[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P4Bko0dhOI[/youtube]
Sexual assault is different from rape…
…er… yea…
Here’s a more direct source. I read about this in the newspaper a couple days ago: nydailynews.com/new-york/sur … -1.1260437
I only watched about half of the video. Do they actually ever get around to saying if/how the punishments for rape and sexual assault (aggravated in this case I would assume) actually differ? All I’m seeing so far is them saying that it’s a huge crisis the victim didn’t get the courts to agree with her vernacular.
EDIT: OK, well, watched the whole video, and I still didn’t see it. Closest they came is the anchor saying “…which I assume is a much lesser offense, right?” and the guest being interviewed acted like she didn’t hear the question and talked about something else.
US Federal government agencies define rape as any penetration–vaginal, anal, mouth–by any agent–penis, fingers, bottle, broomstick, whatever. This covers both female and male rape. I think all states should adopt that definition. Shouldn’t a male homosexual be able to claim rape by someone who’s attacked him and forced a bottle into his anus? How isn’t that rape?
Sounds like rape to me, but again
1.) The important thing is the length of sentencing, not that U.S. law conform to our semantics, and
2.) There could be any number of reasons for the distinction, I’m not a lawyer.
The maximum sentence for rape and the maximum sentence for assault will differ from state to state depending on the definition of state law and sentencing guidelines. I’m not an attorney, either, nor am I a judge. It just seems to me that the definition of rape is too often too inclusive and only involves women’s vaginas being penetrated, unwillingly, by men’s penises. It really should be expanded.
I guess! I'm just not overly concerned with this unless somebody can actually show me that acts that you and I would call rape are regularly punished less-severely because of the 'aggravated sexual assault' label. But yeah, my personal definition of rape is certainly broader than forced vaginal intercourse.
Rape is currently legal in California so long as the woman is single- if she is married, then it’s considered rape. This was apparently a old law buried in the legal code from 1872 and forgotten about, but a guy recently got out of prison for it.
So as of the moment, it IS legal to rape single women… but not married women, in California- which is largely in line with liberal democracy- a world in which any yahoo shitface dumbfuck idea that leads to the least amount of pleasure and constitutional contradiction (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) makes it a valid, moral law. In Canada, there is even a movement by psychologists to get pedophilia recognized as a legitimate sexual idenity to be protected and accepted by society and the law… same way the gays got in back in the 60s from a disease to a point of civic pride, despite the consequences to health and society directly linked to that acceptance- the AIDS outbreak centered in San Francisco.
I periodically head down to the library and whip out old law books we have there- the police when they are studying for tests go there, and take notes in the margines sometimes- there are a lot of laws they’ve sense penciled in ‘don’t enforce this one’. We have alot of crazy shit on the books we don’t push anymore… it’s more this judge’s cultural conditioning in bending to some bad, terrible, clearly horrific law out of california’s generally muddled understanding on what is sex and freedom that lead to this case.
The problem isn’t NYC… rape is literally LEGAL in California, so long as she isn’t a married woman. That’s the law, and it’s been enforced as such recently. Fucking impressive, isn’t it? Women, take your rings off, go get yourself some AIDS Cock San Francisco style in a back alley. Maybe he’ll get fined for having sex in a open space- don’t think you even get jailed for it, it’s a fine from my understanding.
This really is a leftist conspiracy- no other state in the union is this retarded to EVER, EVER let this happen. It’s by default a Conservative reaction to say ‘holy fucking shit, this is insane’ and desire to change it back to the good old days when a man stalking and having involuntary sex with a woman was considered a rape- a crime. How dare we for thinking in such archaic terms… we should enjoy the sexual liberation. Fuck law… right?
Fuck California, fuck this law, fuck these judges, and fuck the culture of fearful anarchism it’s produced.
newser.com/story/160378/cali … court.html
I'm no liberal, but how can you base an archaic law passed so long ago that everybody forgot it was there on the American Left? wouldn't a 'return to the good old days' in this case be a return to the days in which the passing of said law seemed reasonable?
I blame it on the left for the very reasons I stated- in every state there are ‘laws’ that are on the books but no longer enforced. In my state here, Witchcraft and Maxism is ILLEGAL. I am friends with both locally- in our lawbooks here, it has hand written notes by the police who study by them (no, not this one).
This is something alot of people don’t comprehend- we expect to a degree jury nullification, but we don’t expect our police to selectively pick which laws they are going to enforce, or judges which arguments they are going to accept. The outrage and threats against getting judged removed from office, debarred, and something more vindictive when the times call for it- the moderator Pav is from a town with a notorious case that ended up in a pirate war when the judge and jury purposely convicted the son of a man and not a man for the crime- disney made of movie ‘Davy Crocket and the River Pirates’ loosely built around the theme of the anarchy from it. Judges in America, as well as police, have been careful in regards to what laws actually are acted upon. It’s a cultural phenomena place by place, and for better or worst. The worst is the segregation days… it was a conservative reaction against liberalism. No one calls this into question- judges, lawyers, and cops selectively interpreted the laws to fit outcomes benificial to race. This both promolgates as well as prevented violence- it was violence against the suppressed black community as much as preventing violence from a large part of the union that in living memory rised up in rebellion. It was only when that living memory died off, and it because truely hsitorical that circumstances changed, and we only had a one sided violence against blacks. The shouth wasn’t going to realistically rise again.
