The Pitt Meadows incident. Update: Code of Silence hampering RCMP.

[Ryan Coke]

All I am reading here is that we should not be quick to jump to conclusions. It is not disrespect, it is merely an acknowledgment and reminder that we should not assume anything without facts. The possibilities of her personal sexual decisions being a part of this case are pure speculation, but are put forward to illustrate the chance that there is nmore to the story than we currently have. Nothing disgusting or irresponsible in that, in fact quite the opposite. It is about not joining the mob mentality with our own horrified version of what we believe to have happened.

Instead it is all about being responsible and balanced, and being comfortable knowing that if it is as has been portrayed in the media then it is horrible and I look forward to justice. But on the other hand the media is notoriously inaccurate, and there may be a very different view of things once all the information is explored. It is the only responsible way to view it for those of us that wish to be unbiased, objective observers.

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by kirant

I'm surprised too. Honestly, I think there are some things where truth should be automatically assumed, as the support is greatly needed for those whose are being truthful. Yes, that creates cases like "acid girl", but I'm fine with getting duped once in a while to ensure that people (men and women) come forward with their events.

I would rather let a thousand murderers walk unpunished than see one innocent person be convicted of a crime they did not commit.

[CaptainCrunch]

Today - Yeah she was drugged, and 16 but damnit I think she consented because she was on top.

10 years ago - She has a history of promiscuous behavior so obviously she was asking to be rape.

20 years ago - She dressed like a whore, so its ok to rape her because she's a whore.

Fine we're willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the gang bangers, but we're willing to bury the girl to do that.

Thats messed up.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Today - Yeah she was drugged, and 16 but damnit I think she consented because she was on top.

10 years ago - She has a history of promiscuous behavior so obviously she was asking to be rape.

20 years ago - She dressed like a whore, so its ok to rape her because she's a whore.

Fine we're willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the gang bangers, but we're willing to bury the girl to do that.

Thats messed up.

If that's what people are saying in this thread it would be totally messed up.

What people are actually doing is refraining from condemning either party until the facts are in.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

I would rather let a thousand murderers walk unpunished than see one innocent person be convicted of a crime they did not commit.

So you'd rather condemn this poor girl and imply she's a sociopathic whore then to give her sympathy. Neat.

My problem isn't that people are refusing to call the kids rapists. They're not until proven guilty in a court of law. My problem is the implications and insinuations that she's a lying whore just looking to save face. Until someone is proven to be a liar about being raped they should be treated with sympathy and respect as if they were. Not because we need to condemn and witchhunt the accused, but because if she was raped her mind is pretty screwed up right now. If they've said they've been drugged and raped and had courage to come forward, they need support not just for them but so in the future other young girls and women are not afraid to come forward.

If a 14 year old girls sees this, gets raped at 17 - 20 and thinks back to how some are treating this girl, how eager do you think she's going to be to come forward?

Originally Posted by Sliver

What people are actually doing is refraining from condemning either party until the facts are in.

They're refraining from condemning the accused. They're willingly condemning the girl.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

I would rather let a thousand murderers walk unpunished than see one innocent person be convicted of a crime they did not commit.

What an incredibly naive statement.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

I would rather let a thousand murderers walk unpunished than see one innocent person be convicted of a crime they did not commit.

Of course the thousand murders would be out there killing crap loads of innocent people so when all is said and done your principled stand has caused hundreds of innocent deaths (some no doubt hideous involving sodomy and the like) so that one guy doesn't spend his life watching TV and eating jello in a small room.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

so that one guy doesn't spend his life watching TV and eating jello in a small room.

You seem to make life imprisonment sound pretty decent. If that's all there is to it, Andy Dufresne might not have wanted to escape.

[comrade]

Question: Since you can't consent to sex while under the influence of drugs and alcohol what would happen if both parties were, say, drunk? If the woman accuses the man of rape, couldn't the man counter that he was drunk and didn't consent the sex either, so she also raped him? What happens then, does it become an issue of proving who initiated? What qualifies as under the influence, anyway? Is it .08, same as driving? How do you determine it for drugs like marijuana and ecstacy? (Obviously I'm excluding date rape from the drug category)

Furthermore, I suppose there could be issues with any time delay between the incident and the reporting of it if blood testing for drugs and alcohol.

