How the fuck is there a statute of limitations for rape in New York?

[Drich]

Wtf are you babbling about now Drich?  I plainly explained to you what you made up.  

Are you and I discussing the civil war?  No.
Are you and I discussing whether or not obama represents the majority?  No.
Are you and I discussing whether or not people are diametrically opposed to "that" (wtf "that" is...?)  No.
Did I ever claim that you were about finding a middle ground?  No.  

You claimed that obama was far left, that clinton was more of the same, that you were a "balance guy", and indicated your support for Romney.  I'm simply informing you that the reality of the matter is that obama is center right, clinton is further right, and romney is far right stratosphere.  Or, you know..all of the shit you -just- quoted me as saying...and then decided not to respond to.

No...

Not what I said at all.

Did you even read what i wrote?

Maybe that is why you think what i said was made up because you just did... Make up my post.

Read it again

[The Grand Nudger]

What's the point in posting things at all if you're going to tuck your tail and run from your own statements, lol? 60 some odd pages of rape apologism, just to pretend you never meant it. One or two pages of unrelated shit to cover that 60 some odd pages, and now you wish that never happened too.

You know what, you can avoid all of this by not shitposting in the first place. Dig deep, you can do it.

[Drich]

Thank you.  I appreciate you acknowledging that you understand which point of view I am coming from.   I also understand your point that legally speaking, this alleged ACT will not be recognized as a "rape" in any court of law if it is never reported, and/or prosecuted.  

But, what I am saying is, doesn't any TRUE victim have the right to declare privately, to themselves, "I was raped"?   Why do you want to rob that word of its power and meaning for the victim so badly?  

Do you think it is right to call combat soldiers murderers? what if your brother went to syeria and joined ISIS and was killed by a US soldier? It is proper to call the soldier a murderer or is it ok to say your brother was murdered?

Do you think it is right to call someone who shoots and kill one of your family members a murderer IF he the guy is honestly defending his life? the same here was your family member murdered and is the man who killed them a murderer?

In both instances the law allows for the taking of human life so legally the killing of an enemy combatant is not murder nor is legal self defense. The word murder describes a criminal act. If the law does not allow for prosecution the act maybe the same (the net result/your family member died at the hands of another) but to the law it is as it never happened.

Meaning in either of the cases above the government can not rightfully detain or prosecute a criminal case.

The same is true with rape. the word rape describes a criminal act. like murder. However if one takes into account the SOL as being an end date to prosecution, then effectivly it nullifies any legal recourse/chance for justice a victim has.

To take away the right to call a rape a rape, will indeed push someone who wants justice to act. It will also make a perpetual victim react. so both can be identified.

To the perpetual victim you help them understand the road they are on. Many don't choose this path, they are simply stuck on it, and need help because they never ever said anything and don't know where to go. So you offer them help or allow them the room to be what they want to be.

I also would argue (but am not willing to die on this hill) that if one allows a rapist go without prosecution, to possibly rape someone else.. then there must be some reason they Allowed the sex to not be classified as rape legally.

Now I am asking you to suspend that for a moment and put someone like EP or some poor guy who's thing is to play rape with his GF. Now ask yourself what if a girl like that (who likes to play raped) isn't.. exactly stable. and they break up.. All is quite until 4 or maybe 10 years later. then she decides they were not play raping one another when she finds out EP is married with kids and has a new house (everything she wanted with him)

Now, we take the word rape out of a courtroom and apply it here, then all due process/All justice (by the truest defination of the word) is gone. especially if she taped one of those play rape sessions.

Well, that would be...a rape allegation...like you've already said.  (a false one in your scenario which is - as it SHOULD be  - punishable by law).  As in...we have an alleged victim AND an alleged offender.  The two are not mutually exclusive.

You can still allow that word personal meaning to actual victims without "taking it out of the court room", or stripping away due process, as you say.  You seem to think it has to be one or the other?

With an SOL it is.. my thoughts of the matter do not matter. i am not speaking for a point of personal philosophy, but in accordance to how the law reads.

Again the reason for a SOL in a rape case is because The only difference between rape and consentual sex is consent and there is no physical evidence/dna for consent. This is true one day after the fact let alone 5 years.

The only measure we have to gauge consent in Most cases is time. which again answers the OP's question.

All people would judge is what they saw and plug it into a narritive (like you good people did with me and my selection of words in this thread without thinking.) Then no matter what EP is screwed.

Horse crap!  If the event was reported as a rape, then an investigation would ensue, a DA would decide if there is enough evidence to go forward with formal charges, and the accused would get a fair trial.  There is your due process!  What are you complaining about?  And, "poor EP"?  Now, now, let's not encourage that victim mentality.  [emoji57]

After 10 years, and all that remained was a tape of a fake rape session with no run up or explanation, just a brutal session of forced sex, how is one to establish consent? At best you MIGHT build a circumstantial defense, anything else will be he said she said.

