Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Or it shows the forcible restraint of an unstable person (perhaps only temporarily unstable). The forcible restraint and removal to an enclosed area is not inherently kidnapping.
If someone is truly unstable enough that the person needs to be restrained then the person isn't capable of consenting to sex. Thus, it would still be rape.
If someone is truly unstable enough that the person needs to be restrained then the person isn't capable of consenting to sex. Thus, it would still be rape.
Not necessarily. But this is why I specifically mentioned "perhaps only temporarily unstable." Your position would assume that--under my hypothetical--the woman became manic/unstable before sexual activity began. I've seen completely calm people go into instant fits of rage/disgust over something they heard or saw.
I really don't see how whatever her statements were is relevant here. We see what we see.
Whether she initially was embarrassed that she went to a man's hotel room, whether she initially consented to sex, whether she was in fact too drunk to clearly remember all the details, we have video.
Of him chasing her, and dragging her against his will back to his room yelling to a witness for help. TWICE.
To me, that trumps everything else. We SEE what he does, and she's trying her best to get away.
The fact that there were 9 women on the jury isn't a point for justice. Many women will throw other women under the bus same as look at them. She might have gotten a fairer shake if the jury was made up of fathers of young women her age.
On the surface, and using the video as the only point of consideration, it appears quite clear that he was using force against her as she was strenuously attempting to escape him. So, using that evidence only, it seems unconscionable how a jury could reach a not guilty verdict. However, we either have a jury that was simply ignoring the evidence in deference to a local celebrity, or, there is much more to the story that none of us are aware of.
Hypothetically speaking, (I’m not suggesting this is what happened, just a potential explanation to consider) let’s ponder the possibility that this woman has a history of mental illness, and alcoholism. People suffering mental illness can act irrationally, and be triggered by anything. Let’s say she had spent some time with him throughout the evening, and signaling clear signs of her desire for sexual relations. They proceed to the hotel, and begin having sex (consensual). Moments later, his phone rings, and up pops the picture of some other woman on the screen. She flips out, and becomes irrational, throwing an intoxicated fit. She then proceeds to leave the room and go out into the public view half naked and drunk. He then tries to retrieve her, and bring her back to the room in an attempt to calm her down from the fit she’s throwing. No further sex is engaged in at this point, and he is simply trying to avoid an embarrassing scene by getting her back inside, out of the public view, and calm her down. In that context, did he rape her? The answer would be no, in spite of the video that strongly suggests otherwise.
So, again, we either have a jury that for whatever reason, chose to ignore the evidence of his guilt, and acquitted him because of their own bias, or there is much more to the story than just the video.
If someone is truly unstable enough that the person needs to be restrained then the person isn't capable of consenting to sex. Thus, it would still be rape.
No, the demonstration of instability, be it from mental illness or drug/alcohol intoxication could have occurred after the consensual sex had already been engaged in. If you’re in a bar with a stranger, drinking and fooling around, you’re not going to be able to predict an episode..... I’ve seen people that seemed fine one minute, and out of control moments later .... all it took was that last drink to push them over the edge.
I can't explain it. Perhaps after having consensual sex Mateen made an inappropriate joke about the woman's body and she stormed out in protest? I don't know. But then again I don't have all of the evidence. I think it was clear from the video that the woman didn't want to be in the room with Mateen. But, again, that doesn't prove rape or sexual assault.
This is where some prosecutors make a case for circumstantial evidence. Don't know if they decided to try that here. Circumstantial evidence is a concept I still don't understand though I've tried. Looked at a lot of cases over the years. Our justice system can be pretty murky. One example: how in the world did Scott Petersen get convicted when there wasn't one shred of physical evidence tying him to the crime he was accused of? "Circumstantial evidence" is the answer I most often saw as the reason. Another example: Aaron Hernandez was convicted even though the jury said it had no idea who pulled the trigger - could have been Hernandez, could have been someone else. They convicted him based on a provision in Massachusetts law that says if two or more people are present at the scene of the crime and someone in that group committed the crime, it's not necessary to know who. Everyone is guilty. A different example: there's something called "felony murder". It's a doozy and is coming under a tremendous amount of scrutiny right now. https://theappeal.org/curtis-brooks-...life-sentence/
About the Cleaves case, when I look at the video I have no reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty as charged. For me what's shown on that video is strong circumstantial evidence. But it's also clear that because of the way our justice system is designed a jury can pretty much come to any conclusion it wants to.
On the surface, and using the video as the only point of consideration, it appears quite clear that he was using force against her as she was strenuously attempting to escape him. So, using that evidence only, it seems unconscionable how a jury could reach a not guilty verdict. However, we either have a jury that was simply ignoring the evidence in deference to a local celebrity, or, there is much more to the story that none of us are aware of.
Hypothetically speaking, (I’m not suggesting this is what happened, just a potential explanation to consider) let’s ponder the possibility that this woman has a history of mental illness, and alcoholism. People suffering mental illness can act irrationally, and be triggered by anything. Let’s say she had spent some time with him throughout the evening, and signaling clear signs of her desire for sexual relations. They proceed to the hotel, and begin having sex (consensual). Moments later, his phone rings, and up pops the picture of some other woman on the screen. She flips out, and becomes irrational, throwing an intoxicated fit. She then proceeds to leave the room and go out into the public view half naked and drunk. He then tries to retrieve her, and bring her back to the room in an attempt to calm her down from the fit she’s throwing. No further sex is engaged in at this point, and he is simply trying to avoid an embarrassing scene by getting her back inside, out of the public view, and calm her down. In that context, did he rape her? The answer would be no, in spite of the video that strongly suggests otherwise.
So, again, we either have a jury that for whatever reason, chose to ignore the evidence of his guilt, and acquitted him because of their own bias, or there is much more to the story than just the video.
