A Philadelphia judge's ruling says, in practical effect, that a prostitute can't be raped. Find out why this has larger (and scarier) ramifications for all of us. Still no word on murder and arson.
Comment 0
Cool
vote cool
vote uncool
Terms of Service Violation
strike inappropriate
not inappropriate
Other
sunlight
kick from thread
get permlink
Cool
|
Tagged with : cactus rape , crusader meltdown , epic turd , goes to 11 , i like jazz , rape isnt rape , theft of services What are tags? |
If you logged in, you could post here.

Jesus: The man with two shirts give one to the man who has none.
Hippy: The man with two shirts give one to the man who has none. Do you know anybody with two shirts, man?
Socialist: Everybody gives their shirts to the State, and the State will reallocate them more "fairly." [note: "fairly" means that Party officials will get 10 shirts, and everyone else will get half a shirt]
7-11: No shirt, no shoes, no service.
Don't vote this down, whomever.
crusader seems awfully proud of it and we should let it stand as a permanent testament.
Oh.
You mean you've never run a tab? You need to get on better terms with your hookers.
;)
The 2nd guy pulled the gun, but she still did NOT consent to have sex with the 3rd and 4th person... they raped her. There is a difference.
Prostitutes get to decide who they are going to have sex with, and what kind of sex they are going to do. She did NOT agree to the 3rd/4th...
Read it, learn it, live it.
I'd agree. You're not trolling. You could be playing devil's advocate.
Doesn't mean you're not wrong.
What do you think?
She makes ~$100 for a trick. The more tricks, the more cash.
Right?
Crusader isn't trolling. Indeed, if anything, I trolled Crusader.
That being said, it's sort of hard for me to want to protect armed criminals who buy hookers. They are probably drug dealing trash, too.
Doesn't mean you're not wrong.
I could be, I don't think so (obviously), but I'm not that one who got nasty about it.
If they have consensual sex and then don't pay, that's theft of service.
Here's an interesting question in all of this - did the woman get charged with prostitution as well?
If she did, then the charges against the leader should be knocked down, while the charges against the other 3 (if they're found) should be upheld.
If she didn't get charged and convicted of prostitution, then obviously she's innocent of being a prostitute, so no theft of services occurred, leaving the only rational charge to be rape.
Paying a stripper for a lap dance doesn't mean you can force her to give you and your buddies a BJ. At gunpoint.
+1
That being said, it's sort of hard for me to want to protect armed criminals who buy hookers. They are probably drug dealing trash, too.
Well, the entire group is a pretty sleazy lot. The real question is:
Do you send four men to prison for 20 years each for banging a hooker who didn't get paid?
No, see *that* is just nuts. Total, unadulterated crap. And if the judge thought that, she should be thrown off the bench, and preferrably out a window.
I am guessing the judge just didn't believe the victim: the judge thinks she consented to a gangbang, didn't get paid, and so cried rape.
If she did, then the charges against the leader should be knocked down, while the charges against the other 3 (if they're found) should be upheld.
If she didn't get charged and convicted of prostitution, then obviously she's innocent of being a prostitute, so no theft of services occurred, leaving the only rational charge to be r**e.
No...
Again, she consented to sex.
Not sex at gunpoint. Not sex with 4 dudes.
I am guessing the judge just didn't believe the victim: the judge thinks she consented to a g******g, didn't get paid, and so cried r**e.
If it was consensual, why was it at gunpoint?
If she did, then the charges against the leader should be knocked down, while the charges against the other 3 (if they're found) should be upheld.
If she didn't get charged and convicted of prostitution, then obviously she's innocent of being a prostitute, so no theft of services occurred, leaving the only rational charge to be rape.
I think that's why the reporter said that the judge was making shit up as she went along. It doesn't make sense. In that case, it would be like calling the cops if someone ripped off your weed. I'd like to see that get prosecuted?
Right?
But there are some jobs people in other industries won't do. Either on principles, lack of available supplies, for whatever reason. Doesn't justify you pointing a gun at them because that is the work they do and have done because you want satisfaction now.
Right?
She still has the right to refuse service, just like any other business.
If you kidnap a flight instructor and force him to teach you how to fly a plane, it's still kidnapping.
