judge bans The words rape, victim, sex assault kit in rape case

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
OK lets apply your stupidity to all courts.

Are these the men that came in your bank and received money with out permission?
Cause saying they robbed the bank is not right, they have not been convicted.

Now when he rubbed the knife against her throat did that cause the person, that is not here anymore, to give up their ability to breath and hold their blood in?
Cause saying he killed her and cut her throat is not right; he has not been proven guilty of murder so we can say he killed someone.


:roll:

Not a big fan of "innocent before being proven guilty", huh?

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: crt1530

Originally posted by: BoomerD
FWIW, none of us know the facts behind the case, so whether it was rape or not will be difficult to determine,

The facts of the case ARE known. There was already a trial that resulted in a hung jury. All the facts are out there.

I understand that this has been previously tried...HOWEVER, as I said in my first post, none of US know the facts, so WE can't make the determination of rape or consensual...And being the wonderful liars...I mean LAWYERS that we are...we NEED verifiable facts before we can jump to a conclusion...

 

[crt1530]

OK. Banning the words does seem odd/unreasonable to me. I'm certainly not a lawyer and cannot speak to the legal justifications. I just know that I freaking hate it when people say "It's not MY fault, I was drunk." Getting black-out drunk is a choice. Somebody who drinks that much should be held to the same rules as a person who has had nothing to drink. We don't give people a pass when they are drunk and get behind the wheel. Why should we give people a pass for all of the other stupid shit they say and do after drinking way too much?

You got raging drunk and had sex with somebody you'd never screw while sober? Oh, so sad.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: yllus
I sort of agree with the idea, if not the execution. Words like "rape" and "victim" (though I don't know about "sex assault kit") carry a very significant connotation in themselves, and immediately cast the defendant, whose guilt is yet to be decided upon, in a negative light. That goes for both in court in front of the jury, and outside of court where the guy is almost immediately going to be convicted in the court of public opinion just for having the charges put to him.

But he is accused of rape. I would actually think the strength of the word works in his favor in THIS case as the circumstances don't really add up to what most people perceive as rape. I would imagine his lawyer should be able to make a strong case for reasonable doubt...

I think that's outweighed easily by the first time the prosecution calls the man "a RAPIST who RAPED this woman as she was drunk and helpless."

I don't see why it shouldn't be more clinical than that. He was drunk. She was drunk. They went home together. She woke up in his bed to find they were both naked, and he was in the middle of having sex with her, which she had not consented to. He did/did not stop when she asked him to. (Note: I don't actually know the facts of the case, I'm just providing a hypothetical example of how to recount an event.)

Exactly. :thumbsup: You can accurately describe what happened without using words that evoke imagery of things that did not happen and an overly emotional response from the jury.

I was just reading an article about this - which was written from the perspective that the guy was guilty; what do they teach these kids in journalism school? 😕 They article claimed that the first mistrial is proof that the exclusion of these words and the "victim" being forced to call it sex implies that it was consensual. I have no doubt that the prosecutor asked and the victim answered that she did not consent, or that she was too drunk to consent. That is what happened. He didn't hide in a dark alley and jump her from behind; that is what people think of when they think of rape. If the jury decides after an accurate description of what happened that the guy is not guilty, what room is there to complain?

 

[crt1530]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: crt1530

Originally posted by: BoomerD
FWIW, none of us know the facts behind the case, so whether it was rape or not will be difficult to determine,

The facts of the case ARE known. There was already a trial that resulted in a hung jury. All the facts are out there.

I understand that this has been previously tried...HOWEVER, as I said in my first post, none of US know the facts, so WE can't make the determination of rape or consensual...And being the wonderful liars...I mean LAWYERS that we are...we NEED verifiable facts before we can jump to a conclusion...

I posted the fact from the case that sealed the deal for me. The woman told the nurse who performed the rape inspection that she'd had sex with the man at 2:00am and then woke up to find him having sex with her again at 7:15am. At trial, the woman claimed that she had no memories from the time she left the bar at 1:00am until she woke up to the man having sex with her at 7:15am. She told him to stop and he did. There are dozens of articles online about this case. All of the major facts are available online.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Injury
See... that's EXACTLY the problem here. He deserves a trial to determine if he is or isn't before he's labelled as such.

True, however the accuser deserves the right to tell her side of the story using any words she wants. Especially when the word being banned is the name of the crime in question.

Judge when overboard.