Precisely. There are clearly things we don't know and its not outside of the realm of possibility (or even potentially probability) that a hypothetical like the one you posed could occur.
This is where some prosecutors make a case for circumstantial evidence. Don't know if they decided to try that here. Circumstantial evidence is a concept I still don't understand though I've tried. Looked at a lot of cases over the years. Our justice system can be pretty murky. One example: how in the world did Scott Petersen get convicted when there wasn't one shred of physical evidence tying him to the crime he was accused of? "Circumstantial evidence" is the answer I most often saw as the reason. Another example: Aaron Hernandez was convicted even though the jury said it had no idea who pulled the trigger - could have been Hernandez, could have been someone else. They convicted him based on a provision in Massachusetts law that says if two or more people are present at the scene of the crime and someone in that group committed the crime, it's not necessary to know who. Everyone is guilty. A different example: there's something called "felony murder". It's a doozy and is coming under a tremendous amount of scrutiny right now. https://theappeal.org/curtis-brooks-...life-sentence/
About the Cleaves case, when I look at the video I have no reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty as charged. For me what's shown on that video is strong circumstantial evidence. But it's also clear that because of the way our justice system is designed a jury can pretty much come to any conclusion it wants to.
Yes, the case here was somewhat circumstantial. I know it can be a difficult concept to understand (I'm an attorney, so I've had plenty of time to learn what it is), but essentially circumstantial evidence (in the legal sense) is any kind of evidence where a trier of fact (i.e. a jury or judge) has to infer that something happened based on evidence that doesn't not directly show that something happened. For instance, someone breaks into a closed bank and escapes with $50,000 in cash. An eye witness claims to have seen a 5'10" man running from the direction of bank and driving off in a red Ford Mustang, but did not see the man committing any crime specifically. The police--acting on the eye witness' account--arrest 20 minutes later a man in a red Ford Mustang. The man appears to be sweating and out of breath, which leads police to believe that he is the perp; the money is never located. Without the money or other direct evidence tying the man to the bank robbery (i.e. video footage or eye witness testimony where someone actually saw the man stealing the goods), any attempt to tie the man to the crime is based entirely on inference. Specifically, that the man was in a red Ford Mustang and sweating, so some may infer that the man was sweating from running and engaging in the bank heist.
In this case, I write that it is based on somewhat circumstantial evidence because you did have an eyewitness account of what happened (i.e. the accuser, who claimed to have been raped by Cleaves). On its face, that is not a purely circumstantial account as you have eye witness testimony (i.e. direct evidence) from someone who experienced the alleged crime herself. When the jury decided to disregard the accuser's testimony, however, the case in essence became one based on circumstantial evidence, in which the jury had to infer that a rape took place based on video and testimony that does not show a crime.
You write stuff like the above...then turn around and claim you're trying to get more information.... That's a whopper. Double whopper, extra cheesy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC
I don't need to know what happened before and after.
I can see it with my own eyes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC
If you're referring to me, I don't "just know" he is guilty.
I keep asking, and there don't seem to be media resources to answer this question, what were the "lies" that the woman told, and what was the mitigating information the jury considered that caused them to dismiss a video of her trying to escape from him two times?
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 2 days ago)
35,588 posts, read 17,927,273 times
Reputation: 50620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
You write stuff like the above...then turn around and claim you're trying to get more information.... That's a whopper. Double whopper, extra cheesy.
I AM trying to get more information, and have asked a few times, and others have agreed there isn't really a lot more details to explain the jury decision.
Whether it comes across as sincere here, I guess that's up to everyone's interpretation.
I am completely open to saying the jury was correct, she consented to sexual activity. I just have no information as to why they did that, in the fact of this very concerning video.
I DON'T need to know what went on in the hotel room to know - for absolute sure - she was trying to get away from him, and he was dragging her back against her will. THAT much is absolutely clear - he's at least guilty of kidnapping and holding her hostage against her will. And that's what I mean, I don't need further information to know that for sure.
About whether the sexual interaction was consensual, I don't have the information - and it appears no one else here can find it either - that made the jury convinced he was innocent.
He was NOT innocent of kidnapping and illegally detaining her.
(maybe some of the confusion comes from the fact that I am truly seeking new information, and have no trouble acknowledging new information and changing my mind in cases like this.)
I AM trying to get more information, and have asked a few times, and others have agreed there isn't really a lot more details to explain the jury decision.
Whether it comes across as sincere here, I guess that's up to everyone's interpretation.
I am completely open to saying the jury was correct, she consented to sexual activity. I just have no information as to why they did that, in the fact of this very concerning video.
I DON'T need to know what went on in the hotel room to know - for absolute sure - she was trying to get away from him, and he was dragging her back against her will. THAT much is absolutely clear - he's at least guilty of kidnapping and holding her hostage against her will. And that's what I mean, I don't need further information to know that for sure.
About whether the sexual interaction was consensual, I don't have the information - and it appears no one else here can find it either - that made the jury convinced he was innocent.
He was NOT innocent of kidnapping and illegally detaining her.
(maybe some of the confusion comes from the fact that I am truly seeking new information, and have no trouble acknowledging new information and changing my mind in cases like this.)
By law, he is. Cleaves was also charged with kidnapping/unlawful detainment. But he was acquitted of that, too. The jury bought Cleaves' explanation and disregarded the accuser's explanation and, thus, decided that kidnapping/illegal detainment did not occur. No one denies that Cleaves forcibly detained the woman; that's clear as day from the video. But kidnapping/unlawful detainment requires intent to engage in such prohibited activity. Cleaves offered an explanation that showed legal justification for his actions and the jury agreed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's a whopper. Double whopper, extra cheesy.