If you corner a boxer in a dark alley and beat the crap out of him, it's still battery.
There is no implied consent just because the person ordinarily performs a similar activity for pay.
Oh, that's just one of his problems. He also doesn't seem to understand that businesses do not *have* to do business with anyone. If a shopkeeper decides he doesn't like you, he can refuse to sell to you. Similarly, if a ho decides she doesn't like your skanky ass, she can refuse to have sex with you, no matter how much money you offer.
A business can also do business with you and then decide not to any longer. For example, they can accept an offer to exchange a $5 bill for a magazine, and still have the right to refuse an offer to exchange a $5 bill for an HDTV. If you shoot the guy and take the HDTV, it isn't "theft of services" or "breach of contract", it's murder.
So even if you start out treating the whole thing as a business situation, he's still flat out wrong. Even if the prostitute did consent to having sex with the first guy for money, that still doesn't mean there was any kind of business relationship, real or implied, with the other guys. So there is absolutely zero basis for treating their rape of her as a business transaction gone bad.
Better question:
Who do believe more/less?
The hooker who got stiffed or the guys who supposedly 'raped' her?
Ewwww.... Judge had a shitty case handed to him. Nothing but lying in that group.
Can you bring civil suit against someone for ripping you off in a drug deal? If we assume that you were a drug dealer, you'd been caught and sentenced in a sting, and in the course of the sting someone else took the opportunity to screw you over on a business arrangement - you'd have grounds to sue, but could you?
Since you'd already been caught and sentenced for your criminal acts, you wouldn't face any additional trouble?
The judge dropped the charges before trial. IOW, she decided, as a matter of law, that the victim wasn't raped.
Which means that she didn't make a credibility determination at all. She felt it wasn't legally possible, under the circumstances, for the victim to have been raped.
Hm. Maybe you are right, Crusader.
- Armed dudes. Probably city trash urban thugs.
- Hooker who is trash... but what is the difference between being a hooker and a porn star anyway?
Why is it more important to protect the rights of armed criminals then it is to protect a women who sells sex? It's trash all around. However, late at night, I'm WAY more concerned about armed thugged out drug dealers then I am a hooker giving BJs for coke money.
Meh.
(tilts head sideways)
huh?
Again, she consented to sex.
Not sex at gunpoint. Not sex with 4 dudes.
She consented to engage in an illegal activity of selling sex. If the court upholds that as what happened, then the first guy, there's some basis for the argument of letting off the first guy on armed robbery charges. The other 3 guys are absolutely rapists though.
Since you'd already been caught and sentenced for your criminal acts, you wouldn't face any additional trouble?
No.
It would be a breach of contract for an illegal contract. Contracts to do illegal things are unenforceable, mainly for policy reasons...
Do you send four men to prison for 20 years each for banging a hooker who didn't get paid?
Yes, if she wasn't hooking at the time. People are able to stop their jobs and live their lives.
If she said "no, I'm not doing it. That's not a job I want to do." Then it's rape. Every business establishment I've been in has the sign "we reserve the right to refuse service".
Maybe the judge didn't believe the part about the gun.
But then, see my above post. I've changed my mind.
Yes, they do. Everybdoy deserves equal protection under the law. Otherwise you open that whole can of worms the crusader did by suggesting that some, because of their actions, do not deserve to be accorded the same basic rights as everyone else.
George W Bush: The turr'rists hate us for our two shirts.
Al Gore: The man with two shirts should give one to the man who has none. **selects shirt from closet filled with 1000 shirts**
Bill O'Reilly: We had to have security throw Jesus out of the studio. He was that out of control.
Michael Moore: Do you have this shirt in XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXL size?
Since you'd already been caught and sentenced for your criminal acts, you wouldn't face any additional trouble?
Lol yeah I think so. I think you could also sue for prosecution. I'm thinking this is not going to work, unless you're a medicinal marjuana dealer, or someone that's licensed. It seems that the only peoplelegally able to seize your pot are da cops. Perhaps if you could convince them that someone is horning in on their monopoly they would care?
But then, see my above post. I've changed my mind.
The actual facts are immaterial to the discussion at hand. the crusader believes it is impossible to rape a prostitute.
