Rape Victim facing fine for naming victims

Killer Wench

Deleted User wrote: »

I thought you had just resolved him of all responsibility.

Who? What post?

Killer Wench

Killer Wench wrote: »

Who? What post?

Didn't ya say that if you leave the doors open, it's not your fault.. Sorry for banging on about it but it's turned out to be more interesting than the story we know nothing about.


Edit it was yawka posted that.. why are you replying to me?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

In your first post, not only do you manage to make the argument of "it wasn't really rape" and then go to "she might not have been assault" (despite the fact the guys DID plead guilty) and then finally to making her case out to be a few harmless drunken photos and summed with a nice manner of say "don't drink and you won't have this happen".

Eh... what????!!!!!

I never even came close to saying it wasn't rape Very, very

I was just trying to clarifty what was on the table, because there is no link in the OP, the title states "rape", the op states "sexual assualt". Neither had been confirmed and there was no mention of a guilty plea anywhere in the opening quote.

In other words, there was absolutly no evidence at that point. You really are clutching at straws if you think that point makes accusatinos of anything.

Killer Wench

Deleted User wrote: »

Didn't ya say that if you leave the doors open, it's not your fault.. Sorry for banging on about it but it's turned out to be more interesting than the story we know nothing about.

Go back up and re-read the thread. I think you have me confused with someone else?

Tombi!

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Neither had been confirmed and there was no mention of a guilty plee anywhere in the opening quote.

So next f**king time go back and read the article instead of second guessing things you have no knowledge over.

They pleaded guilty to sexual assault.

You ignored the entire article and made it seem like she was making the whole thing up and it was a harmless photo taken because she passed out

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

So next f**king time go back and read the article instead of second guessing things you have no knowledge over.

They pleaded guilty to sexual assault.

You ignored the entire article and made it seem like she was making the whole thing up and it was a harmless photo taken because she passed out

Okay, you're worming out here because yo can't find a post that doen't exist. the first one you quoted, does nothing of the sort of what you accused me of.

The bit in bold is a case of serious, serious misreading.

Tombi!

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Where, in the opening post, does it say they pleaded guilty? It says the struck a plea deal.

Yes... they struck it and were charged with felony sexual abuse.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Yes... they struck it and were charged with felony sexual abuse.

Post edited, see above. Again, please find a post where I accused the victim of anything and do not confuse it with a request for information before making a judgement.

yawha

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Bit of a difference there in terms of conscious state...? But I would argue, yes, you have a responsibilty to protect youreslf and your possessions. But try and tell your insurance company about the theft and see what they say.

Well, it was just a simple analogy. Point being, morally and legally, there should be no obligation to protect yourself if you do not want to. Of course, in the real world, it is certainly wise to be cautious and take protective measures, but a lack of caution does not impart responsibility for what happened onto the victim should someone else harm them.

An insurance company is a business with whom you essentially enter into a contract with, not a moral or legal entity. As part of this contract, they may expect a certain degree of protective measures taken by you, yes, but I don't think it's really a relevant comparison.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd love to see you react to a housemate doing this and you losing your laptop and money.. Would ya not be a bit pissed of at him? Or would ya just say, not your fault.

That's a strawman. It was a simple analogy to illustrate a point.

There are of course certain prudent measures which have become social norms and are undertaken by almost everybody - locking up one's house for example. In a society with these norms, there would be an implicit mutual agreement between housemates that the house would be locked up when anyone left. Anger towards someone who didn't do this could be legitimately based on breaking this agreement, but not attribution of any blame for the crime to them.

Tombi!

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Post edited, see above. Again, please find a post where I accused the victim of anything and do not confuse it with a request for information before making a judgement.

The moment you refused to read the article, assumed that a pleal deal for sexual assult was just "pictures" that she was responsible for for blacking out and then questioned when it wasn't taken to court when it was clearly stated it was.

