PDA

View Full Version : Trouble Ahead for Michigan State?



slower
09-30-2010, 10:39 AM
http://michiganmessenger.com/42253/msu-sexual-assault

No charges have been filed - yet.

Bluedevil114
09-30-2010, 11:21 AM
The police report indicates that one of the two players corroborated the victim’s story in his statement to police. Although the MSU Police Department forwarded the report to the prosecutor’s office with a recommendation that the men be charged with Criminal Sexual Conduct 1 — the most serious level of sexual assault under state law — Dunnings has declined to prosecute the case.

If one of the two players confirmed the victim's story that seems like an open and shut case unless there is some "home cooking" going on here??

ice-9
09-30-2010, 02:06 PM
The Duke Lacrosse case shows how exhausting, draining and destuctive a high profile rape case can be.

Still, the article linked makes Dunnings and his office look really bad. It's kinda unbelievable that they won't prosecute given one of the two players corroborated the story...maybe there's something else that hasn't been revealed that's critical.

It'll be interesting to see what Izzo does about something like this.

Jim3k
09-30-2010, 09:08 PM
In a rape case the question is: Did the sexual intercourse objectively appear consensual or forcible? Here, it is clear to me that the DA's office has properly utilized objective criteria. This woman never said stop; not did she try to leave; nor did she resist in a way that would suggest lack of consent. Indeed, she took off clothing in response to what may have been a joke, implying that she was giving her consent.

Her subjective state of mind is not evidence which can be used. She may have thought the men were too big to resist; but what else can she provide to demonstrate that she was not giving her consent? The DA sees nothing, nor would most attorneys.

El_Diablo
09-30-2010, 09:18 PM
Well, this doesn't exactly sound consensual...


The victim told detectives the players allegedly asked her “how does that feel?” and “how do you want it?” The victim says she told the players she didn’t want it and gave “other indicators she was not a willing participant.”

The victim told police that the players pinned her down, but at one point she freed her arms momentarily and struck one of the players in the face. The player was on top of her and in response to her hitting him, he allegedly said, “Don’t. Just relax. C’mon,” as he continued to assault her, the report says.

Jim3k
10-01-2010, 12:08 AM
Well, this doesn't exactly sound consensual...


The victim told detectives the players allegedly asked her “how does that feel?” and “how do you want it?” The victim says she told the players she didn’t want it and gave “other indicators she was not a willing participant.”

The victim told police that the players pinned her down, but at one point she freed her arms momentarily and struck one of the players in the face. The player was on top of her and in response to her hitting him, he allegedly said, “Don’t. Just relax. C’mon,” as he continued to assault her, the report says.

With all due respect and keeping the right of a woman to be free of sexual assault in the forefront, this is about as weak a claim of force as can be made. Without being too technical, asking how one wants it or how it feels is consistent with consent--looking for mutual joy. She says she told them she didn't want it, but it all started with her taking her clothes off. Again, consent. And if she struggled after intercourse began, it's too late to revoke the consent. If she didn't want intercourse, she should have said so before it was underway. Finally, the police report of "other indicators" is just bad police work. Does anyone know what that even means?

This woman needs to chalk this up to being drunk and losing her good sense in the moment. Happens all the time. And regret from such sex happens frequently. But at the time of the activity, she will never be deemed to have been forced -- because, objectively, she wasn't. The DA understands it and will not prosecute. Nor should he.

SeattleIrish
10-01-2010, 12:55 AM
With all due respect and keeping the right of a woman to be free of sexual assault in the forefront, this is about as weak a claim of force as can be made. Without being too technical, asking how one wants it or how it feels is consistent with consent--looking for mutual joy. She says she told them she didn't want it, but it all started with her taking her clothes off. Again, consent. And if she struggled after intercourse began, it's too late to revoke the consent. If she didn't want intercourse, she should have said so before it was underway. Finally, the police report of "other indicators" is just bad police work. Does anyone know what that even means?

This woman needs to chalk this up to being drunk and losing her good sense in the moment. Happens all the time. And regret from such sex happens frequently. But at the time of the activity, she will never be deemed to have been forced -- because, objectively, she wasn't. The DA understands it and will not prosecute. Nor should he.

With all due respect to your intended due respect, one can take off one's clothes without consenting to sex. One can also withdraw consent at any point. I think you are coming from a particularly male perspective to say one should "chalk up" rape. Or to shrug off rape with "Happens all the time."