This isn't meant to be directly related to the Pitt Meadows Rape so I hope no one accuses me of taking any specific positions on that issue.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Legally it is, she was unable to consent due to her condition, assuming they had sex with her it is rape whether she resisted or even was willling.

Incidently my daughter who has talked to the girl says it was rape, and she is friends with the boys involved. well they are mostly 18 to 23 but I hesitate to describe effluent like this as men.

And this has been proven where exactly?

This is the point others are attempting to make in this thread, and apparently it's sailing over the heads of many. Coming to conclusions based upon hearsay and one sided information, regardless of who is being condemned or who is being supported, is foolish.

The males shouldn't be condemned as rapists and the girl shouldn't be condemned as a whore based on half truths and media reports. Until there has been a full investigation and trial nobody should be condemned (I'm putting the picture aspect to the side, I don't think there's any question as to what happened there and who is responsible).

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by rubecube

What an incredibly naive statement.

And yet, infinitely better than the opposite.

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Of course the thousand murders would be out there killing crap loads of innocent people so when all is said and done your principled stand has caused hundreds of innocent deaths (some no doubt hideous involving sodomy and the like) so that one guy doesn't spend his life watching TV and eating jello in a small room.

My stance will do no such thing. People will not die in droves with such a stance applied to the justice system. Thugs and psychopaths will not suddenly be roaming our streets going on murderous rampages. It's a stance of principle.

The justice system fails its society when an innocent person goes to prison to serve the sentence that the true guilty party should be serving.

Originally Posted by Blaster86

So you'd rather condemn this poor girl and imply she's a sociopathic whore then to give her sympathy. Neat.

Not only is this a ridiculous statement, it is also a false dichotomy, a very poor debate rebuttal. Since I'm not on your side, I must be against you. Am I with the terrorists, too?

Incidentally, I'm still waiting for you to point out exactly where it was that I implied the girl is lying.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Regorium

For me, if the toxicology report says no date rape drug, it will be enough to convince me that this was consensual. On the other hand, if there was date rape drug, then I will be more likely to lean towards the opinion that a rape actually occurred.

Date rape drug not present = It's consensual! She's a whore!

Date rape drug present = Well, I guess it could be rape. We'll have to see...

Yikes...

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Date rape drug not present = It's consensual! She's a whore!

Date rape drug present = Well, I guess it could be rape. We'll have to see...

Yikes...

Better than: "A woman had sex? Screw waiting to find more information. Burn the guys, send them to hell, sodomize them in prison, chop their glands off, kill their families!"

You guys picking on my wording. Whatever, I'll make it black and white for you:

If there was date rape drug, rape happened. Also notice I never called her a whore. If you're going to try to pick on my post, please actually read it.
If there wasn't, rape did not occur.

How's that? I've set my goalposts. Since shades of grey don't seem to work for you, things will be black and white. Let's hear your criteria for when you will believe the guys are innocent of rape, and when they are guilty of it. Then at least we will have some set goals, and you won't be able to move the goalposts once more information comes out.

[Regorium]

Also, Blaster86 is the first person to use the word "whore" in this thread.

Nobody else has used that word other than HeartOfFire in direct response to Blaster. The only other person to use the word "whore"? CaptainCrunch

I'm not sure where anyone is getting the idea that she is being labeled a whore.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Better than: "A woman had sex? Screw waiting to find more information. Burn the guys, send them to hell, sodomize them in prison, chop their glands off, kill their families!"

You guys picking on my wording. Whatever, I'll make it black and white for you:

If there was date rape drug, rape happened. Also notice I never called her a whore. If you're going to try to pick on my post, please actually read it.
If there wasn't, rape did not occur.

How's that? I've set my goalposts. Since shades of grey don't seem to work for you, things will be black and white. Let's hear your criteria for when you will believe the guys are innocent of rape, and when they are guilty of it. Then at least we will have some set goals, and you won't be able to move the goalposts once more information comes out.