 

[theeedude]

Here's an idea, don't get so drunk that you have sex with people you wouldn't if you were sober.
You are still responsible for your decisions when you are drunk.

 

[Turin39789]

personally I think it makes perfect sense, anytime anyone gets drunk enough to black out, 30 people get to have butseks with them, they aren't going to remember anyway.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
OK lets apply your stupidity to all courts.

Are these the men that came in your bank and received money with out permission?
Cause saying they robbed the bank is not right, they have not been convicted.

Now when he rubbed the knife against her throat did that cause the person, that is not here anymore, to give up their ability to breath and hold their blood in?
Cause saying he killed her and cut her throat is not right; he has not been proven guilty of murder so we can say he killed someone.


:roll:

Not a big fan of "innocent before being proven guilty", huh?

So if someone is on trial or murder you can;t say "they then stabbed Joe and killed him.."?

Its not the court that would be calling him a rapist but the victim. If she does not believe he is a rapist then there would be no trial.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
OK lets apply your stupidity to all courts.

Are these the men that came in your bank and received money with out permission?
Cause saying they robbed the bank is not right, they have not been convicted.

Now when he rubbed the knife against her throat did that cause the person, that is not here anymore, to give up their ability to breath and hold their blood in?
Cause saying he killed her and cut her throat is not right; he has not been proven guilty of murder so we can say he killed someone.


:roll:

Not a big fan of "innocent before being proven guilty", huh?

So if someone is on trial or murder you can;t say "they then stabbed Joe and killed him.."?

Its not the court that would be calling him a rapist but the victim. If she does not believe he is a rapist then there would be no trial.

I don't think you actually grasp the argument at hand.

There is no need to use words that have heavy emotional attachment to them in this scenario. Why does every third word have to be "rape"? When it comes down to detailing the assault, why not describe it in the way I mentioned? Because of the stigma attached to the very accusation of rape, it's difficult to use the word and not have people slant one way or another towards someone whose guilt is yet to be determined.

Ironically, you proved my point with your last post. Saying, "they then stabbed Joe" is fine - that's detailing what occurred. You're arguing that they should be able to say "they then murdered Joe". The murder of Joe may have resulted, but that's yet to be determined. What actually occurred was Joe was stabbed.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
OK lets apply your stupidity to all courts.

Are these the men that came in your bank and received money with out permission?
Cause saying they robbed the bank is not right, they have not been convicted.

Now when he rubbed the knife against her throat did that cause the person, that is not here anymore, to give up their ability to breath and hold their blood in?
Cause saying he killed her and cut her throat is not right; he has not been proven guilty of murder so we can say he killed someone.


:roll:

Not a big fan of "innocent before being proven guilty", huh?

So if someone is on trial or murder you can;t say "they then stabbed Joe and killed him.."?

Its not the court that would be calling him a rapist but the victim. If she does not believe he is a rapist then there would be no trial.

You don't seem to understand the reasoning behind the ruling. Read about it. Your analogy is invalid.

There is nothing preventing her from accurately and concisely describing what happened to her. All the judge did was prevent her from misleading the jury by using imprecise or prejudicial words in her description.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
OK lets apply your stupidity to all courts.

Are these the men that came in your bank and received money with out permission?
Cause saying they robbed the bank is not right, they have not been convicted.

Now when he rubbed the knife against her throat did that cause the person, that is not here anymore, to give up their ability to breath and hold their blood in?
Cause saying he killed her and cut her throat is not right; he has not been proven guilty of murder so we can say he killed someone.


:roll:

Not a big fan of "innocent before being proven guilty", huh?

So if someone is on trial or murder you can;t say "they then stabbed Joe and killed him.."?

Its not the court that would be calling him a rapist but the victim. If she does not believe he is a rapist then there would be no trial.

You don't seem to understand the reasoning behind the ruling. Read about it. Your analogy is invalid.

There is nothing preventing her from accurately and concisely describing what happened to her. All the judge did was prevent her from misleading the jury by using imprecise or prejudicial words in her description.

and forcing her to use words such as "sex" and "intercourse" is not misleading? it was nto sex or intercourse. Not to mention renaming the sexual assault kit to sex kit is insane.

 

[Safeway]

In most rape cases, the jury sees the defendant as guilty from the get-go.

Not being able to say 'rape' doesn't mean that she can't say 'violently forced sex' or 'sex without legal consent.'

