15-year-old raped in court: Rapist gets probation, teen gets 12 mo

Remove all ads!

There are scant few papers in the country that are the Times, but that does not mean that other papers are not "fairly" accurate. I read the Daily News years ago and it seemed fine, but it may have changed.

The story in the Daily seemed fine to me. Let's take a look at the story since now the focus is away from the actual case (and Simmons) and the "media" is now the topic.

 

Most people in the northeast regard the Daily News as an excellent source for news if you are interested in finding out about the Yankees, Mets, Giants, Jets, Knicks, Nets, Rangers or Islanders. It's basically regarded as a sports newspaper. While it does cover other news stories, it's one of the top choices of newspapers in the northeast for sports enthusiasts - especially if you root for one of the NY teams.

That is not to say that the story reported is not fair, or in any way inaccurate. I'm just pointing out that most regular readers of the Daily News go there for the sports first, and other considerations are secondary.

 

Gaear - You seem to have some pretty good knowledge of how this stuff works. It's very interesting.

 

Thanks for pointing that out Aldeth, I see what you mean. I was relatively just giving it a shot in the dark on the "consent" counts. The "age" charges are much easier to assess.

I clearly stated that I was no lawyer and I was just proposing some options: one of my points stands though, no? If the 16 year old was forced that is 1st degree, if the 13 year old had any sex that is 2nd degree. Why would he be charged with anything less if he admitted to forcing someone to have sex.

Chandos, I never said that everything the media put out was a lie. I never said Ashley was a punk, and to my recollection the most I ever suggested was that she possibly did something criminal in the false police report charge. I'm relatively certain I didn't bring up who she was/her history of accused lying at all during the rape charges.

I'm sorry we disagree so vehemently on this point Chandos, but I can see this is going nowhere, so I will say I respect your opinion and withdraw from this thread.

 

I was really quoting NOG. That is his comment:

I certainly never meant to imply that you felt that way, Rahkir. Sorry if it appeared so.

 

If you really believe that, then you're delusional. The only agenda that I've admitted to is one of exploring all possibilities. You seem insistent on taking my words out of context in order to portray me as having an anti-media agenda. I don't. It was a possibility, as media is not 100% reliable, especially on anything sensational, but I also addressed the possibility that it was being accurately reported in my first post. Again, you seem determined to willfully ignore all such posts, unless you try to blatantly mischaracterize them as 'evil defense lawyer double-speak'.

Yes, it's official, you're on a witch hunt. And now you've expanded it. This specter, this boogeyman of the evil assault on the creadibility of the media that you're obsessed with is only the product of your own imagination.

It seems to me that it is you that has the agenda, one of demonizing the ADA. Tell me, if you accept the media reports of the trial, why is it you don't believe the media report of the ADA's objections? The report from the article you yourself found and cited.

Except that, if that is what happened, he'd still be convicted of what he pled guilty to, if not worse (I'm still not sure what exactly he pled to). So, in essence, it wouldn't change anything but the media opinion of a closed case.

All in all, though, I agree with Rahkir's assessment of the crimes. If force was involved, he should have been charged with at least one (possibly more) count of Rape in the First. Though, that may be changed if they don't consider a BJ to qualify as 'sexual intercourse'. I imagine it should be, but legalese can be funny.

 

No offense taken whatsoever.

We agree on the important thing: forced non-consent rapes need to be punished to a much harsher degree than a probation sentence.

[To my previous statement, I meant withdraw myself from this debate, not this thread]

 

You are a hoot.

I'm sure.

OMG! The guy just botched it, as has been pointed out in the media. You just get funnier. The media report cited that he did NOT object to probation. As I stated, my agenda was to prevent you from making these young girls victims all over again by being dragged back through the mud. And in that, I feel I have succeeded.

Really, at this point, I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. It sounds to me, you are saying that there was consent, but then you say, its just really some vague possibility. You are just making stuff up as you go along. And as I commented, I'm unmoved by all the empty rhetoric.