I appreciate you sharing your opinion, but your response struck me as strikingly callous. It is hard to read your response, despite your opening claim, as "keeping the right of a woman to be free of sexual assualt..." in the forefront or even in the picture at all.

s.i.

Jim3k
10-01-2010, 02:45 AM
With all due respect to your intended due respect, one can take off one's clothes without consenting to sex. One can also withdraw consent at any point. I think you are coming from a particularly male perspective to say one should "chalk up" rape. Or to shrug off rape with "Happens all the time."

I appreciate you sharing your opinion, but your response struck me as strikingly callous. It is hard to read your response, despite your opening claim, as "keeping the right of a woman to be free of sexual assualt..." in the forefront or even in the picture at all.

s.i.

I suspect you don't really understand the crime or what it takes to prosecute this kind of crime. I understand the crime just fine after almost 44 years in the law. And rape qualifies as heinous. But it takes facts to support it. And you are simply wrong to claim that the woman can withdraw her consent at any time. She can withdraw it up to the point preceding penetration. After that, it can't be withdrawn because the act remains consensual. She can always ask the man to stop, and he might choose to. But it would still be consensual, even if he didn't. Otherwise, where would you draw the line? (After halfway through intercourse, she called a halt, and therefore the second half is rape? -- Don't be silly.)

After reading your post, I have the feeling that you have joined the group that protested the Duke lacrosse players without knowing the facts. (And, if you have the capability, feel free to check my posts on the old lacrosse board to see whether my instincts and analysis turned out to be correct.)

As for being callous, I'd say I'm simply being a realist. But I confess that criminal lawyering is a callous business. (I don't practice in that field for that very reason.) It's great to support women; I've done so for 37 years and have two daughters. You clearly don't understand where I'm coming from--my starting point is not from a platform of social rights and wrongs, but from the law.

Richard Berg
10-01-2010, 04:29 AM
She can always ask the man to stop, and he might choose to. But it would still be consensual, even if he didn't.
That's a definition of "consensual" I'm unfamiliar with.

Jim3k
10-01-2010, 05:02 AM
Since there is some degree of emotion and ignorance of the definition, I supply the common law rule and the Michigan statute.

Common Law: "The carnal knowledge of a women not one’s wife by force or against her will." Among other things 'carnal knowledge' is a vague term requiring a great deal of judicial interpretation concerning such matters as penetration; same for force and will, as well as unpredictable jury variance. "Against her will" was commonly changed to "without her consent."

Obviously, the common law rule is too limiting, too unclear and subject to too many varying interpretations; as a result, many states redefined it. The Michigan statute in question can be found at this link (http://law.justia.com/michigan/codes/2006/mcl-chap750/mcl-750-520b.html).

If any of you think the facts set forth in the story meet these statutory criteria, have at it. I'm willing to be persuaded. The DA wasn't.

moonpie23
10-01-2010, 08:15 AM
jim, i am not a lawyer, and i've not been involved in the intricate details of defending or prosecuting a rape case, but i'm a bit confused with your statements.

are you saying that a woman loses her "consent" as soon as intercourse begins? that if she says "no" at any point, that it's not "by force" or "rape" if the male continues from that point?

this is the LAW? or this is how a trial is wrangled?

El_Diablo
10-01-2010, 09:04 AM
Since there is some degree of emotion and ignorance of the definition, I supply the common law rule and the Michigan statute.

Common Law: "The carnal knowledge of a women not one’s wife by force or against her will." Among other things 'carnal knowledge' is a vague term requiring a great deal of judicial interpretation concerning such matters as penetration; same for force and will, as well as unpredictable jury variance. "Against her will" was commonly changed to "without her consent."

Obviously, the common law rule is too limiting, too unclear and subject to too many varying interpretations; as a result, many states redefined it. The Michigan statute in question can be found at this link (http://law.justia.com/michigan/codes/2006/mcl-chap750/mcl-750-520b.html).

If any of you think the facts set forth in the story meet these statutory criteria, have at it. I'm willing to be persuaded. The DA wasn't.