In this case- California is a state who’s liberalism has been in the systammatic overthrow of sexual taboo… be it the labeling of sexuality as a disease or hinderence to the free pursuit of pleasure in any way, shape, or form- in a unrestrained form of equality, no matter the costs in the end, or the methods used to asserting this. The sensational attacks on the APA, in turning what was supposed to be a science of psychology of facts and statistics into a circus democracy, was it’s start. If that was it’s end, it wouldn’t of been too bad, but just about every kind of kink and fetish out there is protected and legally sanctioned OVER the older systems of sexuality- such as mother-father marriages aimed at raising children. There is a professor in San Francisco that specizes in pdeophilia, researching societies where kids get fucked and are fucked in return. Power relationships in sexuality are emphasized, the more lopsided the better- they even have street fairs in san francisco where people are whipped in the streets.
It’s no surprised at all, whatsoever to me that in a culture that measures freedom in terms of unrestrained sexual pursuit, the receiver of sexual lifestyle is marganilized. The man is now able to Rape, and Rape legitimatily in the eyes of the law, without shame or consequence- following this archaic law. Where else in our American Union would this of occured? Do you think a judge in Fargo, North Dakota in a Appeals case would of given this scumbag a second thought once he drudged up this law? No- law would of been noted, and the precident of the judge noting we don’t enforce such a law would of been observed, willful violence isn’t valid against non-consenters. Best of luck getting a supreme court position to overturn you, cause they are too sober to take this shit seriously, and likely will never hear you case… but here’s the number to some good ACLU lawyers to keep you busy with in the meantime.
No one but Californian judged would of enforced this shit. It’s absolutely absurd. Can this guy head out, and do this again- and realistically be convicted when he presents the Appealate court’s previous decision against him? Might as well take the prosecuter’s daughter in the courtroom in such a society.
That’s how deeply fucked up California is. They no longer have a means, no frame of reference of determining sexuality in a realistic fashion. Sex is pleasure, freedom, identity- a statement of live- but sure the hell doesn’t have anything draconian in it, such as reproduction based around family building.
This is now Califonia’s last gulf they have to bridge. How can they completely overtake reproduction and marriage by legalizing rape with married women? It’s the last act of violence they have left in completely destroying marriage. They can rape single women, get trannies hired systemmatically over even gays (they have higher protections in the city as a offical ethnity) and gays over straight. How are married people trying to raise a family supposed to last in such a society? How dare they- that’s what this culture is running away from.
And it is- one act of crude violence after another at a time. This is a case where judges, out of the blue, legalized rape. Rape that wasn’t legal before- it was on the books, but no cop would ever enforce that interpretation- just like no cop here would arrest a communist or a wiccan here in my state. We simply put know better. There is aspect of judical understanding completely lacking in california.
This thread was made to make a mockery of people blaming the left and feminists for rape. There is a case- the one I presented, in the liberal heartland, where is actually occurs.
This isn’t to say I am a prude- that I desire everyone back into the closet. I just ask for a reassessment of what everyone is doing there, and to serious ask themselves if this is smart in the long term. Your trading the validity of sex as a sustainer of humanity for the pursuit of mindless sex. You can still spank one another, you can take it up the butt like the rocketman for all I care, but get off the blasted fixation with this societal neurosis. Sex makes babies, and patents- both parents, make the best babies into adults. It’s damn good to preserve this aspect. It’s trounced upon there, it’s sad, sick, and deranged. If we could understand this- the more conservative population- the part of the country that tries to make balanced babies into balanced young adults, would be more willing to accept this. This crazt, unhindged sexuality AT THE EXPENSE of everything else, unable to admit what it’s doing is harmful- such as the AIDS epidemic being causually linked to the APA Protest, and then the denial to admit the lifestyles’ harmful effects- it’s literally causing destruction. There is a reason why per capita, San Francisco has the highest rate of homeless and drug users in the country. Skid Row in Los Angelas has about a equal number, but LA is much larger population wise, they manage the situation much better, dispite having a deranged police force. That’s scary.
This law needs stuck down ASAP. California needs to get a hold of itself, and work out it’s issues. This is very much a product of liberalism, completely unhinged and inexcusable. I hope the don’t find laws allowing for cannabism or running train orgies in the capital building on politicians, or some other weird sexual fetish. They are deranged enough to authenticate such laws- laws no police officer or jury would back otherwise.
I wonder if one of the judges in this case was a unmarried woman?
They literally legalized rape in California. Was a voluntary choice on their part. Fucking heroes of the legal profession there.