So either you're trying to blame it all on her and are backtracking now or you're just ignorant of the article and decided to post without reading it and are trying to backtrack.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

yawha wrote: »

Well, it was just a simple analogy. Point being, morally and legally, there should be no obligation to protect yourself if you do not want to. Of course, in the real world, it is certainly wise to be cautious and take protective measures, but a lack of caution does not impart responsibility for what happened onto the victim should someone else harm them.

There is no obligation to do anything. I would argue that a lack of caution DOES imply repsonsibility, certainbly in your theft case, but as I said repeatedly, you're implying blame here, i'm arguing responsibility. You have a reponsibilty to protect yoru posessions and yourself (if you want to stay safe and healthy and keep your possessions), but that does not imply blame if you do not.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

The moment you refused to read the article, assumed that a pleal deal for sexual assult was just "pictures" that she was responsible for for blacking out and then questioned when it wasn't taken to court when it was clearly stated it was.

So either you're trying to blame it all on her and are backtracking now or you're just ignorant of the article and decided to post without reading it and are trying to backtrack.

Doesn't matter whether I had or had not read it, or read it incorrectly: the post you quoted was a request for clarity and information as to what happened and what the result was, and you really are grasping at straws if you continue to argue otherwise.

Now stop worming out and either find a genuine post of mine that blames the victim for being sexually assaulted or back down.

Ryuji_w

I don't understand why nobody has mentioned how that girl has now, pretty much allowed those two lads to be judged by everybody who knows them without the trial being finished.

Now they are subjected to mob mentality and those who will take the law into their own hands (angry friends or family) which could end up with both of her attackers ending up in the hospital or worse dead because of what seems like a drunk mistake.(a sick twisted mistake or intentional as we don't know how drunk they were so could well be intentional)

Not saying they are not responsible for what they did (they are mistake or not) but that's for the law to deal with which is why she was put under a confidentiality order/gag order so there would be no vigilantes or mobs attacking the young lads who are yet to be sentenced

Killer Wench

Ryuji_w wrote: »

I don't understand why nobody has mentioned how that girl has now, pretty much allowed those two lads to be judged by everybody who knows them without the trial being finished.

Now they are subjected to mob mentality and those who will take the law into their own hands (angry friends or family) which could end up with both of her attackers ending up in the hospital or worse dead because of what seems like a drunk mistake.(a sick twisted mistake or intentional as we don't know how drunk they were so could well be intentional)

Not saying they are not responsible for what they did (they are mistake or not) but that's for the law to deal with which is why she was put under a confidentiality order/gag order so there would be no vigilantes or mobs attacking the young lads who are yet to be sentenced

I've said that she took vigilante action in my first post, and my subsequent posts - along with others - mention that the judge has neither accepted or rejected the plea agreement.

Tombi!

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Doesn't matter whether I had or had not read it, or read it incorrectly: the post you quoted was a request for clarity and information as to what happened and what the result was, and you really are grasping at straws if you continue to argue otherwise.

Now stop worming out and either find a genuine post of mine that blames the victim for being sexually assaulted or back down.

No matter what way you look at it, you ignored the article and tried putting your own fúcked up spin on things and then at the end you tried to pass it of as a "don't get drunk and these "pitctures" won't be taken".

Had you of read the article you wouldn't have posed the question and equated that being sexually assaulted while passed out is the same as getting drunk and having pictures taken of you. Or at least I hope so.

Ryuji_w wrote: »

I don't understand why nobody has mentioned how that girl has now, pretty much allowed those two lads to be judged by everybody who knows them without the trial being finished.

I'd imagine the pictures in question have a lot to do with it.

mauzo

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Doesn't matter whether I had or had not read it, or read it incorrectly: the post you quoted was a request for clarity and information as to what happened and what the result was, and you really are grasping at straws if you continue to argue otherwise.

Now stop worming out and either find a genuine post of mine that blames the victim for being sexually assaulted or back down.

Its not about backing down. Hes not the first person to find fault with your posts.