Who do believe more/less?
The hooker who got stiffed or the guys who supposedly 'raped' her?
Ewwww.... Judge had a shitty case handed to him. Nothing but lying in that group.
The judge apparently dismissed the rape charges before trial. The credibility issue, which admittedly would have been a major factor, never even came up.
Do you care to back up your statement earlier that just because someone puts something in a woman's vagina without her permission that it doesn't mean it's rape?
Yes, but I am trying to steer this conversation out of Whoopwhoopwackadoodlecrazeetownland and back into reality.
Who do believe more/less?
The hooker who got stiffed or the guys who supposedly 'raped' her?
Ewwww.... Judge had a shitty case handed to him. Nothing but lying in that group.
The judge would have been better off saying that instead.
The better course would have been if the Judge had allowed the case to go to trial, and if the Judge was right, the hooker would have been exposed as angry, unpaid merchant as opposed to a victim of a legitimate rape.
Judge Deni's problem is, she jumped the gun.
But then, see my above post. I've changed my mind.
Yeah, in all fairness, Jill Porter may be getting the story wrong. I can't find anything acurate (such as a written opinion) except these goddamn feminist blogs.
I will reserve further judgment regarding the merits. HOwever, going after the DA is unfair.
That was an interesting assumption he made there.
HER. The Judge was female. Did you read the article?
It would be a breach of contract for an illegal contract. Contracts to do illegal things are unenforceable, mainly for policy reasons...
ahh true - forgot about that
It would be a breach of contract for an illegal contract. Contracts to do illegal things are unenforceable, mainly for policy reasons...
Correct. Contracts for an illegal cause are void. Contra bones mores, dem der lawyer folks calls it.
Judge Deni's problem is, she jumped the gun.
Not sure that figure of speech is a good choice in a discussion of armed rape.
So if you have sex with your wife, then she leaves and gets raped in front of your house, then it's ok because "what difference did more make?"
That's what I thought. Didn't know da words, though :p
The fact the judge is a her makes me believe that Hooker in the case is a lying tramp. Women see through other women far better than men do. A woman cries in front of man, yells 'rape' immediately the lynch mob is formed.
Are you seriously saying that you could bring a civil action for a contract bartering for illegal services? That the courts would enforce? What interest would the courts have in promoting illegal activity?
I don't even think it would work for the medical marijuana dealer, since marijuana is still illegal under federal law, though decriminalized in some states.
+1
HA!
oops.
I thought the same thing. That decision would be a bit odd if its true. I'm not convinced its at all accurate.
And the source was pretty inflammatory and hardly unbiased.
I will reserve further judgment regarding the merits. HOwever, going after the DA is unfair.
Ditto.
I don't even think it would work for the medical marijuana dealer, since marijuana is still illegal under federal law, though decriminalized in some states.
Fed court, no.
Civil - possibly.
Depends on where and when and state law. The state may just be *ignoring* federal law.
The judge was a woman. And since I know how little you think of them, I expect you to reverse your position now.
So if you enforced illegal contracts, you're basically saying you want illegal activities to run more smoothly.
No sweat. It helps that I'm a lawyer.
Absolutely! My seed's way in front of the rapist's, so any offspring will actually be mine and not bastards. If nothing else, I"m the one at fault because I let her out of the kitchen/bedroom.
wow.
so in the last week you've proven yourself a bigot and a sexist.
Civil - possibly.
Depends on where and when and state law. The state may just be *ignoring* federal law.
Are you talking about the medical marijuana dealer? That would be interesting. A state ignoring federal law for policy reasons chooses to enforce contracts with medical marijuana dealers based on the same policy reasons.
The 2nd guy pulled the gun, but she still did NOT consent to have sex with the 3rd and 4th person... they raped her. There is a difference.
Prostitutes get to decide who they are going to have sex with, and what kind of sex they are going to do. She did NOT agree to the 3rd/4th...
And her consent with the first two is no longer valid once the gun comes out, since she's under duress, and can't legally consent anyway.
Yes, you send four people to prison for 20 years for gang raping a woman at gunpoint, regardless of her occupation.
