Disabled woman's rapist acquitted......

[release the hounds]

I read it, and I didn't see anything about "legitimate rape". Funny how actual documents tell a different story than someone's interpretation as "news"

This is the point where I'm genuinely embarrassed for my gender as a collective.

[ACooper]

Originally Posted by release the hounds

I read it, and I didn't see anything about "legitimate rape". Funny how actual documents tell a different story than someone's interpretation as "news"

Heh, isn't it though? Learned that first hand last year.....

Originally Posted by release the hounds

I read it, and I didn't see anything about "legitimate rape". Funny how actual documents tell a different story than someone's interpretation as "news"

"The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court,
claiming that the state had failed to adduce sufficient
evidence to prove that the victim’s disabilities rendered
her physically helpless within the meaning of § 53a-65
(6). State v. Fourtin, supra, 118 Conn. App. 47. The
defendant argued that the state ‘‘[had] not alleged that,
at the time . . . [he] assaulted the [victim], she was
unconscious, intoxicated, asleep or for some other reason
unable to communicate nonverbally, such as by
kicking, scratching and screeching.

The defendant
maintain[ed], therefore, that, even viewing the evidence
at trial in favor of the state, the record [did] not establish
beyond a reasonable doubt that the [victim] was physically
unable to communicate [her] unwillingness to an
act, as § 53a-65 (6) requires.’’"

No, it doesn't use the words "legitimate rape" but that's exactly what the above implies. As if it's so **** hard to overpower someone with CP to the point where they can not vocalize or gesture.

[Greenmagick]

To me this is definitely an example of why trying to redefine rape and classify some as somehow better (or not legitimate) is a HuGE issue.

[release the hounds]

They aren't trying to redifine anything. There aren't a ton of the details from the case. It focuses on one point where the state argued that the "victim" couldn't communicate and the defense argued she could. Considering she'd bite to draw blood when she didn't want to shower and would physically attack people she didn't want to be in the same room with, I guess they had a point and that's what the CT supreme court ruled on.

they don't give many details of the case about who, what or how it allegedly happened, just that one of the arguements wasn't upheld.

Don't know much about it to say anything else than once I get past the surface I can see why they ruled like they did.

Beyond that I will say everything about rape sucks. For every example of people getting off on a technicality, you can find an example of someone being brought thru hell because someone decided to make a false accusation. There's more than enough examples to be on either side of the coin on making it tougher or easier to accuse someone else of rape.

[Pops2]

Originally Posted by Doberluv

Sickening! Our justice system fails yet again! Women are STILL treated as something less than....I hope it goes further and hope it gets over turned. That SOB is now reinforced so he can go do it again and again. I hope someone shoots him!Someone ought to go in the guise of a severely disabled person in his area...as bait and have a 9 mm under a blanket on her lap. Then when he tries it, shoot his balls off!

too easy. he should be left naked & handcuffed in the yard at the worst possible prison in the USA. IF he survives that then he should be taken out & impaled all Vlad Tepish style.
JMO

[SkyRock]

This is so sad.
The justice systen fails once again.
Some people just block themselves out or shut down when they are subjected to abuse or any other situation that produces terror or anxiety. I know because I am one of them. I know that when thieves got into my house I didn't cry nor scream, I just stood there trying to 'get away' from the situation.

This is so sad, hopefully karma gets to that son of a ****

[Renee750il]

One of the chilling aspects this brings up for me is competence to consent.

The victim has the mental capacity of a child -- the mental capacity well under the age of consent, where the victim is NOT required to resist, for obvious reasons.

So, what kind of cracks does this allow in the basis of statutory laws?

And it reeks of "she was asking for it."

Sorry, but someone with a mental capacity that is below the age of consent, regardless of their chronological age, should logically (at least in my view of things) be considered unable to consent.

[Greenmagick]

Exactly...and IMO thats why I think it fits "redefining" rape or narrowing what is "legitimate" rape. If she truly has the mental capabilities of a three year old...I dont care if she said YES, I would still consider it rape. But she didnt say yes...she just didnt fight like she does for known things that she does not like. There is a very good chance she was either confused by what was happening or too scared to "fight".

Anytime the victim gets blamed for not doing enough to fight the attacker off, for wearing the wrong clothes, for drinking too much, for being in a bar, for walking at night by herself, etc that is trying to make those rapes somehow not real, or not "legitimate".

Honestly, I posted the story not caring at all about that part of it, but about the actual case. Find it very sad that someone is seemingly more concerned about that then the woman who was raped