Maybe you should consider reading your posts before you submit them, seeing as at least 3 people have picked you up on them and you keep playing the 'quote me' card.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

No matter what way you look at it, you ignored the article and tried putting your own fúcked up spin on things and then at the end you tried to pass it of as a "don't get drunk and these "pitctures" won't be taken".

Had you of read the article you wouldn't have posed the question and equated that being sexually assaulted while passed out is the same as getting drunk and having pictures taken of you. Or at least I hope so.

I'd imagine the pictures in question have a lot to do with it.

That's about as wrong as you can possibly get.

What's happened here is that you haven't found a post and jumped on this one with a deliberatly false take in it on order to save face. here's the post again:

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

No source links, so have to ask the obvious question...

... was she actually raped? Or sexuallly assaulted?

Did she even make these claims?

I mean, there appears to have been no rape trial. The focus of the issue seems to be on them taking pictures and that's it. And there's an obviouls solution to not having embarrasing pictures of you taken when your passed out at parties....

line one, pointing out the vagueness of the article.
line two, requestion clarification
line three, request for clarification
paragraph four, pointing out responsible actions at parties. Doesn't even hint at blaming anyone for anything.

Now, find a post that blames. This one is a non-started. Last chance.

Ryuji_w

Killer Wench wrote: »

I've said that she took vigilante action in my first post, and my subsequent posts - along with others - mention that the judge has neither accepted or rejected the plea agreement.

ah I saw that, i was thinking more along the lines that they might be physically assaulted by a male relative or male friend rather then the kind of vigilante action that you are thinking of.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

syndeyfife wrote: »

Its not about backing down. Hes not the first person to find fault with your posts.

Maybe you should consider reading our posts before you submit them, seeing as at least 3 people have picked you up on them and you keep playing the 'quote me' card.

No, they haven't. The accused me of blaming, I pointed out that I was dealing with responsibility, not blame. People have not "picked me up" - they have misread posts that I wrote - and accused me of writign things I did not write.

The "quote me" card as you call it, is not a card, it is a request for soemthing I can respond to! I can not respond to claims I didn't make in the first place until someone specficially highlights a claim and tells me where I made it!

yawha

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

There is no obligation to do anything. I would argue that a lack of caution DOES imply repsonsibility, certainbly in your theft case, but as I said repeatedly, you're implying blame here, i'm arguing responsibility. You have a reponsibilty to protect yoru posessions and yourself (if you want to stay safe and healthy and keep your possessions), but that does not imply blame if you do not.

What is your interpretation of the word "blame"? I feel like we're getting our wires crossed somehow. "Blame" to me, is simply responsibility for something negative. What is the difference between "blame" and "responsibility" as you've used them in the post I've quoted.

Tombi!

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

That's about as wrong as you can possibly get.

What's happened here is that you haven't found a post and jumped on this one with a deliberatly false take in it on order to save face. here's the post again:



line one, pointing out the vagueness of the article.
line two, requestion clarification
line three, request for clarification
paragraph four, pointing out responsible actions at parties. Doesn't even hint at blaming anyone for anything.

Now, find a post that blames. This one is a non-started. Last chance.

Line six: refusing to read the fúcking article and putting your own spin on it.

Then, after that, you started arguing with people who tried to point out that the was clear eveidence to what you stated.

But you kept going on and ignoring the article.

Why?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Line six: refusing to read the fúcking article and putting your own spin on it.

Then, after that, you started arguing with people who tried to point out that the was clear eveidence to what you stated.

But you kept going on and ignoring the article.

Why?

No, you could argue misreading the article, fair enough, but "spin"? Come on!

The fact that this is the best you can do proves my point taht I never said anything even close to what you said I claim. Also, if the evidence is so clear, how come you can't find it?

Fouth and last chance. I'm going offline in a minute.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

yawha wrote: »

What is your interpretation of the word "blame"? I feel like we're getting our wires crossed somehow. "Blame" to me, is simply responsibility for something negative. What is the difference between "blame" and "responsibility" as you've used them in the post I've quoted.