That's irrelevant in the crudaders world. Prostitutes are inhuman products used for sex. Consent doesn't apply.
so in the last week you've proven yourself a bigot and a sexist.
On the contrary, I listen closely regarding the advice of women win regards to other women.
The ones I know make no excuses for each other.
Men on the other hand...
Ross.
Which means that she didn't make a credibility determination at all. She felt it wasn't legally possible, under the circumstances, for the victim to have been raped.
I am literally bewildered how you see that this matters. Which one is true? Sincerely asking.
- A judge makes the determination, and because it's a judge, that determination must be correct.
- A prostitute is not a human being capable of being raped. The only crime that can be committed against a prostitute is theft of services.
- No credibility determination ever got made. Therefore we never make a determination about whether the claims about the gun are true. The only issue under consideration is whether or not payment took place because a prostitute is not much different than a vending machine or hot dog stand: i.e. the SOLE crime that can be committed against this nonperson is robbery.
?
The ones I know make no excuses for each other.
Men on the other hand...
broad.sweeping.geralization.
The ones I know make no excuses for each other.
Can you read?
I'm willing to go out on a limb and say it must be bonos mores...
She just chose a bad case to apply it to.
I really don't want to hear NOWs spin on it, I want to hear what actually happened.
From http://womensissues.about.com/od/rapesexualassault/a/philly_rape.htm
"Held in Contempt
The story was reenacted all over again four days later when another woman - a 23-year-old - was gang-raped by Gindraw and friends in the exact same manner.
Assistant District Attorney Rich DeSipio was all set to present both cases. But after Judge Deni threw out the first one, he declined to go forward with the second victim's case, saying "I wouldn’t demean her in that way." He expressed his belief that Judge Deni's moral contempt for the prostitute was at the heart of the ruling, stating, "Certainly if a jury wants to make that judgment, they're entitled to. But for a judge to make a judgment on a human being - I've never seen that before."
A District Attorney disagreed with the judge. It's not like legal minds can only come to one conclusion in this case.
She just chose a bad case to apply it to.
That would be my guess. She, the Judge, just handled the situation poorly.
Can you read?
still broad generalization.
and the ones you know cannot be compared to a JUDGE.
I'm speechless.
You mean you've never run a tab? You need to get on better terms with your hookers.
;)
best to avoid credit cards... so it's been cash and carry.
- A judge makes the determination, and because it's a judge, that determination must be correct.
- A prostitute is not a human being capable of being raped. The only crime that can be committed against a prostitute is theft of services.
- No credibility determination ever got made. Therefore we never make a determination about whether the claims about the gun are true. The only issue under consideration is whether or not payment took place because a prostitute is not much different than a vending machine or hot dog stand: i.e. the SOLE crime that can be committed against this nonperson is robbery.
?
You are misreading me, I think. I am not saying either of those things. I am saying -- interpreting -- what (according to tfa) happened.
That does not mean I agree with it. Quite the opposite.
IF the judge tried the case, listened to the testimony, and simply chose not to believe the hookers story about the gun, or about the sequence of events, or anything else, and dismissed the rape charges, THAT would be defensible.
If the judge simply decided a hooker can't be raped, that is absolutely not defensible.
Is that more clear?
and the ones you know cannot be compared to a JUDGE.
Gee, do you think MAYBE I know a few females in the legally community?
And I'm not talking about Officer Sugar Tites who wrote me a ticket, ok?
Oh no shit!
**makes note**
I think you're thisclose to redemption. Handled the situation poorly in what way?
i kinda want to fuck that coke machine in the ass. i have $1.50.
I think it would be swell if we could find such a case and exploit it :p
You know, it occurs to me that if the judge wanted to go the 'theft of services' route, that Nevada must have already had plenty of cases just like this one...
Ok, understood
Not really, no.
That's the problem in these situations. It's trash vs. trash. All are probably drug users with criminal records.
Judges are more interested in protecting law abiding citizens from criminals then criminals from other criminals. Most homicides involve drug dealers shooting other drug dealers over bad transactions or in retaliation. Prostitutes who want to see their drug dealers in jail for ripping them off alleging rape... at some point, judges just say "good riddance."
