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.
It doesn't matter if she was so drunk she blacked out or was so inebriated she didn't know what all was going on: without her consent to have sex, it is a crime.
There was a case in TN a couple years ago in which a young woman at Vanderbilt University was out drinking with a guy from the football team and some other folks. She got super drunk and eventually blacked out. This player drove the girl back to his dorm, carried her in, and invited other team members to sexually assault her, as he organized and encouraged them. 2 of them are in prison for the next 17 years and another 2 were also arrested but I'm not sure the status of their cases. There is video of him carrying her in to the dorm, carrying her into his room, and vandalizing the camera in the hallway to try and hide it.
And that's where I think the jury shows a bias in favor of the defendant and were never going to convict him of anything let alone of the more serious charge of rape no matter what as in their mind he could do no wrong. Had there been video of the rape, they would've concluded, "Why that was just rough consensual sex". This was just an "OJ Simpson" jury.
To be honest, my objection isn't so much he was acquitted but the preferential treatment he received. If he was an average Joe, even a white "privileged" one, he would've been convicted.
If this was an OJ Simpson jury, I trust them even more so to have gotten it "right."
OJ was guilty as sin, but the jury in that case did what they were supposed to do: evaluate the evidence and reach a conclusion of guilt or innocence based on applicable law. That case was lost for the prosecution once OJ couldn't fit the gloves they claimed he used to commit the murders. After that debacle, no attempt to try toe explain away why the gloves didn't fit was going to sway the jury. The prosecution lost that case; I wouldn't blame the jury for that one.
Similarly, I trust the jury to have gotten this case right based on all the evidence available to it, which has not been made available to the public.
I, too, have some misgivings about the special treatment given to Cleaves, to include how the police treated him on the night of the alleged incident, but that's another story in my view.
OJ was guilty as sin, but the jury in that case did what they were supposed to do: evaluate the evidence and reach a conclusion of guilt or innocence based on applicable law.
Actually what's come out since is feedback from a few jurors that the jury just wanted to get out so bad after being sequestered for 9 months, they didn't evaluate the evidence. At least one juror was also heard saying, "this is payback for Rodney King." Then there was the juror who gave the black power salute and was witnessed signaling to the defense team the verdict before it was read.
That case was lost the minute the jury was selected.
Someone who is not an officer of the law has no legal right to restraint or prevent another adult from leaving a situation in which there's been no crime committed against the person or property of the restrainer. That is kidnapping.
Touching another without their permission (i.e. just as this guy did as seen on video as he's dragging and pulling this woman back towards his motel room) is considered battery. It doesn't matter why he did it, he legally had no right.
Twice she left and twice he coerced and physically restrained her and pulled her or dragged her back. She had the right to leave whether she was wearing clothes or not.
So from that video I know 2 things:
1. He committed battery
2. He kidnapped
I also believe he sexually assaulted this woman, based on her pleading for help from another person right there as she was being dragged back as well as the both of them without clothes on.
You can make all the excuses you want, but despite the jury acquitting him, he did commit more than 1 crime.
Not true.
By the way, this is the definition of "kidnapping" under Michigan law:
750.349 Kidnapping; "restrain" defined; violation as felony; penalty; other violation arising from same transaction.
Sec. 349.
(1) A person commits the crime of kidnapping if he or she knowingly restrains another person with the intent to do 1 or more of the following:
(a) Hold that person for ransom or reward.
(b) Use that person as a shield or hostage.
(c) Engage in criminal sexual penetration or criminal sexual contact prohibited under chapter LXXVI with that person.
(d) Take that person outside of this state.
(e) Hold that person in involuntary servitude.
(f) Engage in child sexually abusive activity, as that term is defined in section 145c, with that person, if that person is a minor.
(2) As used in this section, "restrain" means to restrict a person's movements or to confine the person so as to interfere with that person's liberty without that person's consent or without legal authority. The restraint does not have to exist for any particular length of time and may be related or incidental to the commission of other criminal acts.
(3) A person who commits the crime of kidnapping is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for life or any term of years or a fine of not more than $50,000.00, or both.
(4) This section does not prohibit the person from being charged with, convicted of, or sentenced for any other violation of law arising from the same transaction as the violation of this section.
Well, that's a good point. I don't know if it was addressed. There appears to be some blacking out in the car until they got to the hotel. I think she was awake and alert and walked into the motel of her own volition; supposedly that's on video. Guess it's possible she could have blacked out after. She does admit there's stuff she doesn't remember. But she never said she was shocked to wake up and find herself undressed--just that he was kissing her and then tried to penetrate her.
I think a drunk, blackening out woman will tolerate certain things, even laying together naked, but something in their primordial make up will kick in if someone tries to penetrate without that primordial consent.
I'm not totally opposed to "date rape" not being a crime or not being a conviction, I'm opposed to the preferential treatment this black sports celeb got. In any other case this would be a crime and a conviction.
I believe there was intent to the forceful restraining of this woman.
She left twice. She pleaded to another person for help. TWICE he dragged her back. It's on video, no dispute on that.
Argue all you want. I think a crime was committed and I would have voted that way.
The question isn't whether there was intent to forcefully restrain someone. Re-read the law that I posted.
Its clear that you believe that, which is a conclusion that you come to without having all of the facts before you I, on the other hand, trust the jury that had more evidence that you (or I) have.
The video leaves no reasonable doubt that she was trying to escape a non-consensual sexual encounter. I'm not buying that any woman, intoxicated or not, runs out of a room naked away from a man because she's "crazy". It just doesn't happen. Women run away naked from a man to avoid a man who is violating her consent.
I'm not a feminazi, but I will say that it really irritates me when people want to label the female as "drunk and unstable", but never pay attention to the fact that the male could have also been drunk and/or unstable. Sober, since he's some sports "hero", perhaps he's not - then again, just because someone is a doctor, lawyer, athlete, celebrity, doesn't mean they are not unstable - we just don't see it. And since he was also at the bar, and he smelled of alcohol when he refused the breathalyzer, why is no one talking about how drunk HE might have been?
"Oh, she ran out of the room half naked? Clearly she's unstable and he had to drag her back into the room, twice, despite her yelling for help, because he wanted to avoid an 'embarrassing scene'."
And then these very posters have the audacity to tell everyone else to change their minds?
"She didn't tell the cops she was assaulted, therefore, she wasn't." Nope. That does not mean that every single time.
Again, it is very clear that the cops were treating this sports "hero" with kid gloves. He had alcohol breath, refused a breathalyzer, and instead of taking him to the station to draw blood, "hey, whatevs, ya didn't kill anyone on the road, we'll give you a ride home."
Yeah, cause that happens to everybody. It is possible that because of how they treated him is why she didn't tell them that night, while all of them were standing there.
But no, it's because she was "drunk and unstable". If she's that drunk, she cannot consent. If she's that unstable, she cannot consent.
The video plainly shows, very clearly, that she is resisting him pulling her back into the room. He had no right to pull her back in the room. If she's so damn drunk and unstable, he should have contacted the police to help him.
The question isn't whether there was intent to forcefully restrain someone. Re-read the law that I posted.
Its clear that you believe that, which is a conclusion that you come to without having all of the facts before you I, on the other hand, trust the jury that had more evidence that you (or I) have.
Juries convict innocent men so of course they acquit men who are guilty as sin like OJ for instance.
I don't care so much about the acquittal as much about the special treatment he got. And black jurors generally won't convicted a black person who victimizes a white person.
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.
I, on the other hand, trust the jury that had more evidence that you (or I) have.