Responsiblity is the responsibilty for the state she found herslef in (defenseless).
Blame is the responsibility for what happened to her.

Tombi!

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

No, you could argue misreading the article, fair enough, but "spin"? Come on!

The fact that this is the best you can do proves my point taht I never said anything even close to what you said I claim. Also, if the evidence is so clear, how come you can't find it?

Fouth and last chance. I'm going offline in a minute.

Read the fúcking article and then I'll talk to you. You can PM me if you like because I don't want to drag the topic off any further.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Read the fúcking article and then I'll talk to you. You can PM me if you like because I don't want to drag the topic off any further.

I have. Twice since we started. But this is not about the article. I didn't write the article, so you won't find anything written by me that blames the victim in the article.

You can accuse me all you like of misreading the article, but I never denied that. I admitted it. Doesn't change any of my posts thogh, which is what you should be looking at.

Killer Wench

I'm sorry, but have the last several posts been about?

Tombi!

Killer Wench wrote: »

I'm sorry, but have the last several posts been about?

Basically Icky Poo decided to post asking such rubbish of if it was really sexual assault, then finished off with a smart comment about how she could stop having pics taken when drunked.

Then for the last few pages he's been trying to double back on what he said and twist what he meant.

And then we all got off topic.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Basically Icky Poo decided to post asking such rubbish of if it was really sexual assault, then finished off with a smart comment about how she could stop having pics taken when drunked.

Then for the last few pages he's been trying to double back on what he said and twist what he meant.

And then we all got off topic.

Sweet Jesus, no.
I asked for clafication of whethe it was sexual assault or rape or neither, I wasn't actually denying somethign took palce, I was looking for clarification of what took place.

THIS is what I you to find a post of.

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

So why are you trying to make it sound from the beginning like you felt she was responsible for what the guys did to her after she passed out?

You then took the first one you could find and twisted that to suit your argument. Badly.

Tombi!

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Sweet Jesus, no.
This is what you accused me of saying.

Sigh, you just said in a PM that you misread the article. So your first post is ignored.

If only you had said that so much sooner, we wouldn't have wasted so long with you seeming like you advocating sexual assault if someone is passed out and drunk.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Sigh, you just said in a PM that you misread the article. So your first post is ignored.

If only you had said that so much sooner, we wouldn't have wasted so long with you seeming like you advocating sexual assault if someone is passed out and drunk.

It's pretty obvious what I wrote. there are question marks after both for a reason.

You are the one who keeps goign back to it, I was trying to take you away to somethign moer relevant. Or do you accept that i'm not blaming the victim then and that this

So why are you trying to make it sound from the beginning like you felt she was responsible for what the guys did to her after she passed out?

is wrong?

Tombi!

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

It's pretty obvious what I wrote. there are question marks after both for a reason.

You are the one who keeps goign back to it, I was trying to take you away to somethign moer relevant. Or do you accept that i'm not blaming the victim then and that the post quoted in the post above is wrong?

Listen very carefully: you posted to me in a PM you misread the topic and that the rest of the posts were based on the fact she was assaulted.

SO next fúcking time, stop your bullshítting and say what you mean and don't backtrack and admit you're wrong in private messages and then try to say you were right on the boards.

I'm done talking to you, you're a liar and I won't get brought back down to your level a second time.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Listen very carefully: you posted to me in a PM you misread the topic

Yes.

And that the rest of the posts were based on the fact she was assaulted.

Again yes. If you were right, and I denied assault, this statement could not be correct.

SO next fúcking time, stop your bullshítting and say what you mean and don't backtrack and admit you're wrong in private messages and then try to say you were right on the boards.

I'm done talking to you, you're a liar and I won't get brought back down to your level a second time.

Lying implies reading something correctly, but posting deliberaltly incorrectly. I did not do this. You did. You lied about me accusing the victim.

Chuck Stone

Ryuji_w wrote: »

I don't understand why nobody has mentioned how that girl has now, pretty much allowed those two lads to be judged by everybody who knows them without the trial being finished.