You seem to be conflating "taking off one's shirt when there is another shirt underneath" with "giving consent to sexual intercourse." Maybe you're drawing some extra inferences there, but I'm sure you're aware that the victim does not necessarily have to reject the advance or physically object to demonstrate lack of consent. Being physically intimidated into initial silence (e.g., when two large men take off their clothes and block the exit) does not necessarily reflect consent. And although I'm not sure how it's dealt with in Michigan, but usually a victim intoxicated by alcohol or drugs is incapable of giving legal consent, so I'm not sure I agree with your "eh, chalk it up to being drunk" approach.

As for the statute:

"A person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree if he or she engages in sexual penetration with another person and if . . .
(d) The actor is aided or abetted by 1 or more other persons and either of the following circumstances exists:
(ii) The actor uses force or coercion to accomplish the sexual penetration."

The definition of force or coercion is not all-inclusive, but it does cover "(v) When the actor . . . is able to overcome the victim."

She said she felt she was prevented from leaving by the two men, she did not agree to have sex, she was pinned down, she explicitly said she didn't want it, and she physically resisted. That seems to meet all the elements of the offense, no? I'm not saying she's necessarily telling the truth, but her version (as told) does not indicate consent.

Dukeface88
10-01-2010, 01:38 PM
jim, i am not a lawyer, and i've not been involved in the intricate details of defending or prosecuting a rape case, but i'm a bit confused with your statements.

are you saying that a woman loses her "consent" as soon as intercourse begins? that if she says "no" at any point, that it's not "by force" or "rape" if the male continues from that point?

this is the LAW? or this is how a trial is wrangled?

Legally, it depends on the jurisdiction. North Carolina, Maryland and New Jersey courts have held that consent must be withdrawn before the act begins. Alaska, California, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and Vermont courts have held consent can be withdrawn at any time. Information is from 33 A.L.R.6th 353, if Jim or someone else wants to check.

ArnieMc
10-04-2010, 10:48 AM
After reading your post, I have the feeling that you have joined the group that protested the Duke lacrosse players without knowing the facts. (And, if you have the capability, feel free to check my posts on the old lacrosse board to see whether my instincts and analysis turned out to be correct.)Your instincts were to throw the accused players, the rest of the team, and the entire lacrosse program under the bus for the good of the University. What was the word you used? "Excess?" In my opinion, your instincts and analysis turned out to be incorrect, and the lacrosse program turned out to be of benefit to the University.

(Yeah, I know. PPB, ad hominem, etc., but he started it, and someone had to call him on it.)

darthur
10-04-2010, 11:35 AM
The Duke Lacrosse case shows how exhausting, draining and destuctive a high profile rape case can be.

Still, the article linked makes Dunnings and his office look really bad. It's kinda unbelievable that they won't prosecute given one of the two players corroborated the story...maybe there's something else that hasn't been revealed that's critical.

For what it's worth, the article doesn't really impress me with the corroboration. One player said the girl wanted to stop at some point halfway through, and the other player tried to "coax" her into continuing. In his opinion, they were both "disrespectful" to her. There is no mention in the article of the hitting being corroborated. I can't imagine this kind of statement would make a big a difference in court.

BD80
10-04-2010, 11:39 AM
Your instincts were to throw the accused players, the rest of the team, and the entire lacrosse program under the bus for the good of the University. What was the word you used? "Excess?" In my opinion, your instincts and analysis turned out to be incorrect, and the lacrosse program turned out to be of benefit to the University.(Yeah, I know. PPB, ad hominem, etc., but he started it, and someone had to call him on it.)

As funny as that sounded to me, and I did chuckle, if you checked the record, and you are correct, I say "have at it!"

For the record, I recall blaming the administration for the lacrosse scandal for banning drinking on campus. I also recall MANY posters on this forum blaming the lacrosse lifestyle for the situation - even if it was too early to take a position on the rape charge.

As for unc? They're f*#ked.

sagegrouse
10-04-2010, 11:40 AM
Following a quote from a jim3k message:


Your instincts were to throw the accused players, the rest of the team, and the entire lacrosse program under the bus for the good of the University. What was the word you used? "Excess?" In my opinion, your instincts and analysis turned out to be incorrect, and the lacrosse program turned out to be of benefit to the University.

(Yeah, I know. PPB, ad hominem, etc., but he started it, and someone had to call him on it.)

I don't think your disagreement is with jim3k, at least based on what he wrote.

sagegrouse
'House J Sticks Together'

-jk
10-04-2010, 12:58 PM
We are not rehashing the Lax hoax yet again.

-jk