Anything Forums

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/28/video.ra...rial/index.html

SANTA ANA, California (CNN) -- A judge declared a mistrial Monday in the trial of three teenagers charged with raping an unconscious 16-year-old girl, after the jury announced it was deadlocked on all 24 counts against the defendants.

The defendants -- 19-year-olds Gregory Haidl, Keith Spann and Kyle Nachreiner -- are charged with three counts of rape by intoxication, two counts of oral copulation by intoxication, 14 counts of sexual penetration by intoxication, three counts of penetration by force, one of penetration by force in concert and one count of assault with a deadly weapon.

The 21-minute incident was recorded by Haidl on July 5, 2002, during a party at the home of his father, who was not there at the time.Some of the teenagers can be heard making lewd comments on the tape, laughing at times and using profanity to describe various sex scenes.

Any thoughts?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:299, old post ID:2391

i read about this trial not too long ago, and while at first i was appalled, i later began to think about the very real possibility that she had wanted something along these lines to happen to her. it's very interesting, really.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:299, old post ID:2394

What I don't get is why they didn't bother to charge any of them with statutory rape? Isn't sex with a minor by a person who is not a minor kind of a requisit for statutory rape? Three 19 year olds videotaping a sexual encounter (in very questionable circumstances nonetheless) with a 16 year old girl? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Also, just the fact that they weren't convicted on any of the charges just amazes me. The girl was unconscious. I don't care if she did agree to be drugged, she has no say over what is done to her after that point, and even if all the case was, was her seeing the tape and realizing that they did things to her that she didn't want them to do and sued them, I would think that would even be enough to convict them on some charges.

What a messed up world we live in.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:299, old post ID:2398

shenbaw wrote: What I don't get is why they didn't bother to charge any of them with statutory rape? Isn't sex with a minor by a person who is not a minor kind of a requisit for statutory rape? Three 19 year olds videotaping a sexual encounter (in very questionable circumstances nonetheless) with a 16 year old girl? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Also, just the fact that they weren't convicted on any of the charges just amazes me. The girl was unconscious. I don't care if she did agree to be drugged, she has no say over what is done to her after that point, and even if all the case was, was her seeing the tape and realizing that they did things to her that she didn't want them to do and sued them, I would think that would even be enough to convict them on some charges.

What a messed up world we live in.

I think the statutory rape laws vary by state, actually. I know that here in Indiana, a 19 year old having sex with a 16 year old would be statutory rape. But then, in Indiana, if you're over 17 and driving around with a passenger who's under 17 and has their shoes and socks off, they can get you for statutory rape. And yes, I have tried this, but sadly have never gotten pulled over. Anyway, in her state the laws might be different, and 19 and 16 year olds having sex might be perfectly legal. With mutual consent, of course.

I agree with you, if a girl's drugged and she gets raped, she wasn't asking for it. No girl asks to be raped- thinking otherwise is not only twisted, but sexist. If a girl doesn't consent to sex, it's rape. Simple as that. No one has a right to have sex with another person without their consent. Ever.



Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:299, old post ID:2738

But then, in Indiana, if you're over 17 and driving around with a passenger who's under 17 and has their shoes and socks off, they can get you for statutory rape.

For some reason I find that hard to believe.

I know that here in Indiana, a 19 year old having sex with a 16 year old would be statutory rape.

Actually

In Indiana, where the age of consent is 16, there is no longer a crime of statutory rape. Instead, the state can charge an adult with child molestation if the child is under age 14, or with sexual misconduct if the minor is 14 or 15 years old. However, the sexual misconduct charge can only be leveled at people 18 years and older. Thus, a 17-year-old who has sex with a 14-year-old could not be charged with sexual misconduct.

Kind of interesting. I looked it up, sure enough, the age of consent is 16! If the child is 14 or 15, the offender has to be over 18 years of age to be charged with anything, if the child is under 14, sounds pretty automatic. Didn't see anything about people having their shoes and socks off in a vehicle though? Maybe that's in a different statute. Motor vehicle laws perhaps? Probably not very vital to you, but you might want to straighten your brother out on this one. You never know when it might come in handy. LOL! Plus it's always just good to know what the laws are in your state, so you don't get charged with something like statutory rape for driving a car.
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar42/ch4.html

Anyway, in her state the laws might be different, and 19 and 16 year olds having sex might be perfectly legal. With mutual consent, of course.

Good point, I guess I didn't realize the statutory rape laws vary so significantly from state to state.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:299, old post ID:2780

erolyn wrote: I think the statutory rape laws vary by state, actually. I know that here in Indiana, a 19 year old having sex with a 16 year old would be statutory rape. But then, in Indiana, if you're over 17 and driving around with a passenger who's under 17 and has their shoes and socks off, they can get you for statutory rape. And yes, I have tried this, but sadly have never gotten pulled over. Anyway, in her state the laws might be different, and  19 and 16 year olds having sex might be perfectly legal. With mutual consent, of course.

