Girl May Be Charged ForTweeting Boys Names Who Assaulted Her

[Hum]

These boys should be put in the stocks, nude, for public embarassment and humiliation.

[pwgarner]

The main thing that confuses me about this case is are the boys supposed to register as sex offenders? If so then this makes her tweet a moot point. Also one could argue that her tweet was among friends. You should be able to talk about what has happened to you to your "friends". Just seems that the letter o the law is on a sliding scale a little bit in this case.

[hamslammer]

Bravo to her for having the balls to speak out about her attackers. I went to the source site and found the petition link and signed her petition. I urge others to please go there to support her and to add your comments about what will be a grave injustice to this victim.

[srbeen]

Protect the guilty and serve the innocent. Land of the free right?

[srbeen]

The main thing that confuses me about this case is are the boys supposed to register as sex offenders? If so then this makes her tweet a moot point. Also one could argue that her tweet was among friends. You should be able to talk about what has happened to you to your "friends". Just seems that the letter o the law is on a sliding scale a little bit in this case.

Probably yeah, registered sex offenders whose names will be suppressed from media due to their age... Im pretty sure someone whos 17 knows what rape is and knows its not consent if they are passed out. This isn't first aid.

Then again, what was a 17 year old girl doing at a party that caused her to 'pass out' so badly that 2 other guys could rape and photograph her without her awakening. There's more to this story, if the girl wanted to reveal their names she shouldn't have pressed charges, especially where those charges only protected the accused - who are clearly guilty due to the photographs.

[Singh400]

Your sarcasm sickens me. EVERYONE should ignore those facts and name and shame the freaks of nature. Evil little a**holes. Sorry but in this instance, the law vs the people's thoughts should be in favour of the agreement of almost everyone... ie: drop the case and give those kids the beating they deserve. Btw, 17 year old's are not kids. They're fully able to be responsible for these abhorrent acts of sick behaviour.

Not really. You could make the case that at 17-year those kids can't legally drink etc.

I for one think she should have thought twice about tweeting their names.

[Fezmid Reviews]

Even if there is no mention to be DNA evidence coming from a rape kit (the kit used by doctors to get sexual fluids from victims after a rape), it still looks like there is enough evidence to qualify this as rape. I cannot help but wonder if the prosecution or attorney are trying to minimize the case because, as she went to a party, got drunk to the point to pass out, they think she was just a 'slutty teen' so they do not prosecute the case as harsh as the case should require.

Or maybe there was no rape and all the boys did was sexually assault (take clothes off, for exapmle) and photograph her. While still terrible and wrong, it's still not rape.

[Charisma Veteran]

Or maybe there was no rape and all the boys did was sexually assault (take clothes off, for exapmle) and photograph her. While still terrible and wrong, it's still not rape.

Not to discount your point--because you're right, we don't have details--but the charges were first-degree sexual assault, which indicates it was something more severe.

[Hum]

^ I don't see how males think they can't just force sex on someone and they will get away with it.

Many must not have brains.

[Fezmid Reviews]

Not to discount your point--because you're right, we don't have details--but the charges were first-degree sexual assault, which indicates it was something more severe.

I decided to look up the Kentucky laws... And found that 1st degree sexual assault isn't that high a bar. Specifically:

A person is guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree when:

...

He or she subjects another person to sexual contact who is incapable of consent because he or she:

1. Is physically helpless;

...

So there ya go -- if the boys took her clothes off, that'd be considered first degree sexual assault. Taking pictures of the event is probably the misdemeanor voyeurism charges.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/krs/510-00/110.PDF

Again, I'm not saying what they did was right - far from it - only that sexual assault is a FAR cry from rape.

[Som]

Yeah, lets ignore the fact that they are kids and the court specifically ordered that their names be suppressed.

maybe if it was your daughter that got raped you might have a different opinion on the matter..

[articuno1au]

maybe if it was your daughter that got raped you might have a different opinion on the matter..

I'd murder the little *****; And I'd be JUST AS ****ING WRONG.

To say I'd be ****ed off in the situation is THOROUGHLY retarded. Not only is it an irrelevancy, but it just reinforces why the judge makes the decision and not the victim or the victims family or the prosecution or the defence: The Judge.

The judge weighed up the value of the information to the public as opposed to the downsides, and ruled that the names not be released.

He assessed it and made a call. If he got it wrong, the prosecutor can apply to have the gag order lifted. Instead she disallowed them due process.

She got it wrong, and to suggest that what she did ought not be acknowledged through due process (the same due process she denied the rapists) is completely untenable.

[Som]

I'd murder the little *****; And I'd be JUST AS ****ING WRONG.

To say I'd be ****ed off in the situation is THOROUGHLY retarded. Not only is it an irrelevancy, but it just reinforces why the judge makes the decision and not the victim or the victims family or the prosecution or the defence: The Judge.