I'm not trying to pick on your wording, and maybe you didn't fully get your point across here, but are you seriously saying that if there isn't evidence that she was drugged a rape did not happen? You do understand that rape can happen without drugs right?

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'm not trying to pick on your wording, and maybe you didn't fully get your point across here, but are you seriously saying that if there isn't evidence that she was drugged a rape did not happen? You do understand that rape can happen without drugs right?

Hmm. No. How's this (3rd time's the charm):

If there is no date rape drug, then evidence will point towards there not being rape.
If there is date rape drug, then evidence will point towards there being a rape.

I also understand that rape can occur without a drug, but then I feel that there is far too much grey area there to even consider with just a toxicology report, especially with the circumstances of this case. I just feel it would only be fair that with this piece of information, that the same leeway is given to both sides: ie. I'm sure someone's going to come in and say - drug = rape, no drug = rape. In the end, we'll have the full information where we can find an overall conclusion, but I don't think it's completely out of the realm of logic to say that the lack of a rape drug would severely hamper the "rape" argument in this case.

I still think that this opinion is better than: "To the rest of the scumbags that drugged and raped a young girl. Death is too good for you, hopefully you go to a maximum facility prison where you can be repeatedly sodomized and passed around for packages of cigarettes. You deserve to be cast out of society and destroyed, kinda like you destroyed this young girls life." as well as the 30ish people that thanked said post.

[CaptainCrunch]

I still think that this opinion is better than: "To the rest of the scumbags that drugged and raped a young girl. Death is too good for you, hopefully you go to a maximum facility prison where you can be repeatedly sodomized and passed around for packages of cigarettes. You deserve to be cast out of society and destroyed, kinda like you destroyed this young girls life." as well as the 30ish people that thanked said post.

And I stand by that since logically if they're being sent to prison they have been found guilty by either a judge or a jury of those peers, and if they are guilty then I personally am not all that concerned about rehabilitation. Nowhere did I say forgo the trial and send them straight to prison, screw them.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

And yet, infinitely better than the opposite.

That's some nice utopian rhetoric but it's simply not true. You can't have proper functioning society without a justice system. Sometimes this justice system will make errors. The alternative is much worse.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

And I stand by that since logically if they're being sent to prison they have been found guilty by either a judge or a jury of those peers, and if they are guilty then I personally am not all that concerned about rehabilitation. Nowhere did I say forgo the trial and send them straight to prison, screw them.

Well played.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Hmm. No. How's this (3rd time's the charm):

If there is no date rape drug, then evidence will point towards there not being rape.
If there is date rape drug, then evidence will point towards there being a rape.

I also understand that rape can occur without a drug, but then I feel that there is far too much grey area there to even consider with just a toxicology report, especially with the circumstances of this case. I just feel it would only be fair that with this piece of information, that the same leeway is given to both sides: ie. I'm sure someone's going to come in and say - drug = rape, no drug = rape. In the end, we'll have the full information where we can find an overall conclusion, but I don't think it's completely out of the realm of logic to say that the lack of a rape drug would severely hamper the "rape" argument in this case.

I still think that this opinion is better than: "To the rest of the scumbags that drugged and raped a young girl. Death is too good for you, hopefully you go to a maximum facility prison where you can be repeatedly sodomized and passed around for packages of cigarettes. You deserve to be cast out of society and destroyed, kinda like you destroyed this young girls life." as well as the 30ish people that thanked said post.

I shall state this slowly as you aren't getting it at all.

If she was drunk it was rape, drunk, thats all.

And while I agree we are not aware of all of the facts it is clear, and no one is denying, she was very drunk.

And just so we are clear, you can be charged with rape if you meet a drunk girl on the bus, shag her, and she decides she didn't consent, ( and she can make this arguement and will be believed even if she vebally consented) it may not be intirely fair, but it is the law.

Your only defense would be you were not aware she was drunk and that she clearly verbally consented, both unlikely as we know.

A drunk woman is considered legally unable to consent no matter what she says, much like a child, there will be some defense arguements as to how drunk a woman is before she loses the ability to consent, but a man doesn't have to be aware of how many drinks she has had, we are responsible if we know she is drunk.