencing/rationale.
You've got me confused with someone else. Six months is nowhere near enough of a sentence for someone who committed multiple felonies of this nature.
For kissing and fingering? His pants were on. No penis penetration. The judge took these facts and formed his sentence. It looks about right, assuming she didn't consent, which she may have. He will also be labeled a sex offender for the rest of his life.
She did not consent. I'm glad he'll rightfully be labeled a sex offender. He'll be lucky if he gets out of prison unscathed, which..... hey, don't rape people.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How do you know he will be lucky if he gets out unscathed? What do you know about prison other than what you hear on TV? Is he spending that time in county? We don't know whether she consented or not. We have no idea if this 23 year old woman consented to the 18 year old man. He didn't consent either. If she kissed him, she should have had a felony conviction for sexual assault.
nolanvt wrote:
I don't believe the letter influenced the judge's sentencing. CA judges are incompetent enough on their own when it comes to sentencing criminals.
1. You know the judge reads them (it's probably read in court) and they are taken into account. Whether it influenced the judge (consciously, or subconsciously) is not something you or I can speak to, but I think we can both agree it didn't hurt. Therefore, I'm having a hard time understanding the butthurt aside from your personal desires of punishment/retribution being unfulfilled.
PS - I thought you were a "Prison is for rehabilitation, not punishment" guy? If so, I have a hard time seeing how you would disagree with the sentencing/rationale.
You've got me confused with someone else. Six months is nowhere near enough of a sentence for someone who committed multiple felonies of this nature.
For kissing and fingering? His pants were on. No penis penetration. The judge took these facts and formed his sentence. It looks about right, assuming she didn't consent, which she may have. He will also be labeled a sex offender for the rest of his life.
She did not consent. I'm glad he'll rightfully be labeled a sex offender. He'll be lucky if he gets out of prison unscathed, which..... hey, don't rape people.
nolanvt wrote:
I don't believe the letter influenced the judge's sentencing. CA judges are incompetent enough on their own when it comes to sentencing criminals.
1. You know the judge reads them (it's probably read in court) and they are taken into account. Whether it influenced the judge (consciously, or subconsciously) is not something you or I can speak to, but I think we can both agree it didn't hurt. Therefore, I'm having a hard time understanding the butthurt aside from your personal desires of punishment/retribution being unfulfilled.
PS - I thought you were a "Prison is for rehabilitation, not punishment" guy? If so, I have a hard time seeing how you would disagree with the sentencing/rationale.
You've got me confused with someone else. Six months is nowhere near enough of a sentence for someone who committed multiple felonies of this nature.
For kissing and fingering? His pants were on. No penis penetration. The judge took these facts and formed his sentence. It looks about right, assuming she didn't consent, which she may have. He will also be labeled a sex offender for the rest of his life.
She did not consent. I'm glad he'll rightfully be labeled a sex offender. He'll be lucky if he gets out of prison unscathed, which..... hey, don't rape people.
CWHOKIECPA wrote:You mean the drunk black guy that is passed out in the picture? LOL. He didn't consent and it's on camera this time, unlike the Stanford case. LOL.
CWHOKIECPA wrote:You mean the drunk black guy that is passed out in the picture? LOL. He didn't consent and it's on camera this time, unlike the Stanford case. LOL.
You should read your own link.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He can't consent. You should think about your own logic.
CWHOKIECPA wrote:You mean the drunk black guy that is passed out in the picture? LOL. He didn't consent and it's on camera this time, unlike the Stanford case. LOL.
You should read your own link.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He can't consent. You should think about your own logic.
CWHOKIECPA wrote:You mean the drunk black guy that is passed out in the picture? LOL. He didn't consent and it's on camera this time, unlike the Stanford case. LOL.
You should read your own link.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why did you call him a neck? That's a racist term for white guys. He's a black guy that was raped in front of everyone and the only thing you can do is make racist jokes about white guys? Why would you do that? That would be like me calling the girl in the Stanford case a slut. This is a clear cut case, on camera for everyone to see. He didn't consent. We don't know if she consented. She can't remember, because she was too irresponsible to take care of herself. He also couldn't consent, because he was drunk, but never mind that.
CWHOKIECPA wrote:You mean the drunk black guy that is passed out in the picture? LOL. He didn't consent and it's on camera this time, unlike the Stanford case. LOL.
You should read your own link.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He can't consent. You should think about your own logic.
I'm with you if he never consented.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You can't consent after the fact in a news article. It's on camera right in front of you. He's laying there and she is raping him. He was taken to the hospital just like the Stanford girl was. He was passed out just like the Stanford girl.
CWHOKIECPA wrote:You mean the drunk black guy that is passed out in the picture? LOL. He didn't consent and it's on camera this time, unlike the Stanford case. LOL.
You should read your own link.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He can't consent. You should think about your own logic.
I'm with you if he never consented.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You can't consent after the fact in a news article. It's on camera right in front of you. He's laying there and she is raping him. He was taken to the hospital just like the Stanford girl was. He was passed out just like the Stanford girl.