 

[Raduque]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

So if someone is on trial or murder you can;t say "they then stabbed Joe and killed him.."?

Its not the court that would be calling him a rapist but the victim. If she does not believe he is a rapist then there would be no trial.

After reading the linked article, and some of the facts posted in this thread, I don't think she believes he raped her.

I think she's pissed that she slept with somebody while drunk that she wouldn't have slept with while sober, and is trying to get back at him because she's too stupid to know when to stop drinking.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: yllus
Ironically, you proved my point with your last post. Saying, "they then stabbed Joe" is fine - that's detailing what occurred. You're arguing that they should be able to say "they then murdered Joe". The murder of Joe may have resulted, but that's yet to be determined. What actually occurred was Joe was stabbed.

"they stabbed and killed (assuming he died) joe for no reason" = "murder".

The accusation itself IS a statement of the crime. How can you accuse someone of something w/o describing the actual illegal activity? If fact, by your logic you could never accuse someone of a crime, because innocent until proven guilty trumps the ability to make an accusatory statement. That's not right.

The DA and the person accusing someone of a crime HAVE to be able to make these statements or they couldn't begin to prove their case.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: yllus
Ironically, you proved my point with your last post. Saying, "they then stabbed Joe" is fine - that's detailing what occurred. You're arguing that they should be able to say "they then murdered Joe". The murder of Joe may have resulted, but that's yet to be determined. What actually occurred was Joe was stabbed.

"they stabbed and killed (assuming he died) joe for no reason" = "murder".

The accusation itself IS a statement of the crime. How can you accuse someone of something w/o describing the actual illegal activity? If fact, by your logic you could never accuse someone of a crime, because innocent until proven guilty trumps the ability to make an accusatory statement. That's not right.

The DA and the person accusing someone of a crime HAVE to be able to make these statements or they couldn't begin to prove their case.

I can see the prosecuting attorney saying that in a closing argument, but a witness saying that is totally incorrect - and this victim is obviously also a witness. S/he's simply there to describe the physical particulars of what happened, not to start offering up reasons why it happened. What you said would raise an immediate objection and an order from a judge to disregard the statement.

Proper witness testimony: "They stabbed Joe. I checked his pulse. He was dead."

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Raduque

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

So if someone is on trial or murder you can;t say "they then stabbed Joe and killed him.."?

Its not the court that would be calling him a rapist but the victim. If she does not believe he is a rapist then there would be no trial.

After reading the linked article, and some of the facts posted in this thread, I don't think she believes he raped her.

I think she's pissed that she slept with somebody while drunk that she wouldn't have slept with while sober, and is trying to get back at him because she's too stupid to know when to stop drinking.

Yea thats called rape, look it up before you post.

She did not concent to sex and even WOKE UP and found him having sex with her. That is rape.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
OK lets apply your stupidity to all courts.

Are these the men that came in your bank and received money with out permission?
Cause saying they robbed the bank is not right, they have not been convicted.

Now when he rubbed the knife against her throat did that cause the person, that is not here anymore, to give up their ability to breath and hold their blood in?
Cause saying he killed her and cut her throat is not right; he has not been proven guilty of murder so we can say he killed someone.


:roll:

Not a big fan of "innocent before being proven guilty", huh?

So if someone is on trial or murder you can;t say "they then stabbed Joe and killed him.."?

Its not the court that would be calling him a rapist but the victim. If she does not believe he is a rapist then there would be no trial.

You don't seem to understand the reasoning behind the ruling. Read about it. Your analogy is invalid.

There is nothing preventing her from accurately and concisely describing what happened to her. All the judge did was prevent her from misleading the jury by using imprecise or prejudicial words in her description.

No it is not invalid. She believes she was raped but the judge says she can;t say that. I then said so a teller at a bank can;t say she was robbed? Or a wittness can say that guy killed Joe?

 

[Praxis1452]

ugh what a stupid stupid trial for both sides.

If you drink you take the responsibility for what happens.

I'm inclined to take the man's side. If she said yes, then it's yes. There may be extentuating circumstances. Perhaps previous cases against the man.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
ugh what a stupid stupid trial for both sides.

If you drink you take the responsibility for what happens.

I'm inclined to take the man's side. If she said yes, then it's yes. There may be extentuating circumstances. Perhaps previous cases against the man.

maybe but she said she woke up and he was having sex with her.