But I will be watching this case to see if there are any new facts.

 

From your own source:

Of course, that media source presented it as an uncorroborated claim. But then, that media source apparently failed to further investigate the claim, so I don't know that I trust them on the point.

As I said, you need to distance yourself from this. I presented a theory. Yes, a guess, that's what a theory is. A guess that fits the known facts, one that is intended to be tested and, if possible, disproven. That you think I'm trying to drag them through the mud, and that it's your job to defend them, is obvious proof that you're far too emotionally attached to a news report about an event that, as far as I know, has nothing directly to do to you. If you were to say this girl is actually your cousin, then it'd make a lot more sense. Your irrational, emotional (note that that's an observation, not necessarily a criticism) response would be perfectly appropriate.

A few mistakes. One, I'm not trying to prove anything. I've said that numerous times. I don't know why you think I'm still trying to prove anything. Two, I only made things up once, and admitted it at the time. After that, I was just running with the possibility. Nothing more was made up, despite your numerous assertions to the contrary.. The fact that the worst of the original charges was rape in the third was all the support I needed to allow for the possibility. Third, the idea that this is empty rhetoric. Far to the contrary, this is a critical analysis of an alternative possibility. If we had any real decision making power, this would be critical. Ignoring a possibility like this, which you were so eager to do, is exactly how people get falsely convicted of rape and murder on one emotional plea and nothing more. Of course, since we don't have any real power (thank God), this was nothing more than a mental exercise. There's no need to defend anyone's honor. There are no reputations at stake here. Neither she nor he has any with any of us, and the odds that we'll ever meet either of them is next to nil.

Ultimately, though, I fail to see how you got so attached to this in the first place. How is this any different than the cop and the professor, or the Chinese dissident that got the Nobel Prize, or any of our numerous discussions on atheism vs religion?

 

Yes, I know. You are back-tracking a bit now, from where you first began, and having at least some measure of second thoughts. I am glad that you decided to rethink that to some extent.

There are times when a person "needs" to stand up for what's right. As I said, you are back-tracking a bit now, or at least you seem to be, which is a good thing.

I believe the tone of your post is much more reasonable. Why should we continue to fight amongst ourselves when things seem to have fallen into some proper perspective? The only point I would add is that it is tragic when a situation like this arises within our institutions. The person in question was supposed to be "working" with troubled youths within our justice institutions; preventing them from falling into the kind of life that would lead them further into major problems and on the wrong side of society and the law. It's a damn shame that we even have to have a thread like this is the first place.

 

Back-tracking? Rethink? My theory has been disproven and, as any good researcher should, I'm admitting that and moving on, but I wouldn't call that either rethinking or back-tracking. Just moving on. Again, you seem to believe that I was convinced, that I was ardently defending it. I wasn't.

Well, whatever suits your "needs", I guess.

I don't think I've changed my tone at all, but if you want to see it as such, then so be it.

This has been brought up from the beginning, but I do agree. Everyone in any position of power needs to be carefully watched, especially if they're working with vulnerable people of the opposite sex (or same sex in some cases). Unfortunately, the very people that watch over them are, themselves, in positions of power. And so on. It's a damn shame that these things ever happen, and the punishment for them should be severe, but sadly should and are don't always coincide. Here, to be clear, I'm lamenting the failure of the judge and (possibly) ADA as much as of the counselor.

 

Take a look at your previous posts.

It's about time you figured that out. It took you long enough, the way in which you kept spouting "you need to...."

Yeah, actually you were, while you were pretending, though feebly, you weren't.

Again, your previous posts say something different. But you are certainly back-tracking, even more so now in this post, while even more strongly denying it.

 

Yes, I completely agree. I still can't figure out how we ended up fighting over a thread like this, when we can all agree on that point, at least I hope we can.

 

Awww ... GROUP HUG!

*mrrff*

 

... Gay.

 

Have I told you that you have a nice butt, mordea? *wink, wink*

 

How would you know that?