However, I think she chose the wrong situation for this. Further, the media is going to have a field day due to the sensitive nature of rape.
And I'm not talking about Officer Sugar Tites who wrote me a ticket, ok?
no, i think you are full of shit, actually.
wtf is the legally community?
Oh... yes, it is. Didn't realize I typed "bones"
He must look at her as a prostitute ... she gives up her services -- and his payment is the ability to be in the company of him, and have a place to live, food to eat, etc...
You know, it occurs to me that if the judge wanted to go the 'theft of services' route, that Nevada must have already had plenty of cases just like this one...
A very interesting thought.
Though I would imagine it is much more contained in Nevada. The johns probably pay upfront, there is tons of security, etc.
Judges are more interested in protecting law abiding citizens from criminals then criminals from other criminals. Most homicides involve drug dealers shooting other drug dealers over bad transactions or in retaliation. Prostitutes who want to see their drug dealers in jail for ripping them off alleging rape... at some point, judges just say "good riddance."
However, I think she chose the wrong situation for this. Further, the media is going to have a field day due to the sensitive nature of rape.
Agreed. Totally.
**makes note**
That'll be $175.
He must look at her as a prostitute ... she gives up her services -- and his payment is the ability to be in the company of him, and have a place to live, food to eat, etc...
Under another login, he said that he was divorced.
There's a surprise.
Though I would imagine it is much more contained in Nevada. The johns probably pay upfront, there is tons of security, etc.
I saw a documentary om legal brothels in Nevada (forget what it is called but you can watch it on netflicks) and there is a problem with under-reporting of criminal activities in brothels. Mostly because of other illegal activity that goes on in brothels. There are a great many of them that lock the women in at night so they don't leave. In the daytime they are overseen by guards meant to keep them in the brothels. This was an issue the National Organization of Women wanted to start addressing a few years ago. NOW used to marginalize sex workers, which of course made it easier to exploit them.
Well, now there's nothing wrong with being divorced...
\I'll be divorced in 30 days...
Huh... very interesting.
Proponents of legalizing prostitution make it sound like Nevada is a great place and everyone is happy. I've never looked into the issue, because thankfully, I've never needed to. ;)
/lots of delis around for the cap'
//with lots fresh meat, awww yea baby. Y'all enjoy this hoagie drenched in mayo? Feel that in your mouth? So spicy, girl. Goddamn, it hurts so good.
. . .
Your logic escapes me.
She just chose a bad case to apply it to.
Judges don't prosecute. (though that makes for a fairly amusing freudian slip).
Or someone who would, given means, motive, and opportunity.
Proponents of legalizing prostitution make it sound like Nevada is a great place and everyone is happy. I've never looked into the issue, because thankfully, I've never needed to. ;)
/lots of delis around for the cap'
//with lots fresh meat, awww yea baby. Y'all enjoy this hoagie drenched in mayo? Feel that in your mouth? So spicy, girl. Goddamn, it hurts so good.
Most sex-trade issues are pretty nasty once you start to interview people. Because prostitution is illegal, or a sin or some bizzare shit, it stays in the dark. Makes it easy to exploit people. Like what are you going to do - run to the cops? In New Zealand (and Australia) Prostitution is a vocation. The workers get the same protections others do. In Australia they actually sell shares in the brothels, which kinda freaks me out a bit. But yeah, you know - makes sense. It's a public business. Why not trade stocks?
Yes, often overzealous DAs trying to make a career for themselves prosecute. The judges then throw their cases out.
notsuebhoney: The way I see it is, only a person who has r**ed wouldn't consider this r**e.
In all fairness, we haven't been given the full story. I certainly can't find it.
What if the prostitute agreed to have sex with the 4, and then at the end, they were like "ha ha, we're not paying you!" And then Jill Porter inaccurately transcribed the event based on the DA's account?
Also, you have a little hoagie on your lip...
In all fairness, we haven't been given the full story. I certainly can't find it.
What if the prostitute agreed to have sex with the 4, and then at the end, they were like "ha ha, we're not paying you!" And then Jill Porter inaccurately transcribed the event based on the DA's account?
Also, you have a little hoagie on your lip...
I need to guess your alt ;P
\I'll be divorced in 30 days...
