Nightmare in Maryville

That is the biggest issue in this whole thing. The rape charges may have not stuck but I'm not sure how all charges could have been dropped. At the least they should have been brought up on endangerment of a minor for leaving her out in the cold and exploitation of a minor for filming the rape and sending it to friends. Even if they can't convict of rape these seem pretty clear cut that charges should have been filed.

The crazy part is that the 15 year old boy who raped the 13 year old was actually charged but sent to Juvenile court so his identity was protected. It's really hard to see how charges could be brought against him but all other charges were dropped against Barnett and Zeke.

It pays to have connections.
 
right and Al is talking about written contracts. Technically, he should be talking about verbal contracts but I think we've taken this sidebar far enough as it is.

I believe the contract is void if the contract is so one sided that it isn't even fair though.
 
The fact that she was 13 made it an automatic statutory rape charge. All the prosecution needs to prove is that they had sex and I believe that was admitted to.

I hate laws like that frankly. Is it worse for a 15 year old to have sex with a 13 year old than a 17 year old with a 14 year old?

Well in this case the 15 year old admitted she told him no, but I get your point. Then again in Montana, a 53 year old only gets 30 days for sex with a 14 year old who committed suicide.

As far as intoxication, there are varying levels. A lot of these teen cases appear to involve girls who are passed out or nearly passed out and these boys videotape it to humiliate them. Really doesn't seem to be about sex as much as degradation.
 
right and Al is talking about written contracts. Technically, he should be talking about verbal contracts but I think we've taken this sidebar far enough as it is.

Sexual consent would obviously be more akin to a verbal contract, but I'd think it would apply to written contracts as well.

And again, as longtime said, it can be voidable. This is not a per se thing. A totality analysis would still come in to play.
 
The fact that she was 13 made it an automatic statutory rape charge. All the prosecution needs to prove is that they had sex and I believe that was admitted to.

I hate laws like that frankly. Is it worse for a 15 year old to have sex with a 13 year old than a 17 year old with a 14 year old?

I forgot about the the age difference for statutory in MO. And your right he did say she said no multiple times as did other people.

And agree that there is no difference as to the situations. They were both raped but because of Daisy's age Barnett gets off because she can "legally" consent. Which we know there was no way she could have based upon testimonies.
 
The fact that she was 13 made it an automatic statutory rape charge. All the prosecution needs to prove is that they had sex and I believe that was admitted to.

I hate laws like that frankly. Is it worse for a 15 year old to have sex with a 13 year old than a 17 year old with a 14 year old?

I'm pretty sure the article stated that the 15 year old admitted the 13 year old girl said no multiple times, but still did it anyway. Not that she was just 13

In fact here is a paragraph from the Kansas City Star
The younger girl, who admitted drinking that night but denied doing so after arriving at Barnett’s, said she went into a bedroom with the 15-year-old boy, who was an acquaintance. He is unidentified in this article because his case was handled in juvenile court, but sheriff’s records include his interview, in which he said that although the girl said “no” multiple times, he undressed her, put a condom on and had sex with her.
 
I'm pretty sure the article stated that the 15 year old admitted the 13 year old girl said no multiple times, but still did it anyway. Not that she was just 13

In fact here is a paragraph from the Kansas City Star

yes but did they charge him with sexual assault or statutory rape? My guess is they went with the slam dunk. I'm honestly not sure of the difference in penalties if convicted of either of those so it might not make a difference which crime they charged him with in which case they'd obviously go with the one that was easier to prove.
 
Without regards to this particular case, id generally agree with Al_4_State in that alcohol\intoxication alone shouldnt remove the ability to consent. When you are drunk you are generally held responsible for all your other actions (including the decision to get in a car or not), and i dont see why that shouldnt include giving a 'yes' to sex. Moreso, what if both parties are intoxicated? If you believe neither can consent would you then say that both raped each other?

And i agree that you have to hold tight reins on what the government can enforce. If the law can be used in a particular way to convict someone, it will, regardless of whether it was in the spirit of that law. Look at terrorism laws for examples or the cases where girls are being charged with child porn for images of themselves. It doesnt matter if 'most women wouldnt go crying to the police if they regretted it the next morning'. All it takes is one to completely **** up your life. Hell all it takes is one accusation made public to do that.
 
A survey of over 16,500 women in the United States found that one of every five women had been raped. I kind of doubt if one of every five men have had false accusations of rape against them but I haven't seen similar statistics. However, if the alcohol situation creates such a concern of false rape, perhaps they should not engage in sex if the partner has been drinking. After all, if someone really wants to have sex, wouldn't they also want to have sex when sober?:wideeyed:
 
A survey of over 16,500 women in the United States found that one of every five women had been raped. I kind of doubt if one of every five men have had false accusations of rape against them but I haven't seen similar statistics. However, if the alcohol situation creates such a concern of false rape, perhaps they should not engage in sex if the partner has been drinking. After all, if someone really wants to have sex, wouldn't they also want to have sex when sober?:wideeyed:

Are you kidding? Have you seen what all of us look like?:unsure:
 
A survey of over 16,500 women in the United States found that one of every five women had been raped. I kind of doubt if one of every five men have had false accusations of rape against them but I haven't seen similar statistics. However, if the alcohol situation creates such a concern of false rape, perhaps they should not engage in sex if the partner has been drinking. After all, if someone really wants to have sex, wouldn't they also want to have sex when sober?:wideeyed:

Dunno, I DO know they really want to have sex...
 