Now again, EP admitted this was his thing, and I'm sure if one simply saw the act and did not know anything else about the couple EP would probably goto jail based on the only evidence available/the tape. The only thing that keeps his walking the street is none of his victims/girlfriends has made the claim the his forced sex was indeed not consensual.

So again, the reason for the SOL. The thought being time will flesh out the victims from the weirdos. (no offense EP)

which brings us to a broader application of the law. What if.. by accusation alone we are convicted of a crime, then must prove our innocence (as a legitmate means of 'protecting our victims?') Rather than the presumption of innocence we have now? (All are innocent until proven guilty.) For one arrests would not be so...

Ofc, that would be a TERRIBLE idea, and I don't think anyone here was suggesting such a thing.

But this is exactly what is happening in the streets of Ferguson, Milwaukee, Charolett ect.
The populas has tried and convicted in the court of popular opinion and demand punishment without due process. Just by just labeling the police offers murders. When their brand of 'justice' is not met. they "burn this bitch down."

The are presuming guilt before due process. they want the cops to be treated as guilty and then proove their innocence.

It's not being suggested It is being played out on our city streets when a segment of the population feels like they are not being treated 'fairly.'

How else can you chant "no justice no peace" then burn down several blocks pillage and loot, and FEEL MORALLY JUSTIFIED in doing so?

Are we to also now add rape to the list?

Again, yes the act of a sexual assault was committed, but to call it a rape should be determined by it's legal status, not by how one 'feels' or morally justifies their feelings.

Remember, laws are mean to be the checks and balances to our own personal moral justifications. You start bypassing the law on a small level like using terms out of place it allows for larger 'justifications.' Which again are being played out on our streets now.

 What I have been advocating for this entire time is granting the word "rape" its personal meaning to actual victims as a way of privately legitimizing the terrible thing that happened to them so that they may begin to move forward.  That's all.   Do you not think this is a fair thing to allow to those who have suffered?

I am a 'one who has suffered' and i still see a greater need for the community to stand with the laws that were made without the slant of emotion or hurt put upon them. there is a far greater issue than the one who has suffered or even the millions who have suffered it is the rights and freedoms of the 100's of millions if not billions who are having their rights, challenged or in somecases taken away by a well meaning, but often blind group of people.

It's about empowering the victim on a private, internal level; not handing out power to any old person who wants to see their boyfriend in jail...

No, empowerment doesn't come in giving people the right to label just anyone with a criminal act. (that is embitterment) the empowerment comes in following the law, contributing to the process of society, and seeing justice carried out no matter the verdict.

Bold mine.  Yes, I agree with this.  This is (more or less) what I have been trying to communicate to you.

Is it possible that we are coming at least close to a mutual understanding of each other, and the issue?  [emoji57]

possibly.

[Drich]

What's the point in posting things at all if you're going to tuck your tail and run from your own statements, lol?  60 some odd pages of rape apologism, just to pretend you never meant it.  One or two pages of unrelated shit to cover that 60 some odd pages, and now you wish that never happened too.  

You know what, you can avoid all of this by not shitposting in the first place.  Dig deep, you can do it.

That is my whole point here.

I say "x", You take "x" to mean "X!!!"

Then i spend 60 pages to show you x =/= X!!!

Then when you finally get it, you assume I am the one who is 'backpedaling."


You guys kill me.

[The Grand Nudger]

If I was being generous, I'd tell you to stop blaming others for your inability to communicate.  I'm not being generous though... this is yet another dodge.  

Again, if you don't want people to hold you to a shitpost, don't shitpost, and maybe..just maybe, dont shitpost for 60 pages. Whats the goal, anyway? Would you rather make yourself out to be a liar than admit you were wrong? Is it worse to be wrong, than to be a liar, in your opinion? Is this the fruit of the tree?

[Huggy Bear]

Do you think it is right to call combat soldiers murderers? what if your brother went to syeria and joined ISIS and was killed by a US soldier? It is proper to call the soldier a murderer or is it ok to say your brother was murdered?

Do you think it is right to call someone who shoots and kill one of your family members a murderer IF he the guy is honestly defending his life? the same here was your family member murdered and is the man who killed them a murderer?

In both instances the law allows for the taking of human life so legally the killing of an enemy combatant is not murder nor is legal self defense. The word murder describes a criminal act. If the law does not allow for prosecution the act maybe the same (the net result/your family member died at the hands of another) but to the law it is as it never happened.

Meaning in either of the cases above the government can not rightfully detain or prosecute a criminal case.