Like if you got so drunk and passed out and some guy comes up and starts taking you from behind and you wake up while he is going at it is that rape? And is it your fault and no charges should be brought against that person?


If so, whats your favorite drink and where do you live. 😛

 

[Raduque]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Raduque

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

So if someone is on trial or murder you can;t say "they then stabbed Joe and killed him.."?

Its not the court that would be calling him a rapist but the victim. If she does not believe he is a rapist then there would be no trial.

After reading the linked article, and some of the facts posted in this thread, I don't think she believes he raped her.

I think she's pissed that she slept with somebody while drunk that she wouldn't have slept with while sober, and is trying to get back at him because she's too stupid to know when to stop drinking.

Yea thats called rape, look it up before you post.

She did not concent to sex and even WOKE UP and found him having sex with her. That is rape.

Nonsense and bullshit. He didn't force her, she had "morning-after regret" and decided to say he raped her.

Just because you're too goddamn drunk to remember giving consent, doesn't mean you didn't.

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Like if you got so drunk and passed out and some guy comes up and starts taking you from behind and you wake up while he is going at it is that rape? And is it your fault and no charges should be brought against that person?

She didn't pass out at the bar, and then he carried her to his house and have sex with her, that would be rape. Don't know for 100%, but she probably left with him, agreed to sleep with him, and then they both fell asleep together in bed. He naturally assumed (as most guys would) that being that she was into it the first time, that she'd be up for it again in the morning.



~!Extreme sarcasm alert!~
I think the real lesson here is never trust a woman, drunk or not. "Yes" means "No, and if you take me up on my offer, I'll accuse you of raping me" 😛 :laugh:

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Raduque

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Raduque

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

So if someone is on trial or murder you can;t say "they then stabbed Joe and killed him.."?

Its not the court that would be calling him a rapist but the victim. If she does not believe he is a rapist then there would be no trial.

After reading the linked article, and some of the facts posted in this thread, I don't think she believes he raped her.

I think she's pissed that she slept with somebody while drunk that she wouldn't have slept with while sober, and is trying to get back at him because she's too stupid to know when to stop drinking.

Yea thats called rape, look it up before you post.

She did not concent to sex and even WOKE UP and found him having sex with her. That is rape.

Nonsense and bullshit. He didn't force her, she had "morning-after regret" and decided to say he raped her.

Just because you're too goddamn drunk to remember giving consent, doesn't mean you didn't.

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Like if you got so drunk and passed out and some guy comes up and starts taking you from behind and you wake up while he is going at it is that rape? And is it your fault and no charges should be brought against that person?

She didn't pass out at the bar, and then he carried her to his house and have sex with her, that would be rape. Don't know for 100%, but she probably left with him, agreed to sleep with him, and then they both fell asleep together in bed. He naturally assumed (as most guys would) that being that she was into it the first time, that she'd be up for it again in the morning.



~!Extreme sarcasm alert!~
I think the real lesson here is never trust a woman, drunk or not. "Yes" means "No, and if you take me up on my offer, I'll accuse you of raping me" 😛 :laugh:

Then why when she woke up and said what are you doing his first sentance was "Don;t you remember, you consented.".
Also you can not legally give concent when drunk. If you buy a car drunk that contract is not valid.
That and if you are having sex with someone that is passed out, come one.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: waggy

and forcing her to use words such as "sex" and "intercourse" is not misleading? it was nto sex or intercourse. Not to mention renaming the sexual assault kit to sex kit is insane.

Didn't I already deal with that? No, it's not misleading. Because that is what happened. I don't see any impediment to her specifying that she was too drunk to consent to sex.

 

[ghostman]

When I served on a grand jury, the assistant DAs were adamant about telling the jurors to ignore words like "rape", "thief", "robbed", etc. from witnesses because these words IMPLY a crime was committed. But the trial, itself, is meant to DETERMINE whether a crime was actually committed. Thus, using these words mean guilt has already been determined. Instead, the witness is only supposed to describe the events that occurred and the jury is supposed to decide whether a crime was committed based on those events. This case doesn't seem any different.

For example, this statement is not permitted:
Witness: It was 10am and I was sitting on my porch when I noticed two individuals robbing an old lady.

Instead, it should be:
Witness: It was 10am and I was sitting on my porch when I noticed two individuals holding knives yelling at an old lady, "Give me your money."

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Pacemaker
Do they call it non-consensual sex?

Surprise seks!

I don't understand this judge's reasoning at all.