Lol, I completely forgot about that story. You're right, though - it's completely analogous to the Stanford case besides the two being in a relationship (which is irrelevant , legally).
Hate to disappoint Nolan, but the boy won't be raped in jail.
nolanvt wrote:
I don't believe the letter influenced the judge's sentencing. CA judges are incompetent enough on their own when it comes to sentencing criminals.
1. You know the judge reads them (it's probably read in court) and they are taken into account. Whether it influenced the judge (consciously, or subconsciously) is not something you or I can speak to, but I think we can both agree it didn't hurt. Therefore, I'm having a hard time understanding the butthurt aside from your personal desires of punishment/retribution being unfulfilled.
PS - I thought you were a "Prison is for rehabilitation, not punishment" guy? If so, I have a hard time seeing how you would disagree with the sentencing/rationale.
You've got me confused with someone else. Six months is nowhere near enough of a sentence for someone who committed multiple felonies of this nature.
For kissing and fingering? His pants were on. No penis penetration. The judge took these facts and formed his sentence. It looks about right, assuming she didn't consent, which she may have. He will also be labeled a sex offender for the rest of his life.
She did not consent. I'm glad he'll rightfully be labeled a sex offender. He'll be lucky if he gets out of prison unscathed, which..... hey, don't rape people.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So you're for this guy getting raped while saying don't rape people? What a boob you are. No one is touching a guy railroaded like that.
This is NBD you guys. According to one of his friends the whole thing is just a huge misunderstanding! We just need to stop worrying about being politically correct every second of the day!
Donald Trump is a stupid man's idea of a smart man, a poor man's idea of a rich man, and a weak man's idea of a strong man.
Guys, this ain't that difficult. If you did not consent, you were assaulted/raped. I was with CW on his story until the would-be victim stated he consented. The prosecution will not be able to get a conviction if the alleged victim himself does not believe he was a victim.
OTOH, this girl was dragged out back behind a dumpster (after she was clearly unaware of anything going on) where the guy then committed multiple felonies in assaulting her. Had it not been for the two guys who happened upon the scene, much worse damage would've been done to the poor girl and the guy would've likely gotten away with being a rapist.
It's cute watching all the liberals get their panties in a Gordian knot over entitled, ivy league white boy having a perceived sentencing leniency in a social media lynching frenzy. Meanwhile, this same group of people is lobbying for us to provide citizenship to a group of people who illegally entered the US from a country where the age of consent is 12 in most places, rape charges will be nullified if you offer to marry your victim, and rape victims must demonstrate that they are chaste.
I actually had no idea (and some sympathy for the idea he should have received more time) he didn't actually have sex with her until CW posted it above.
nolanvt wrote:Guys, this ain't that difficult. If you did not consent, you were assaulted/raped. I was with CW on his story until the would-be victim stated he consented. The prosecution will not be able to get a conviction if the alleged victim himself does not believe he was a victim.
He was drunk. He could not consent. His statements after the fact are of no consequence. You clearly understand this as you use the woman's lack of consciousness as proof she was raped.
This ain't that difficult: The guy had pressure to say he consented (the guy looks like a pussy and likely ruins a relationship with a woman who will sleep with him). The woman had pressure to say she did not (she would look like a whore and no men would sleep with her). Now, I'm not saying that the woman wasn't raped, just that the factors you're using to make a distinction between the two cases are variable with society. If justice were blind, the two cases would be treated exactly the same. To CW's point, there is no equality and sexism is still alive and well...when it benefits women.
nolanvt wrote:Guys, this ain't that difficult. If you did not consent, you were assaulted/raped. I was with CW on his story until the would-be victim stated he consented. The prosecution will not be able to get a conviction if the alleged victim himself does not believe he was a victim.
He was drunk. He could not consent.
This ain't that difficult: The guy had pressure to say he consented (the guy looks like a pussy and likely ruins a relationship with a woman who will sleep with him). The woman had pressure to say she did not (she would look like a whore and no men would sleep with her). Now, I'm not saying that the woman wasn't raped, just that the factors you're using to make a distinction between the two cases are variable with society. If justice were blind, the two cases would be treated exactly the same. To CW's point, there is no equality and sexism is still alive and well...when it benefits women.
The Stanford woman was evaluated at the scene of the crime by the police and later on by medical examiners after she regained consciousness. Couple that with the eye-witness accounts of the two guys who found what he was doing to her (and stopped it because a crime was being committed), the evidence was pretty clear she did not consent.
nolanvt wrote:Guys, this ain't that difficult. If you did not consent, you were assaulted/raped. I was with CW on his story until the would-be victim stated he consented. The prosecution will not be able to get a conviction if the alleged victim himself does not believe he was a victim.
OTOH, this girl was dragged out back behind a dumpster (after she was clearly unaware of anything going on) where the guy then committed multiple felonies in assaulting her. Had it not been for the two guys who happened upon the scene, much worse damage would've been done to the poor girl and the guy would've likely gotten away with being a rapist.
