Get PJ Media on your Apple

VodkaPundit

Where Everybody Knows Your Name

March 12th, 2013 - 9:21 am

So this happened:

Defense lawyers in the coming trial of two high school football players charged with raping a nearly passed-out-drunk 16-year-old girl are expected to argue on the issue of consent.

In the case that has shocked the nation, prosecutors state that the inebriated girl was taken to a number of parties by a group of drunk teenagers, supporting her to walk when she wasn’t physically capable.

The prosecution claims that the group later sexually assaulted the girl while she lay unconscious.

But attorney Walter Madison, who represents one of the accused boys, argues she was drinking voluntarily and left willingly with the group of boys.

As reported by the Cleveland Trader Madison said: ‘There’s an abundance of evidence here that she was making decisions, cognitive choices.’ ‘She didn’t affirmatively say no,’ he stated.

I don’t believe in Hell. But if there is one, these defense attorneys are going there.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (6)
All Comments   (6)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Lee Stranahan has been covering the media misrepresentation of the case:

http://stranahaninexile.wordpress.com/
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
‘She didn’t affirmatively say no,’
What is the difference between "an affirmative no" and "a negative yes"? Did she say "a negative yes" or "an affirmative yes" or "a negative no"?

I think the attorney should tell his clients to plea bargain: under the influence and diminish capacity, and all that. To say what he said was stupid, detrimental to his own career and would not help his clients.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
A "negative yes" is silence - i.e., she didn't explicitly say yes. An "affirmative no" is an explicit statement that she doesn't want it. Given the rule that silence implies consent(as long as she's coherent enough to be making decisions in the first place), the lack of an affirmative no from a sober, conscious person is considered to be consent.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
If they actually had sex with her while she was passed out drunk, it's rape, full stop. But if she was conscious, the question of where to draw the "too drunk to consent" line is one that can be debated. There have been nights where I've been puking at one point and coherent enough to make good decisions at others. I'd have to go watch the videos to see what happened in this case, and while I really don't want to, I strongly suspect the prosecution has it right. But there are certain combinations of vaguely-possible happenings that might conceivably make this not actually be rape.

Also, the defence attorneys are blameless here. If there arguments are actually as stupid and obviously false as they seem, then the rapists will lose regardless of them making those arguments. But even scum are entitled to a fair trial, and you can't have a fair trial without somebody fighting hard for the defence.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
They are not "going there".
They are already there.

That's what this nihilistic pseudo-culture does not understand, the Truth is objective.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
They could only go to hell if they had souls -- which they don't.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All