Her abusers plead guilty.

I'm guessing the girl became distressed at being told to not to tell anyone their names.

Dietrich's attorneys want her contempt hearing open to the media, arguing she has a First Amendment right to speak about her case and to a public hearing.

Gregg Leslie, interim executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said Dietrich should "not be legally barred from talking about what happened to her. That's a wide-ranging restraint on speech."

www.abcactionnews.com

It sounds to me that she has accepted the risk of going to jail herself for exposing the identity of those two sex offenders in spite of being told to stay quiet by a judge. Hopefully this will set a precedent that survivors of sexual assault should feel free to name and shame those who sexually assaulted them.

Brave girl. Her parents should be proud of her.

titan18

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Her abusers plead guilty.

I'm guessing the girl became distressed at being told to not to tell anyone their names.



It sounds to me that she has accepted the risk of going to jail herself for exposing the identity of those two sex offenders in spite of being told to stay quiet by a judge. Hopefully this will set a precedent that survivors of sexual assault should feel free to name and shame those who sexually assaulted them.

Brave girl. Her parents should be proud of her.

Hopefully not tbh. These guys havent been convicted yet, whilst they have pled guilty to sexual assault, they haven't been convicted of that or of rape. Fair enough if they're found guilty by law, but no one should take it into their own hands to name someone publicly. Considering, false allegations are made, it could destroy someone who's done nothing.

Chuck Stone

titan18 wrote: »

Hopefully not tbh. These guys havent been convicted yet, whilst they have pled guilty to sexual assault, they haven't been convicted of that or of rape.

They haven't been sentenced yet. It seems to me as if guilt has been established:

The teens are to be sentenced next month, and the judge could reject or modify the terms of the proposed agreement.

Pretty sure sentencing comes after conviction.

Was just digging around and they've dropped their seeking of having her held in contempt.

Defense attorneys for two teen-agers who pleaded guilty to assaulting 17-year-old Savannah Dietrich have withdrawn their motion that she be held in contempt for tweeting the names of her attackers in defiance of a court order.

Source

titan18

Chuck Stone wrote: »

They haven't been sentenced yet. It seems to me as if guilt has been established:



Pretty sure sentencing comes after conviction.

Aye, true. If they've been convicted, they'll have been convicted of sexual assault, and not rape then.

Another thing to consider in this case, is that as they were 16, and whilst I'm not excusing their actions, should that one night, hang over them for the rest of their lives and no allowance for rehabilitation be allowed. They deserve punishment, but chances are as they are juveniles, their names would never have been released, likewise that of the victim. The law should not be taken into one persons hand before the justice system has gone to work, especially in a case involving children

Tombi!

Lads I'm not to sure of the law but wouldn't she still get the names of the two guys spread around by having her friends mention it on Twitter or whatever she was using to tell her story?

titan18

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Lads I'm not to sure of the law but wouldn't she still get the names of the two guys spread around by having her friends mention it on Twitter or whatever she was using to tell her story?

She wasn't allowed talk about the case, so she couldn't talk about with it to her friends either tbf. At least as it was still ongoing anyway

Chuck Stone

titan18 wrote: »

.They deserve punishment, but chances are as they are juveniles, their names would never have been released

Is that fair though? Shouldn't their anonymity be the choice of the victim?

The law should not be taken into one persons hand before the justice system has gone to work, especially in a case involving children

I'm not well versed in US law but I think she has a right to free speech and if she's not slandering anyone (attackers convicted but not yet sentenced) then perhaps the judge is impinging upon her rights by telling her to keep her mouth shut.

Tombi!

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

It's pretty obvious what I wrote. there are question marks after both for a reason.

You are the one who keeps goign back to it, I was trying to take you away to somethign moer relevant. Or do you accept that i'm not blaming the victim then and that this

is wrong?

titan18 wrote: »

She wasn't allowed talk about the case, so she couldn't talk about with it to her friends either tbf. At least as it was still ongoing anyway

Well, no, I get that part. But there were photos and obviously other people where at the party. So that's the dodgy part to me.