Are you kidding? Have you seen what all of us look like?:unsure:

:biggrin: yea, sort of kidding, sort of not. Isn't that what has been unsaid in all of this "false rape" discussion? Haven't guys for years been trying to get girls drunk to some extent because people are less inhibited when they have been drinking, at some point quit thinking as clearly, and eventually at some point, as I believe was the case of Daisy, are barely conscious? It seems to be dancing a dangerous line, that prudence might dictate a different course.

In my case, I had a roommate who got literally carried home by a guy from a party because she was so drunk. Even though she was all over him, he got her safely to bed by herself and left. I was pretty impressed with the guy. Been married to him for 28 years now.
 
A survey of over 16,500 women in the United States found that one of every five women had been raped. I kind of doubt if one of every five men have had false accusations of rape against them but I haven't seen similar statistics. However, if the alcohol situation creates such a concern of false rape, perhaps they should not engage in sex if the partner has been drinking. After all, if someone really wants to have sex, wouldn't they also want to have sex when sober?:wideeyed:


this infographic combined data from several sources, including the DOJ and the FBI. I would wager that false accusations of domestic abuse are far more common than false rape accusations, but I've never really heard much concern about that.

rapist_visualization_03.jpg


The Enliven Project – The truth about false accusation
 
Last edited:
:biggrin: yea, sort of kidding, sort of not. Isn't that what has been unsaid in all of this "false rape" discussion? Haven't guys for years been trying to get girls drunk to some extent because people are less inhibited when they have been drinking, at some point quit thinking as clearly, and eventually at some point, as I believe was the case of Daisy, are barely conscious? It seems to be dancing a dangerous line, that prudence might dictate a different course.

In my case, I had a roommate who got literally carried home by a guy from a party because she was so drunk. Even though she was all over him, he got her safely to bed by herself and left. I was pretty impressed with the guy. Been married to him for 28 years now.

Not just guys do that. Women do that as well, albeit to a lesser extent. I know I've woken up with regrets the other party didn't have.

Also, Cowgirl, I've seen the graphic before. I'm not saying it's not true but how do they know how many rapists there are? Is that reported cases or what?
 
Not just guys do that. Women do that as well, albeit to a lesser extent. I know I've woken up with regrets the other party didn't have.

Also, Cowgirl, I've seen the graphic before. I'm not saying it's not true but how do they know how many rapists there are? Is that reported cases or what?


the link includes a breakdown of their sources but they don't 100% know, they are estimating. The reporting estimates vary between about 5%-45%, which is a pretty big spread (10%-30% seems to be a more accepted range. Some of it depends on what is considered rape and if you go by actual rapists or occurrences (think about a situation where someone is repeatedly assaulted - that could count as 1 offender or X number of rapes). They used a 10% reporting estimate for this infographic. Reading their bit about the falsely accused was interesting too - that includes things like misidentifcation and the police/prosecutor types determining that the allegations were false - not just cases where the accuser dropped charges or the accused had been able to prove the charges false.
 
Not just guys do that. Women do that as well, albeit to a lesser extent. I know I've woken up with regrets the other party didn't have.

Also, Cowgirl, I've seen the graphic before. I'm not saying it's not true but how do they know how many rapists there are? Is that reported cases or what?

Yea, you make a good point about men too to some extent. My husband's best friend had a very bad case of closing time judgment. He would then proceed to keep hooking up with whatever woman he found truly annoying and made us all suffer being around them until the inevitable ugly split.
 
After all, if someone really wants to have sex, wouldn't they also want to have sex when sober?

I once heard Eric Clapton say that he'd never had a sexual encounter while sober in his life until after he'd kicked his heroin addiction...which I think was in his early thirties...
 
:biggrin: yea, sort of kidding, sort of not. Isn't that what has been unsaid in all of this "false rape" discussion? Haven't guys for years been trying to get girls drunk to some extent because people are less inhibited when they have been drinking, at some point quit thinking as clearly, and eventually at some point, as I believe was the case of Daisy, are barely conscious? It seems to be dancing a dangerous line, that prudence might dictate a different course.

In my case, I had a roommate who got literally carried home by a guy from a party because she was so drunk. Even though she was all over him, he got her safely to bed by herself and left. I was pretty impressed with the guy. Been married to him for 28 years now.

Does his boyfriend live with you too? :jimlad: