By productive, do you mean doesnt make much money?
Because I dont give a fuuuuuuuck about that.
You kind of just glossed over the notion that he did, in fact, have a choice here.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Girl raped by a guy she thought was her boyfriend
- Thread starter Francesco
- Start date
Because I dont give a fuuuuuuuck about that.
You kind of just glossed over the notion that he did, in fact, have a choice here.
Yeah, prosecution failed here and there really should be a law against this kind of deception. Has to be kind of be narrowly tailored though or else a huge can of worms could potentially be opened if made to broad.
Oh and that attourney has replied on the news story's comments section.
Oh and that attourney has replied on the news story's comments section.
I would be shocked if he got away with a civil. This dude is going to get sued to the dirt.
Yes but the original comment was about arguing the law, not about his comments like that. The other poster seems to think the defendant shouldn't have even had a defense. That's a different issue.
To have a fair law system, you need someone to defend the 'guilty' party no matter what. So if he refused, another lawyer would need to accept unless you don't think the accused deserves to be represented. In which case, welcome back to the witch hunts.
Even admitted criminals get a defense. But there's a more specific problem in this case. The argument made by the defense is that the law in Indiana doesn't support the charge of rape under these facts. Defense attorneys don't just try to help obviously innocent and good people get acquitted. They also represent the guilty and people who are scumbags to make sure the rules are followed by the police, the prosecutor and the courts, and to make sure the charges are fair and properly proven, among other things. The latter seemed to be the problem in this case. The defense argued that the statute the defendant was charged with did not apply, and that another statute would have been a more appropriate charge. Arguments like this are fundamental for defense attorneys, and it appears to have been a valid one to make.
It's a stupid concept, so it might be difficult for some to even acknowledge it.
Point being: the lawyer chose to defend a rapist and we can *definitely* judge him accordingly. Quite simple.
What a fucking terrible piece of shit justice system we have. The law should definitely be changed, and such an act should patently constitute rape. Can't believe we still have so many shitty laws in 2018.
Not difficult. Incredibly short sighted and dumb though. There have been many cases (not this one) where people have 'confessed' to crimes they did not commit under pressure. Those people wouldn't have any legal defense if it were up to you. It would turn the whole justice system in some medieval shit.
He chose to defend someone who was innocent of what he was accused of. You can find that as morally wrong as you want, but that is the apparant truth. He was innocent and you think he shouldn't have had a defense. Is that what you think is morally correct? It is absolutely outraging that he goes free, but in these circumstances, it is absolutely what should have happened.
For the love of god.
People shouldnt defend rapists if they have a choice in the matter.
Going by what the article says...:
This is what the attorney defending Grant had to say about that. So it seems, since they pursued this case as a rape case, what happened can't be judged has a sexual battery case, wich she probably would have won because of the laws in place.
And how do you (or a lawyer) know the difference between an accused rapist, a real rapist or someone who falsely admitted rape under pressure?
I mean, if you're implying that you dont know if this guy is a rapist you have nothing of value to contribute to this discussion.
Man what a horrible legal system. It must feel awful to be forced to acquit because the law is inadequate. The most you could likely hope to do as a juror is force a mistrial but then you have to wonder whether the extended legal battle that would result in right for the victim.
Well, but in this case they already knew he was a rapist since he addmited to knowing she thought he was her boyfriend...
I am not implying that and you know it. A lot of people have already explained to you why your way of thinking is a danger to the justice system and you seem to think that you have some moral high ground. You don't.
I think it is painfully obvious you yourself dont have anything of value to add to this conversation. I have no interest in any further conversation with you though, so don't @ me.
True but I was speaking in general. We cannot as a society determine guilt or innocence BEFORE we allow someone to get a lawyer.
The thing that's so eye rolly about all of this is that I never tried to make it about the justice system. This is all because I said it's perfectly fine for us to judge a private attorney for choosing to defend a rapist.
Something that shouldnt be the slightest bit controversial.
He wasn't. The law just doesn't criminalize his actions, because the law is written by people caring very little about victims of rape.
So he is legally innocent. That is the core of the thing. We can convict him all we want because we feel he should be convicted, but by the law, this was the only 'correct' outcome.
Arguing the law is his job and not doing so is malpractice. The other shit? I don't even know where to start...
See I was kind of indifferent until Grant admitted he knew that he was doing it with intent. That's an open and shut case of rape. He should be in jail. They may need to revise the law and add to as "the intent of deceiving".