I agree with you, if a girl's drugged and she gets raped, she wasn't asking for it. No girl asks to be raped- thinking otherwise is not only twisted, but sexist. If a girl doesn't consent to sex, it's rape. Simple as that. No one has a right to have sex  with another person without their consent. Ever.

But that's part of the question - did she give her consent to them for them to commit sex acts with her while she was passed out?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:299, old post ID:2782

I'm just glad to see these guys are going to be retried. This whole thing kind of reminds me of "The Life of David Gayle"(sp). Has anyone seen that? I liked that show. The crime seems so obvious, but I guess you just never really know what exactly transpired.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:299, old post ID:2787

shenbaw wrote: The crime seems so obvious, but I guess you just never really know what exactly transpired. 

Yeah, that's the tough thing. One the one hand, you've got the defence council for these guys who, as in many rape trials, tries to paint the girl as a whore who thinks nothing of and then calling foul after the fact.

But at the same time, some girls are really fucked up and into crazy and are unstable as hell. The possibility that these guys were doing something she gave the ok for is a tough one to find the truth out.

All I can say is that I would only ever want to be a juror in a rape trial if the conclusion to the case is so obvious, but when it boils down to such he said/she said stuff, that's where you risk either putting someone away when they don't deserve the punishment, or not giving a rape victim the justice that is owed them.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:299, old post ID:2790

shenbaw wrote: What I don't get is why they didn't bother to charge any of them with statutory rape?

Here's a better question. According to the defense, the girl gave these guys her consent to do whatever they did, so the guys did it and video taped it with a camera they had on hand. Why did they not record her consent on the f*?king video camera???

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:299, old post ID:2826

the guys who raped that girl should be taken out back and sprayed with pepper spray in the eyes., they should have a rock shoved up their asses, and be shot in the wrist with a nail gun 207 times!! that is so............ AHHH. words cant even describe my hatred for them!!!!! violating any person like that is so cruel!!!! they should rip off all their arms and legs, then they should castrate them all! and they shove them off the tarpian rock!!!, then save them, heal their wounds, and put them in a cage. tie them up so they cant move, and drip water on their heads slowly. then, poke them with a blunt stick every 5 seconds. then after this torture for about 2 years, they should be stuck with needles until their entire body is covered with them. then they should make them drink poisin and put them under a gillotine. set a timer for the gillotine to go off in like 4 hours. tie them up so they cant move, and let people throw rotten tomatoes at them while they wait for their death. thats what they should do to those :censored:s!!! GEEZ!!!!!

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:299, old post ID:8137

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/28/video.ra...rial/index.html

A judge declared a mistrial Monday in the trial of three teenagers charged with raping an unconscious 16-year-old girl, after the jury announced it was deadlocked on all 24 counts against the defendants.

"We have deliberated every count," said a note to the judge from the eight-man, four-woman jury. "We are deadlocked on every count with very serious convictions."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/29/video.ra...rial/index.html


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:299, old post ID:8141

shenbaw wrote:

But then, in Indiana, if you're over 17 and driving around with a passenger who's under 17 and has their shoes and socks off, they can get you for statutory rape.

For some reason I find that hard to believe.

I know that here in Indiana, a 19 year old having sex with a 16 year old would be statutory rape.

Actually

In Indiana, where the age of consent is 16, there is no longer a crime of statutory rape. Instead, the state can charge an adult with child molestation if the child is under age 14, or with sexual misconduct if the minor is 14 or 15 years old. However, the sexual misconduct charge can only be leveled at people 18 years and older. Thus, a 17-year-old who has sex with a 14-year-old could not be charged with sexual misconduct.

Kind of interesting. I looked it up, sure enough, the age of consent is 16! If the child is 14 or 15, the offender has to be over 18 years of age to be charged with anything, if the child is under 14, sounds pretty automatic. Didn't see anything about people having their shoes and socks off in a vehicle though? Maybe that's in a different statute. Motor vehicle laws perhaps? Probably not very vital to you, but you might want to straighten your brother out on this one. You never know when it might come in handy. LOL! Plus it's always just good to know what the laws are in your state, so you don't get charged with something like statutory rape for driving a car.
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar42/ch4.html

Anyway, in her state the laws might be different, and 19 and 16 year olds having sex might be perfectly legal. With mutual consent, of course.

Good point, I guess I didn't realize the statutory rape laws vary so significantly from state to state.

its always so dicie

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:299, old post ID:13418