What's stop them from spreading "rumours" about who did it to her? (assuming they did actually do things)

titan18

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Is that fair though? Shouldn't their anonymity be the choice of the victim?



I'm not well versed in US law but I think she has a right to free speech and if she's not slandering anyone (attackers convicted but not yet sentenced) then perhaps the judge is impinging upon her rights by telling her not to keep her mouth shut.

Juvenile offenders are protected in the US as far as I'm aware of. Mostly, to allow of a chance at rehabilitation.

Biggins

Chuck Stone wrote: »

...Was just digging around and they've dropped their seeking of having her held in contempt.

The boys lawyers might have assessed that if the girl was persecuted more, she would become an even bigger national figure - and thus they too would get more national (or world?) exposure!

No wonder they might have wanted her not to be penalised more - even if it grudgingly killed them!

Chuck Stone

titan18 wrote: »

Juvenile offenders are protected in the US as far as I'm aware of. Mostly, to allow of a chance at rehabilitation.

I don't see how their being exposed will hinder rehabilitation. The girl's anonymity has been sacrificed by them so they don't deserve it either.

There's the added benefit that this going worldwide will send a message out to other people who might be thinking of sexually assaulting a drunk person i.e. prison and being outed.

Biggins wrote: »

No wonder they might have wanted her not to be penalised more - even if it grudgingly killed them!

Definitely smells like it was motivated by public relations rather than 'charity'.

Nulty

Was it rape or sexual assault ("SE"). By that I'm implying that SE is a lesser form of rape which to my knowledge means penetration. Afaik theres a big difference isn't there, at least from a legal standpoint

Chuck Stone

Nulty wrote: »

Was it rape or sexual assault.

Seems as if it was rape.

Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, said the motion to withdraw the contempt of court charge was "a huge victory not only for Ms. Dietrich, but for women all over the country."

"These boys shared the picture of her being raped with their friends and she can't share their names with her Twitter community? That's just crazy," O'Neill said.

huffingtonpost.com

Chris Klein, an attorney for one of the boys, said publicizing their names may create problems for them in the future.

"There's always that possibility and in any type of scenario like this you run that risk," he said. "Now whether both these boys can overcome those hurdles, it's too early to determine that."

huffingtonpost.com

Boo ****ing hoo.

im invisible

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Listen very carefully....

thanked because, well i don't know...

Namlub

Deleted User wrote: »

But we don't know if she was.. They posted the pictures for everyone to see which tells me it was likely stupid drunken behaviour.

I said it sounds like they were stupid. You'd rather call them rapists while we know nothing.. If the judge put a gagging order on it and didn't put them on the sex offenders list, I'm gonna assume it was wasn't rape.

And wtf. Men are never ever excused. One allegation and their life's over.

Yeah, there's never been one not guilty verdict in any rape case that has ever taken place...

MagicSean

Namlub wrote: »

Yeah, there's never been one not guilty verdict in any rape case that has ever taken place...

Not guilty is not the same as innocent.

billybudd

Alot of morans in this thread, fact is even if one drinks too much they still have a right not to be raped or sexually assaulted or for anything to be done to them that harms them mentaly or physically.

She spoke out about two low lifes who have been convicted in a court of law, a court of law that tried to protect them on the basis of age and the potential to rehabilitate, the message that should be sent out is that if you rape/sexually assault another person and are found guilty regardless of age or circumstances these actions will be highlighted and have far and endless consequences to those individuals who have been found guilty.

Far too often a victim of SA/Rape is the one left to feel abandoned.

allibastor

its mad, they not only pled guilty to rape of her, taking photos of her, but also circulating pictures of someone under 18 in un-dress. i know if this happened anywhere except the highly intelligent states the guys would be down in a cell with big black bubba asking them to pick up the soap. Just shows what stupidity there is out there in the law.

I say we should revert to some form of biblical justice.