How do you think the prosecution will get around the fact that the alleged perp didn’t have his pants down and was able to run away. If he had his manhood out of his zipper I think the cyclists would have seen that. Was his thing hanging out when they caught him. If not, it seems like they might have a hard time with the penile/vaginal rape part of things (barring any forensic evidence). Thank God they have his statement about the digital penetration and can hopefully put him away for that.
When somebody makes an argument from principle, I think it is (at least) rude to suggest that they wouldn’t adhere to their principles if their own families were involved. Maybe they wouldn’t, but as I noted, that sort of attack runs both ways. Cardinal Fang, I assume you would be deeply offended if somebody said, “You’d be whistling a different tune if YOUR son was accused of rape in a situation like this.”
@Hunt: I would totally abandon many of my principles to save a family member. I’m not sure what that’s supposed to show other than that coercion is a real thing.
Demosthenes49, if the case goes to trial, the defense will argue the girl was consenting when Taylor put his fingers in her. The jury doesn’t have to buy this argument. The prosecution doesn’t have to have a video. If the case goes to trial, you will have experts on both sides arguing whether the victim was conscious.
The prosecution will argue the fact that Taylor was humping an unconscious person doesn’t give him a lot of credibility.
The jury may buy the prosecuters argument.
Do you disagree?
TV4, **WE/b were in a discussion about the Stanford case:
me, 889: He [Stanford dude] does seem to have been thinking of her as a thing for him to use, rather than a person. If you’re interacting with a person and suddenly they go unconscious, you’re concerned. You want to help them, not stick your ***** in them.
Bay, 890: Unless you are sick with intoxication, and like your victim, barely know what is happening.
me, 891: We don’t let someone say they are sick with intoxication and barely know what is happening, so, oops, sorry for getting behind the wheel and running over that kindergarten class, but it wasn’t my fault. We should be equally contemptuous of someone who is discovered assaulting an unconscious woman and who claims that they were drunk.
TV4, you may have been excluding the Stanford case, but Bay was offering a defense of intoxication specifically in response to a criticism of the behavior of the Stanford guy toward the unconscious woman.
Well, I think Bay is correct that if, by some chance, this case were to go to trial, the defense would argue that the defendant’s statement was sufficiently vague as to create reasonable doubt as to whether penetration occurred. It’s possible that he could testify that there was no penetration. He’d almost certainly be convicted of some lesser charge, though. Which is why he will plead.
Demosthenes49, post #953: Are you arguing that the young woman went unconscious immediately before the two students on bicycles saw the couple? Otherwise, I think your point is hard to understand.
@dstark: I actually was on the defense team for a similar digital penetration case also in CA. That case involved pictures though. With that in mind, it’s very hard to say how the trial would go so early in the game. We don’t know what his story is or what further evidence will come up.
I’m not at all certain that experts would be permitted on whether she was unconscious. I also have no idea if he would testify. It’s generally not a good idea but it may be the only way to show consent. It’s really not clear at all. All I know is that we should be careful not to presume facts without evidence.
@QuantMech: I’m not arguing anything, since I have no evidence. My point is that in the absence of evidence we cannot simply assume she was unconscious the whole time. Similarly we have no timeframe for the alleged digital penetration.
I think it is always hard to know how we would react in the case of a family member versus a stranger we hear about on the news. Yes, of course it is possible that we could be dispassionate and would advocate exactly the same way. But experience and history shows that this is rarely the case. I don’t think it is rude to suggest this at all, but common sense that it is more likely than not. Judges are supposed to leave anything personal aside and rule strictly on the law when they put on their robes, but we would never tolerate a judge passing sentence on a family member. I don’t know about Cardinal Fang, but I know I could never be neutral if it were my kid involved in something serious like this. I would automatically think I know them far too well to believe it is possible, and it would take extraordinary evidence beyond what I would think as a juror for someone I didn’t know to convince me otherwise. I think it is a bit strange, actually, to think a parent would throw out everything they think they know about their kid, not to mention just the natural protective instincts, when it comes to situations like this.
Of course there are cases where parents are forced to admit that their kids have gone bad and don’t have these kinds of judgement issues, but I suspect those are a very small minority compared to those that would try and protect their kids no matter what.
@dstark, we might be talking about slightly different things. I am not sure. Your comments sound like a situation where the person was already found guilty, although even then most parents would hope for more leniency for their kid than they probably would think in a neutral situation. But I was talking more about a case where people are assessing the evidence and deciding on blame. I think it would be very odd for most families to treat a loved one the same way they would a stranger. In fact I can’t believe people are arguing otherwise, or else why have conflict laws? But to each their own, of course. I just think that whole “Well what if this were your kid” argument is a red herring. That isn’t how we judge legal issues, nor should it be.
“Fingering” doesn’t imply penetration, but there may also be medical evidence about penetration, and there is the police evidence of the state of her clothing and the state of his clothing, plus the witness statements. He will plead.
Well, if I were the prosecutor in that case, and the defendant insisted on going to trial, I think I would argue that “fingering” does imply penetration. The jury would hate this defendant so much that they’d probably vote to convict if there was any way to justify it. And since, as I noted above, he’s definitely going to be convicted of something, he’ll plead.
@fallenchemist, i do not want family members of am alleged victim jury.
I have made similar arguments to what to what you stating in this thread. People think they know how they are going to react if a family member is assaulted, but they really don’t. Nobody knows.
@Demosthenes49, I like what you wrote in post 967. I like reading about people’s experiences.
Your screen name shows you are a very modest person. 
Hunt, are you saying that the jury would hate the defendant because in the most favorable presentation of the evidence, he was found with an unconscious, undressed woman outside in the middle of the night in the dark? I don’t have a feel for when juries hate rape defendants, and when they are sympathetic to poor misunderstood young upstanding men.
@dstark: are you saying I’m modest because I only claim to be the 49th Demosthenes? I’m actually not modest at all, the reason I provide my experience is to try to ground the discussion a bit. I don’t claim to have any special knowledge as a result.
And as I said, I highly expect a plea. Likely the defense will mostly aim to limit his time on the registry. That’s how we handled our sex cases usually, as registry time is absolutely brutal.
@fallenchemist, sorry. I was incoherent. I do not want family members of an alleged victim sitting on the jury.
Yeah, I’m saying that this case has particularly egregious facts, and no competent defense attorney would want to take it to trial, unless the prosecutor was insisting that the defendant plead to rape.
@Demosthenes49, i like that you used Demosthenes as your screen name.
I like your posts. Whatever you want to say, I am listening.
I’m with you on this, except that I would want the student to be expelled after the college held a hearing, presumably working under a preponderance of the evidence standard (since that’s what’s generally used for both academic and non-academic misconduct hearings by colleges).
That was what (hypothetically) happened in the Vanderbilt case, right? No defense attorney would want to bring that case to trial, but the prosecutor (probably) was saying, we have the goods on your guys and we’re not budging on the plea deal?
Well, I am a big fan of the Oliver Wendell Holmes reply to his wife’s (supposed) comment upon looking out a train window. His wife said, “Look, dear, those sheep have been sheared.” Holmes is supposed to have replied, “No, those sheep appear to have been sheared on the side facing us.”
So, I think we can say that the woman appeared to be unconscious to the two cyclists, probably when they first went by, and fairly certainly shortly afterwards, when they returned to the scene.