Man sexually assaulted by four women

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by polak

I don't know, it seems like it's a lot easier for a girl to ruin your life by claiming rape after you had consensual sex then any other accusation I could think of. Especially in the media. When it comes to rape allegations, the media throws "innocent until proven guilty" out the window immediatly. Make that girl underage and you might as well just give up.



The works well if you a) you're in a relationship and b) aren't put into that situation involuntarily.

Why do you need to write that?

[KTown]

If this happened to me, I don't think I could come forward. So good for him. The publicity good or bad you could get out of this could be damaging in so many ways. I really hope this doesn't effect him long-term.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

^okay Polak , buddy got violated by 4 women. Horrible assault, should be treated the same as a girl getting gang raped by 4 guys. But let's not go off the deep end here and start up some 'man rights' thread here by trying to claim that somehow men are more disadvantaged by sexual violence than women. In my mind the constant battle of the sexes in claiming victimhood does little towards reducing sexual violence. Also saying garbage like that also propegates mysoginist attitudes.

Just because someone is a man doesn't mean they should be considered likely to be a rapist, and just because someone isn a woman doesn't make her likely to be a lying manipulative person who would make a false rape claim.

Easy there tiger.
I was only voicing my displeasure with what I believe is a bias in the media and the justice system (although, not being a lawyer, I can only go off what the media reports so that might skew these views regarding the justice system).

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Why do you need to write that?

Cause it's true? One accusation that could be based on nothing and it seems like the media brands you a child rapist immediatly. Even if you're proven 100% innocent I can't imagine you would ever live that down.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by polak

Cause it's true? One accusation that could be based on nothing and it seems like the media brands you a child rapist immediatly. Even if you're proven 100% innocent I can't imagine you would ever live that down.

The media cannot legally publish your name or picture until a conviction has been made to protect the identity of the victim.

Your facts are bad and you should feel bad.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by polak

Cause it's true? One accusation that could be based on nothing and it seems like the media brands you a child rapist immediatly. Even if you're proven 100% innocent I can't imagine you would ever live that down.

Wait I want to be clear.

I don't know, it seems like it's a lot easier for a girl to ruin your life by claiming rape after you had consensual sex then any other accusation I could think of. Especially in the media. When it comes to rape allegations, the media throws "innocent until proven guilty" out the window immediatly.Make that girl underage and you might as well just give up.

You are not saying that there is a situation where there can be consensual sex between a legal adult and a legal minor, are you?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by polak

I don't know, it seems like it's a lot easier for a girl to ruin your life by claiming rape after you had consensual sex then any other accusation I could think of. Especially in the media. When it comes to rape allegations, the media throws "innocent until proven guilty" out the window immediatly. Make that girl underage and you might as well just give up.

You think an allegation made against you, who as far as I can tell are not a public figure in any way, is going to be getting media coverage?

Btw, if she's underage there's no such thing as consensual sex.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

The media cannot legally publish your name or picture until a conviction has been made to protect the identity of the victim.

Your facts are bad and you should feel bad.

ORLY?

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/calgary-ma...porn-1.1215191

Police have arrested and charged a Calgary man with six child pornography offences after a joint investigation with Homeland Security in the States.
The charges were laid after an investigation by ALERT’s southern Internet Child Exploitation (ICE) Unit and United States Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) in Cincinnati, Ohio.
The ICE unit was checking out tips received in Canada about inappropriate online conduct by a person with the username “sirphaeton”.
The team learned of an investigation into the same suspect in the United States and joined forces with HSI to track the suspect to a Calgary residence.
Sean Ian Rose, 32, of Calgary, is charged with two counts of luring, and one count each of extortion, making, possessing, and accessing child pornography.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by polak

Easy there tiger.
I was only voicing my displeasure with what I believe is a bias in the media and the justice system (although, not being a lawyer, I can only go off what the media reports so that might skew these views regarding the justice system).



Cause it's true? One accusation that could be based on nothing and it seems like the media brands you a child rapist immediatly. Even if you're proven 100% innocent I can't imagine you would ever live that down.

I actually think it's quite the opposite. We'd be hearing and reading a lot of posts like "She was dressed like a slut, you can't dress like that and no act like you want it" or "She was totally asking for it, she got what was coming to her". "She was totally into it, now that bitch just wants to ruin my name."

[polak]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

The media cannot legally publish your name or picture until a conviction has been made to protect the identity of the victim.

Your facts are bad and you should feel bad.

First I'm hearing this. Guess I'm used to the bombardment of American media where they apparently don't have this law?

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Wait I want to be clear.

You are not saying that there is a situation where there can be consensual sex between a legal adult and a legal minor, are you?

By underage I meant 16 and 17 where you're above the age of consent.

Obviously not like 12. Although you could get accused of it and be completely innocent so the point still stands.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

ORLY?

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/calgary-ma...porn-1.1215191

Thanks for the huge pic, but I'm not seeing where he sexually assaulted a minor.