You don't say...
Well, I thought I did... *giggle*
Clearly I cannot drink the wine in front of you :P
*giggles*
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
+1
And the Postie for best refutation of a troll goes to.... The envelope please! Sloth!
And the Postie for best stfu goes to.... Ratfucker!
And last, but not least, the Postie for where the fuck did that come from goes to.... szmike for the dadaist.
+1 as well ...
Herpes?
And the Postie for best refutation of a troll goes to.... The envelope please! Sloth!
And the Postie for best stfu goes to.... Ratfucker!
And last, but not least, the Postie for where the fuck did that come from goes to.... szmike for the dadaist.
Give an honourary mention to Meta for the best STFU since he's the one who initially put those three posts together in perspective.
Best Support STFU goes to Meta.
\mental note: don't uncheck preview, even on short posts...
And the Postie for best refutation of a troll goes to.... The envelope please! Sloth!
And the Postie for best stfu goes to.... Ratf**ker!
Goddamnit, I don't even get an honorable mention for this:
Now, this is a story all about how
bN flipped-turned upside down
And I liked to take a minute
Just sit right there
I'll tell you how Crusader became the prince of a town called bTOWN
On Fark.com, born and raised
Trolling is how he spends most of his days
Hatin' and baitin' acting like a fool
On the internets acting like a tool
When a couple of libs
Who were up to no good
Startin makin trouble in his neighborhood
He got in one lil flamewar and my Drew got scared
He said 'You're movin' with your auntie and uncle, I'm a millionaire
Crusader whistled for a cab and when it came near
The license plate said GRAHAMS and there were hoes in the rear
If anything he said "Can I put it in there?"
The girls said 'No forget it' - but Crusader don't care
He pulled out of the vaggoos and ended his date
Yelled to the womens 'Yo homes smell ya later'
He looked at my kingdom
He was finally there
Sitting in jail, with all the other queers
:-P
/proud of my work
And last, but not least, the Postie for where the f**k did that come from goes to.... szmike for the dadaist.
And the Postie for best refutation of a troll goes to.... The envelope please! Sloth!
And the Postie for best stfu goes to.... Ratf**ker!
And last, but not least, the Postie for where the f**k did that come from goes to.... szmike for the dadaist.
I'd like to thank God, my producer, my wonderful family for standing by my all these years, and all the little people.
Cranberry potatoe moonbeams.
you're right.. the song was awesome... so...
For Best Lyrical Thread Summary in a Red Hot Nut.... the Postie goes to Captain Hoagart a.k.a Hoagie.
too damn bad if she didnt enjoy it.
slut. whore.
too damn bad if she didnt enjoy it.
slut. whore.
She was someone's daughter.
And someone else's meat puppet.
too damn bad if she didnt enjoy it.
slut. whore.
yer too late gahbrone. If you had only been here earlier, that might have been more entertaining.
too damn bad if she didnt enjoy it.
s**t. w***e.
Dammit, where were you an hour ago? This thing would have went to like, 1000 comments!
Herpes?
Quit whoring for +1's from people. We all know no one around here likes whores.
Don't
taserape me, dude!Correction.
Don't
taserape me, bro!Don't taserape me, bro!
No No No, it's:
Don't steal my services, bro!
Don't steal my services, bro!
+1
Don't steal my services, bro!
You win.
Don't steal my services, bro!
I'll go so far as to say...
Epic win.
ratfucker: You win.
Stupid fucking job. baslted work. keeps me from getting things going properly. stupid job.
You're a doodie head and you eat baby kittens for fun.
Motivated enough to respond and lash out?
Motivated enough to respond and lash out?
I only it baby kittens on days I'm not killing orphans, assclown.
Tagged: Goes to 11
I am a liberal and I currently do not have a job.
Nope, not even close, pal. Actually, in this lurker's mind, you were proven wrong numerous times and simply ignored the facts you found inconvenient. This is typical behavior for you, and it's one of the reasons why I find you to be a ridiculous caricature, mindlessly aping conservative thoughts and actions but not really "getting it". Oh, and please stop speaking on behalf of people you don't know, it's extremely presumptuous, and demonstrably incorrect.