It's incredibly controversial. What does it mean to judge him? What's the alternative? Should no attorney represent someone he suspects is probably guilty of something? All defense attorneys defend guilty criminals, many of whom are accused of heinous crimes, and their guilt often not in question. So how do you think attorneys should handle these cases? You've provided nothing worthwhile to this discussion at this point.
Your opinion on this point is deficient, and you haven't earned your dismissive attitude.
User Banned (2 Weeks): Advocating violence and assault as a form of retribution
If the law won't properly punish Grant someone needs to give him a taste of his own medicine.
The law and the justice system that enforces it isn't always worthy of respect, this is certainly a good example of such an instance.
The law and the justice system that enforces it isn't always worthy of respect, this is certainly a good example of such an instance.
Last edited:
I mean, he's scum but lets not start advocating violence as a viable punishment.
What he's done deserves a lengthy spell in jail and his name tarnished by being registered as a sexual offender.
I don't really see that here. Basically the law says you have to either be forced or unable to give consent.
What that guy did was immoral and wrong but how can they even word the law covering a woman of sound mind's mistaken assumption of identity? She put him inside of her without even a glance at who he was or even a spoken word to confirm his identity and it doesn't sound like she was drunk. How does the law cover that?
Maybe it should have been considered sexual assault that he just climbed in bed and started groping her.
I think you could draft language narrowly tailored to cover acts where the perpetrator induces the victim to believe, or knows the victim believes, they are having sex with another person. It seems the latter would have applied here. You could define it as strictly as possible to make sure you are covering actual mistaken identity, and not just that someone misrepresented some aspect of their life to try to impress someone.
what the actual fuck. I hate our legal system so much. So many ways for these pieces of shit to get away with it
I still can't get over the guy doing it. I mean you throw away your friendship and probably many other friendships for what? A couple seconds inside of some woman that doesn't want you. You obviously don't get good sex or even get an orgasm it's completely worthless. You'd have been better off just wanking off and going to sleep.
The story is out in the national media and the people in your inner circle who know both you and her are probably gonna disown you. What a bonehead.
The story is out in the national media and the people in your inner circle who know both you and her are probably gonna disown you. What a bonehead.
Iirc there was sexual misconduct/rape done in a room by a smash tourney player done to a girl while the boyfriend was sleeping next to here. So nah fam itd probably of still happened. Dont ask about that case because it's so fucking dumb how they never pressed charges on him.
This is sad and that defense attorney is an insensitive prick, why even say that? Probably doesn't even have a daughter as if he did and this same thing happened to her, he'd be baying for blood.
Rape isn't as black and white as forced intercourse or textbook consent, it's about respecting the conditions someone agrees to have sex under and whether that's pricking or removing a condom with out someones knowledge or deceiving someone into sex, it's still rape.
Rape isn't as black and white as forced intercourse or textbook consent, it's about respecting the conditions someone agrees to have sex under and whether that's pricking or removing a condom with out someones knowledge or deceiving someone into sex, it's still rape.
This is sad and that defense attorney is an insensitive prick, why even say that? Probably doesn't even have a daughter as if he did and this same thing happened to her, he'd be baying for blood.
Rape isn't as black and white as forced intercourse or textbook consent, it's about respecting the conditions someone agrees to have sex under and whether that's pricking or removing a condom with out someones knowledge or deceiving someone into sex, it's still rape.
Rape isn't as black and white as forced intercourse or textbook consent, it's about respecting the conditions someone agrees to have sex under and whether that's pricking or removing a condom with out someones knowledge or deceiving someone into sex, it's still rape.
I agree, the dude was a major asshole and was unnecessarily cruel to the victim in order to help sway the jury.
I fail to see if this is in any way his fault. You don't or shouldn't think 'better take my girlfriend with me before my friends rape her.' Calling him an idiot is unreasonable.
Also, that lawyer can go fuck himself. It's his job to defend the accused but to make those comments? That's nothing to do with being a lawyer and is just about being an utter cunt.
What a horrible situation that young woman has found herself in. That defence attorney should be incredibly ashamed of that kind of conduct.
This is one of the sadder parts of the story. He knows his girlfriend is a heavy sleeper, but he leaves her passed out in a room with a bunch of drunk dudes so he can get some sleep in a completely different dorm? Uhh… the fuck? When my wife falls asleep on the couch watching TV, I make sure she goes gets to the bedroom.. and we're the only people in the house.
I agree! I was sarcastically applying a Trump quote/common train of thought to highlight how fucking stupid it is. I should have used /s.