*emphasis mine*

You sure about that?

http://dcxposed.com/2012/07/11/u-s-soldi...-qaeda-op/

In March of 2009, convicted of killing a known Al Qaeda operative while serving in Iraq, Army Ranger 1st Lieutenant Michael Behenna was sent to Leavenworth prison for a duration of 25 years. The Al Qaeda terrorist, ali mansur, had killed two of Behenna’s comrades and injured two others the previous year. Mansur was on the governments kill/capture list.

[LadyForCamus]

---

Do you think it is right to call combat soldiers murderers? what if your brother went to syeria and joined ISIS and was killed by a US soldier? It is proper to call the soldier a murderer or is it ok to say your brother was murdered?

Do you think it is right to call someone who shoots and kill one of your family members a murderer IF he the guy is honestly defending his life? the same here was your family member murdered and is the man who killed them a murderer?

In both instances the law allows for the taking of human life so legally the killing of an enemy combatant is not murder nor is legal self defense. The word murder describes a criminal act. If the law does not allow for prosecution the act maybe the same (the net result/your family member died at the hands of another) but to the law it is as it never happened.

Meaning in either of the cases above the government can not rightfully detain or prosecute a criminal case.

The same is true with rape. the word rape describes a criminal act. like murder. However if one takes into account the SOL as being an end date to prosecution, then effectivly it nullifies any legal recourse/chance for justice a victim has.

To take away the right to call a rape a rape, will indeed push someone who wants justice to act. It will also make a perpetual victim react. so both can be identified.

To the perpetual victim you help them understand the road they are on. Many don't choose this path, they are simply stuck on it, and need help because they never ever said anything and don't know where to go. So you offer them help or allow them the room to be what they want to be.

I also would argue (but am not willing to die on this hill) that if one allows a rapist go without prosecution, to possibly rape someone else.. then there must be some reason they Allowed the sex to not be classified as rape legally.


With an SOL it is.. my thoughts of the matter do not matter. i am not speaking for a point of personal philosophy, but in accordance to how the law reads.

Again the reason for a SOL in a rape case is because The only difference between rape and consentual sex is consent and there is no physical evidence/dna for consent. This is true one day after the fact let alone 5 years.

The only measure we have to gauge consent in Most cases is time. which again answers the OP's question.


After 10 years, and all that remained was a tape of a fake rape session with no run up or explanation, just a brutal session of forced sex, how is one to establish consent? At best you MIGHT build a circumstantial defense, anything else will be he said she said.

Now again, EP admitted this was his thing, and I'm sure if one simply saw the act and did not know anything else about the couple EP would probably goto jail based on the only evidence available/the tape. The only thing that keeps his walking the street is none of his victims/girlfriends has made the claim the his forced sex was indeed not consensual.

So again, the reason for the SOL. The thought being time will flesh out the victims from the weirdos. (no offense EP)


But this is exactly what is happening in the streets of Ferguson, Milwaukee, Charolett ect.
The populas has tried and convicted in the court of popular opinion and demand punishment without due process. Just by just labeling the police offers murders. When their brand of 'justice' is not met. they "burn this bitch down."

The are presuming guilt before due process. they want the cops to be treated as guilty and then proove their innocence.

It's not being suggested It is being played out on our city streets when a segment of the population feels like they are not being treated 'fairly.'

How else can you chant "no justice no peace" then burn down several blocks pillage and loot, and FEEL MORALLY JUSTIFIED in doing so?

Are we to also now add rape to the list?

Again, yes the act of a sexual assault was committed, but to call it a rape should be determined by it's legal status, not by how one 'feels' or morally justifies their feelings.

Remember, laws are mean to be the checks and balances to our own personal moral justifications. You start bypassing the law on a small level like using terms out of place it allows for larger 'justifications.' Which again are being played out on our streets now.

I am a 'one who has suffered' and i still see a greater need for the community to stand with the laws that were made without the slant of emotion or hurt put upon them. there is a far greater issue than the one who has suffered or even the millions who have suffered it is the rights and freedoms of the 100's of millions if not billions who are having their rights, challenged or in somecases taken away by a well meaning, but often blind group of people.

No, empowerment doesn't come in giving people the right to label just anyone with a criminal act. (that is embitterment) the empowerment comes in following the law, contributing to the process of society, and seeing justice carried out no matter the verdict.

possibly.

---

*sigh*

So close to being a human, Drich.  So close...

Unfortunately for you, you never provided sufficient evidence for your bald assertion that the word "rape" is only meaningful or definable in legal context, and in fact, multiple people here demonstrated that assertion to be FALSE.  When you were asked to provide said evidence for your assertion you played dumb and changed the subject.  So, your argument that a victim has no "right" to use that word in a private sense if they can't use it in a legal sense is completely without merit.  

Your dead terrorist/combat soldier example is a poor analogy to a rape victim/rapist.  There is no such thing as a justified rape, or a justified sexual assault.  But it's irrelevant anyhow for the reason I just stated in the paragraph above.