[polak]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Thanks for the huge pic, but I'm not seeing where he sexually assaulted a minor.

Oh that only applies to a case with a minor?

Then my original point still stands minus the part about the minor?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by polak

Oh that only applies to a case with a minor?

Then my original point still stands minus the part about the minor?

Yes I was quoting your response to undercoverbrother's comment about minors.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Technically speaking, any level of inebriation can be enough to nullify consent.

I may not be a criminal lawyer, but that is not usually true. Drunkenness does not vitiate consent unless it rises to incapacity.

Courts don't seem to have a defined limit, as its a question of fact, but there was a recent AB Court of Appeal ruling (R. v. Haraldson, 2012 ABCA 147) that summed it up pretty well.

It said you have to have more than "baseline physical function" to have capacity to consent, but notes "mere drunkenness is not the equivalent of incapacity... nor is alcohol-induced imprudent decision making, memory loss, loss of inhibition or self control."

In Haraldson, the Crown appealed a ruling that the complainant lacked capacity due to drunkenness and lost.

So, while anyone can essentially accuse anything... this one isn't such the slam dunk that it appears to be.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by polak

By underage I meant 16 and 17 where you're above the age of consent.

Obviously not like 12. Although you could get accused of it and be completely innocent so the point still stands.

Wait I really need you to be clear on this.

It is ok for an person under the age of consent to have sex with a person over the age of consent, if that person is only a couple of years older than the person under the age of consent.

Is that what you are saying?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Wait I really need you to be clear on this.

It is ok for an person under the age of consent to have sex with a person over the age of consent, if that person is only a couple of years older than the person under the age of consent.

Is that what you are saying?

If he is, he's technically correct. There is a "peer group" exemption, partially designed to essentially prevent vexatious "statutory rape" charges from jilted ex-girlfriends (and boyfriends) prevalent in the US.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/clp/faq.html

Even so, the age of sexual consent in Canada is 16, not 18. Therefore it is very easy to have a legal adult and a legal minor to have legal sex.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

If he is, he's technically correct. There is a "peer group" exemption, partially designed to essentially prevent vexatious "statutory rape" charges from jilted ex-girlfriends (and boyfriends) prevalent in the US.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/clp/faq.html

Even so, the age of sexual consent in Canada is 16, not 18. Therefore it is very easy to have a legal adult and a legal minor to have legal sex.

Thank you for that, it gives Polak a get out of jail card.

[polak]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Wait I really need you to be clear on this.

It is ok for an person under the age of consent to have sex with a person over the age of consent, if that person is only a couple of years older than the person under the age of consent.

Is that what you are saying?

Actually I never commented on what is and isn't okay. All I said was that if someone is accused of raping an underage girl, their life is ruined even if they're innocent. You can still be falsely accused of raping someone under the age of consent and be innocent (If you never touched them). Psyc proved that point wrong by telling me that your identity would be protected (although not for your own good, but the victim).

For the record, In no way, shape or form, do I think it is okay for an adult to have any relations with someone under the age of consent. That should be obvious to anyone.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I may not be a criminal lawyer, but that is not usually true. Drunkenness does not vitiate consent unless it rises to incapacity.

Courts don't seem to have a defined limit, as its a question of fact, but there was a recent AB Court of Appeal ruling (R. v. Haraldson, 2012 ABCA 147) that summed it up pretty well.

It said you have to have more than "baseline physical function" to have capacity to consent, but notes "mere drunkenness is not the equivalent of incapacity... nor is alcohol-induced imprudent decision making, memory loss, loss of inhibition or self control."

In Haraldson, the Crown appealed a ruling that the complainant lacked capacity due to drunkenness and lost.

So, while anyone can essentially accuse anything... this one isn't such the slam dunk that it appears to be.

Well rube is still correct, technically any amount of inebriation can prevent you from having the capacity to consent. The question isn't one of intoxication level, it's about the ability to reach the requisite mental capacity. Thanks for the details though, definitely adds some needed depth to the explanation.

[Ped]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

The media cannot legally publish your name or picture until a conviction has been made to protect the identity of the victim.

Your facts are bad and you should feel bad.

I think that would only apply if the victim was the daughter, for example, of the person being charged because then you could easily find out the victim's identity,

But the news is full of stories of people charged in regards to students or non-relatives, and the accused's name is definitely published.

In fact there was a story yesterday (in the Star) about a swim coach who was accused and lost his job and reputation and now the charges have been withdrawn.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by polak

Basically, if a girl decides she wants to ruin your life, all she has to do is say you took adventage of her. It's over. Even if the courts can't prove it, your life is ruined.

Yay!

Not really true. As an aside do you know what the rate of fraudulently reported cases are? Less than 1%. Let's compare that with the ratio of unreported sexual assault cases (somewhere around 90%) and maybe focus more on the larger problem.