"dragged" out to a dumpster. huh? per the news reports they met a frat house party and they went outside and ended up by the trash area. Granted not exactly a great location. But yes per the news reports both were drunk as hell and the girl passed out at some point or fell asleep, but when did she pass out? before? during? I can understand her shame as she put herself in a bad situation and yes the guy took advantage of it but before sentencing him I would love to know when she passed out due to the drinking. As the case has been laid out I have no issue with the sentencing, both parties are idiots, one slightly bigger than the other.
nolanvt wrote:Guys, this ain't that difficult. If you did not consent, you were assaulted/raped. I was with CW on his story until the would-be victim stated he consented. The prosecution will not be able to get a conviction if the alleged victim himself does not believe he was a victim.
He was drunk. He could not consent.
This ain't that difficult: The guy had pressure to say he consented (the guy looks like a pussy and likely ruins a relationship with a woman who will sleep with him). The woman had pressure to say she did not (she would look like a whore and no men would sleep with her). Now, I'm not saying that the woman wasn't raped, just that the factors you're using to make a distinction between the two cases are variable with society. If justice were blind, the two cases would be treated exactly the same. To CW's point, there is no equality and sexism is still alive and well...when it benefits women.
The Stanford woman was evaluated at the scene of the crime by the police and later on by medical examiners after she regained consciousness. Couple that with the eye-witness accounts of the two guys who found what he was doing to her (and stopped it because a crime was being committed), the evidence was pretty clear she did not consent.
What's your point? There's VIDEO of homeboy having a sexual act performed on him while laid out on the pavement. Everyone with a television in Hampton Roads witnessed it.
nolanvt wrote:Guys, this ain't that difficult. If you did not consent, you were assaulted/raped. I was with CW on his story until the would-be victim stated he consented. The prosecution will not be able to get a conviction if the alleged victim himself does not believe he was a victim.
He was drunk. He could not consent.
This ain't that difficult: The guy had pressure to say he consented (the guy looks like a pussy and likely ruins a relationship with a woman who will sleep with him). The woman had pressure to say she did not (she would look like a whore and no men would sleep with her). Now, I'm not saying that the woman wasn't raped, just that the factors you're using to make a distinction between the two cases are variable with society. If justice were blind, the two cases would be treated exactly the same. To CW's point, there is no equality and sexism is still alive and well...when it benefits women.
The Stanford woman was evaluated at the scene of the crime by the police and later on by medical examiners after she regained consciousness. Couple that with the eye-witness accounts of the two guys who found what he was doing to her (and stopped it because a crime was being committed), the evidence was pretty clear she did not consent.
both participants were drunker than hell, when did she pass out?
nolanvt wrote:
I don't believe the letter influenced the judge's sentencing. CA judges are incompetent enough on their own when it comes to sentencing criminals.
1. You know the judge reads them (it's probably read in court) and they are taken into account. Whether it influenced the judge (consciously, or subconsciously) is not something you or I can speak to, but I think we can both agree it didn't hurt. Therefore, I'm having a hard time understanding the butthurt aside from your personal desires of punishment/retribution being unfulfilled.
PS - I thought you were a "Prison is for rehabilitation, not punishment" guy? If so, I have a hard time seeing how you would disagree with the sentencing/rationale.
You've got me confused with someone else. Six months is nowhere near enough of a sentence for someone who committed multiple felonies of this nature.
For kissing and fingering? His pants were on. No penis penetration. The judge took these facts and formed his sentence. It looks about right, assuming she didn't consent, which she may have. He will also be labeled a sex offender for the rest of his life.
She did not consent. I'm glad he'll rightfully be labeled a sex offender. He'll be lucky if he gets out of prison unscathed, which..... hey, don't rape people.
nolanvt wrote:Guys, this ain't that difficult. If you did not consent, you were assaulted/raped. I was with CW on his story until the would-be victim stated he consented. The prosecution will not be able to get a conviction if the alleged victim himself does not believe he was a victim.
He was drunk. He could not consent.
This ain't that difficult: The guy had pressure to say he consented (the guy looks like a pussy and likely ruins a relationship with a woman who will sleep with him). The woman had pressure to say she did not (she would look like a whore and no men would sleep with her). Now, I'm not saying that the woman wasn't raped, just that the factors you're using to make a distinction between the two cases are variable with society. If justice were blind, the two cases would be treated exactly the same. To CW's point, there is no equality and sexism is still alive and well...when it benefits women.
The Stanford woman was evaluated at the scene of the crime by the police and later on by medical examiners after she regained consciousness. Couple that with the eye-witness accounts of the two guys who found what he was doing to her (and stopped it because a crime was being committed), the evidence was pretty clear she did not consent.
What's your point? There's VIDEO of homeboy having a sexual act performed on him while laid out on the pavement. Everyone with a television in Hampton Roads witnessed it.
My point is that a crime was committed and the conviction was based on a multitude of evidence in the Stanford case.
I generally agree that a crime was committed in the Hampton Roads case, but you can't get a conviction if the alleged victim would testify at trial that he was not raped and gave consent.