I'm not going to be bothered with all the police shooting/rioting crap you blasted me with because it has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about.  Pass.

Go ahead if you want, and keep telling sexual assault victims they can't have the word "rape" unless the guy goes to jail for it.  Keeping putting agendas before human beings.  Let me know how it works out for you.  "Think, feel, act however you want.  I can only offer a different perspective."

[Losty]

Fixed that for ya <3

[LadyForCamus]

Fixed that for ya <3

Thank you!  Haha!  I was all like...'wtf did I DO?!"  

[Drich]

Do you think it is right to call combat soldiers murderers? what if your brother went to syeria and joined ISIS and was killed by a US soldier? It is proper to call the soldier a murderer or is it ok to say your brother was murdered?

Do you think it is right to call someone who shoots and kill one of your family members a murderer IF he the guy is honestly defending his life? the same here was your family member murdered and is the man who killed them a murderer?

In both instances the law allows for the taking of human life so legally the killing of an enemy combatant is not murder nor is legal self defense. The word murder describes a criminal act. If the law does not allow for prosecution the act maybe the same (the net result/your family member died at the hands of another) but to the law it is as it never happened.

Meaning in either of the cases above the government can not rightfully detain or prosecute a criminal case.

*emphasis mine*

You sure about that?

http://dcxposed.com/2012/07/11/u-s-soldi...-qaeda-op/

In March of 2009, convicted of killing a known Al Qaeda operative while serving in Iraq, Army Ranger 1st Lieutenant Michael Behenna was sent to Leavenworth prison for a duration of 25 years. The Al Qaeda terrorist, ali mansur, had killed two of Behenna’s comrades and injured two others the previous year. Mansur was on the governments kill/capture list.

Yes i am sure. Read the statement again. I am describing the legal definition of a criminal act, not speaking to points of law.

Do you understand the difference between the two?

If so why use a point of law (specific circumstance) to try and over turn an established legal definition?

Even as a point of law the fact is military law works on a completely different set of rules than civilian law. Civilian law seeks to protect the rights of the people in accordance to the standard set by the constitution. Military seeks to protect the intergrity of the military's MOP first.
You are at best comparing apples and oranges.

That said, i find it a little alarming that you are willing to try and mislead me with your citation being a man of faith, just to try and prove me wrong... Why sell your integrity so cheaply? or did you just grab the first thing you saw and thought this proved me wrong without vetting anything?

Here is what I am talking about:
Less than two weeks later Mansur was ordered released due to military intelligence having insufficient evidence to hold him any longer. Behenna's platoon was tasked with the return of Mansur to town as soon as possible. On May 16, while returning the prisoner to a checkpoint as ordered, Behenna and his platoon stopped at a bridge in the northern oil refinery town of Baiji and, with the help of his Iraqi interpreter nicknamed "Harry", tried to question Mansur on the April 21st attacks. According to the interpreter, "Lieutenant Behenna started talking with Ali Mansur and Sergeant Warner followed them. Behenna and Warner started taking off Ali Mansur's clothes with their knives. They then cut his handcuffs." Behenna ordered the detainee to sit, the interpreter said, adding that Behenna seemed to be keen to get information from the detainee regarding the IED attack on U.S. troops in April. Behenna asked the detainee several times: "What do you know you have to tell me." "Ali Mansur said I will talk to you but Lieutenant Behenna pulled trigger and killed him," the interpreter said, speaking in English. "Before we started the patrol, Lieutenant Behenna told Ali Mansur 'I will kill you'. I thought Lieutenant Behenna was trying to scare him. I did not think he would go through (with it)," the interpreter added. "I was standing 10 metres back during the shooting – I could see everything even if it was getting dark – and Sergeant Warner was next to me." Warner then "took the grenade from his pocket, pulled the safety ring, walked around and put the grenade under Ali Mansur's head. "Then they hid his clothes, and Behenna and Warner went back." Two U.S. soldiers from the same battalion as the accused also testified against Warner. Corporal Cody Atkinson said that Behenna and Warner, armed with a grenade, took Mohammed out of the vehicle and under the bridge.[10]

After the murder, Behenna ordered the platoon back to the base and the next day local villagers found Mansur's naked, burned body in the culvert. On July 31 of 2008 Behenna was relieved of his command and charged with the premeditated murder of Ali Mansur Mohamed. In November of that year Behenna was returned to Fort Campbell and assigned to security duties pending his court martial.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behenna
http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-iraq-killin...story.html

Just incase you missed it the military order the release of this suspected terrorist because there was no evidence to deem him an enemy combatant. Your example thought otherwise. he kidnapped the suspected terrorist striped him naked, shot and killed him and burned the body. Despite what his higher up told him to do.