I’m pretty sure thrusting ones hips doesn’t qualify as penetration.
Your earlier post stated “all the prosecution really has is his statement that he “fingered” her.” The point is the prosecution has quite a bit more,. Yes, witnesses saying Turner was thrusting on top of an unconscious women who had her underwear removed, and took off when confronted, is not certain proof, nor is the officer mentioning disheveled pants hiding an erection. However, it’s much more than having to take Turner’s word that there was only fingering. Had the incident happened in a more private location without 3rd party witnesses, like most severe SA incidents, then I’d be more inclined to agree. Of course if it was in a private location without witnesses, it’s unlikely the incident would have been reported, so there would be no prosecution. The victim mentions reasons in the report, such as not wanting her parents and friends to know.
Data,
I agree there are statements and observations that may add to the totality of the case. But the prosecution is going to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the perp penetrated her. I would be surprised if there is enough there, unless the forensic evidence exists.
Now I understand. It’s OK for the drunk driver to run over pedestrians, if they are also drunk.
Upon further reflection, it’s possible that the elements of the crime of attempted rape are present, but I recall that the perp claimed he didn’t intend to rape her, and lack of intent is a defense if he is believed, I believe.
He was charged with assault with intent to commit rape, among other crimes. Now, in California, rape is a general intent crime, which means to be guilty the accused person merely has to intend to have sex with a person, and to not have the required consent. They don’t have to intend to rape the person.
I don’t know about assault with intent to commit rape, though. I don’t know whether the prosecution would have to prove that he intended to rape her, or just that he intended to have sex with her and he didn’t have consent.
In California, it’s a defense to rape that the person believed that they had consent provided that a reasonable sober person would have believed they had consent. She was unconscious, so our hypothetical reasonable sober person is not going to believe she consented.
Except he told the police that she was rubbing his back during the incident. We don’t know what went on between them or whether they spoke about having sex before he touched her. It’s possible that she was conscious at the start and then passed out during the act. We just don’t know at this point.
He said the entire thing took less than five minutes, if I recall.
Data10, posted the complaint.
http://www.scscourt.org/online_services/efiles/file2.pdf
This guy is accused on 5 counts including sexual intercourse with an unconscious person.
Also, the guy said he fiingered the girl. There is a recording of this.
Also, two guys saw the accused humping.
Plus there is a rape kit.
Yes, we already went over that. And so your conclusion is … Guilty as charged?
Doesn’t look good for the accused…
Okay that is a fair interpretation. I’m glad you are not willing to convict yet.
I read the whole report-- interesting reading. It looks even worse for Turner than I originally thought. The victim’s underpants had been removed, her bra was half off, her dress was pulled up to her waist and down to her shoulders. The two witnesses both, separately, said that Turner was thrusting. The two witnesses had no connection with either Turner or the victim, and don’t appear to have any reason to lie. Moreover, they went out of their way to stop the situation; they rode past, then turned back to check the situation out more fully.
Turner testifies that he just happened to get up and walk away, just when the two grad students were approaching to investigate.
@Bay, OK. And why should he be believed? If I hold a knife and make thrusting motions with it towards you, should I be believed if I said I don’t mean to hurt/kill you?
saintfan: I really like your posts, too.
I also worry about the boys. When we teach them to think about sex in terms of bases, and that seeing how far you can get with your girlfriend is the norm, it seems to me this is the foreseeable outcome.
I think these are potentially very damaging cultural messages to women as well, when they also accept these behaviors as the norm. Repeatedly on these threads, we wonder why women are going to these parties. Maybe this is the answer.
The perpetrator must have understood he was doing something wrong, or he wouldn’t have run. Maybe he was taught that having sex with someone unconscious has the potential for negative consequences for the perpetrator. Is this guy one of those psychopathic serial rapists or is he the result of his environment?
We talked about this case on another thread when it first hit the news. Ever since, I’ve been wondering about the possible differences in upbringing between the young men who intervened and the perpetrator. The bicyclers could have had the response that it was inexcusable to **** block another guy. They could have just joined in. That was not their response. It is interesting to me to contrast these behaviors. Were they born this way, or taught? I have no clue.
We talk about warning young men some behaviors may put them at risk for false accusations of rape. I am fine with that sort of teaching. However, it really seems to me if we teach them to be decent human beings, concerned with the feelings of others, that is much more effective in getting the desired outcome. That produces the bicyclers, imho. I don’t want these boys in jail, or on sex offender lists, either. I want to teach them not to be boys that indulge in behaviors that lead to those outcomes. This is win/win for everyone: male and female, gay and straight.
Now that everyone has the parent bashing, male bashing and poster bashing out of their systems in the light of day, maybe focus on what happened that went right – like bystander intervention, police investigation, a rape kit, and support to convince/enable the victim to make a statement and pursue charges. The young man is charged and presumably there will either be a prosecution or a plea. I find it ironic that the bicyclists would not have done anything had they thought it was two students having sex under a pine street which tells you something about college campuses, but gratified that at least for those two students they took time to be observant enough that something didn’t look right.
I believe that anyone, including the person being discussed recently, is innocent until proven guilty. I have also read in the newspapers about a number cases where it seems that the prosecutor is over-charging someone.
That being said, I cannot understand why Bay gives the impression of repeatedly defending the young man–Turner, I think? Perhaps part of the charges are excessive. But I don’t think he warrants the level of defense Bay is providing to him.
(“Defense” in the context of this forum, I mean. I think anyone in Turner’s circumstances should have a good criminal defense lawyer. But I think that the public reaction should be that this act, if proven, is despicable–and not to argue about the exact nature of the charges that can be proven.)
A person is only presumed innocent in a court of law.
We are not a court of law.
@dstark: A person only must be presumed legally innocent. That doesn’t mean it’s not a good general principle. Automatically assuming guilt strikes me as a very dangerous position, especially when it comes to crafting new law.