The judge weighed up the value of the information to the public as opposed to the downsides, and ruled that the names not be released.

He assessed it and made a call. If he got it wrong, the prosecutor can apply to have the gag order lifted. Instead she disallowed them due process.

She got it wrong, and to suggest that what she did ought not be acknowledged through due process (the same due process she denied the rapists) is completely untenable.

At certain point our society went very very wrong. What they did was horrible and she will probably never recover. No punishment they little ******** get will ever be justice. Personally if it was me and it was my, daughter, sister, girlfriend, whatever... I would hope to have the courage to find those little ****ers and castrate them and throw in dark cell for the rest of their lives, preventing them from corrupting future generations. Been 17 is NOT an excuse, what they did was pure evil , plain and simple, let the punishment fit the crime .... in my opinion...

[Lamp0]

Protect the guilty and serve the innocent. Land of the free right?

As threads like this demonstrate people are easily overwhlemed with emotions of anger & show an almost animalistic disposition for vengence.

If communities were left alone to deal with such situations there would almost certainly be witch hunts every other hour until there was no one left.

[Stealthy_Singh]

I'm very annoyed at the comparison of what she did to what Gandhi did and people saying she shouldn't be punished.

As she was raped I feel really sorry for her and can't imagine what she is going through. However the judge put a gag order out and that should be respected.

The girl doesn't even know what punishment the boys are going to get so she doesn't even know what she is complaining about (apart from the anonymity on which I agree with her). If people are going to compare her to Gandhi then people should say she should face up to the consequences of what she did. Gandhi always took the punishment for whatever law he broke. He didn't offer any defence just that he will wilfully break the law again and again. He wore the government down like this, not by being let off.

If the girl is serious about changing an unjust law and not just about revenge then she should take the punishment and encourage others to do the same. Justice does not equal revenge. This is what would bring change about rather than dealing with this on a case by case basis. If I was in her position I would likely be very tempted to do same thing. If I did, looking at it dispassionately I would expect to be punished by the law. Obviously I would not be thinking that at the time. This is why we have the law.

For the record:

The boys did something totally messed up

The girls also messed up (not to same the degree but she messed up all the same)

Both should be punished APPROPRIATELY.

Then people should push for a change in the law.

[OOOOOOOO]

Go and actually read what I said. "It wasn't as harmful as what was done to her, not by a long shot, but it was equally WRONG.".

What a douchebag comment. Equally WRONG it certainly was NOT. It was legally wrong. But equally wrong? She gets physically attacked, f**ked without her consent, and you think it was equal to what they did when she posted their names? If you didn't mean that, stop re-quoting your massive asshat comment.

[argonite]

As threads like this demonstrate people are easily overwhlemed with emotions of anger & show an almost animalistic disposition for vengence.

If communities were left alone to deal with such situations there would almost certainly be witch hunts every other hour until there was no one left.

Indeed, we have a legal system in order to make relatively (compared to crazed revenge-seeking parents, jilted lovers, forum users, etc...) unbiased judgements given a set of facts. This will inherently make people who ARE biased rather angry. Oh well, it's the best system we have now.

[vanx]

I just wish people who post in this thread would quit saying that those guys raped her. Nowhere but the thread title -- which is misleading -- does it say that a rape took place. The article calls it sexual assault. They pleaded guilty to sexual assault. If they did rape her, and there was evidence to prove that beyond reasonable doubt, prosecution would not have made a plea bargain and they would have been charged with rape of some degree. End of story.

[Stealthy_Singh]

What a douchebag comment. Equally WRONG it certainly was NOT. It was legally wrong. But equally wrong? She gets physically attacked, f**ked without her consent, and you think it was equal to what they did when she posted their names? If you didn't mean that, stop re-quoting your massive asshat comment.

Before you start spitting vitriol try reading what he wrote and understanding it. He is saying wrong is wrong not that one is not worse than the other. i.e they both need to be punished by the law appropriate to what they did. Now he didn't quite say the last but but I'm sure he wouldn't disagree with that interpretation.

He also said that what the buys did was more harmful. Well what he actually said was what she did wasn't as harmful as what they did to her.

[Matthew_Thepc]

I'm very annoyed at the comparison of what she did to what Gandhi did and people saying she shouldn't be punished.

As she was raped I feel really sorry for her and can't imagine what she is going through. However the judge put a gag order out and that should be respected.

The girl doesn't even know what punishment the boys are going to get so she doesn't even know what she is complaining about (apart from the anonymity on which I agree with her). If people are going to compare her to Gandhi then people should say she should face up to the consequences of what she did. Gandhi always took the punishment for whatever law he broke. He didn't offer any defence just that he will wilfully break the law again and again. He wore the government down like this, not by being let off.

If the girl is serious about changing an unjust law and not just about revenge then she should take the punishment and encourage others to do the same. Justice does not equal revenge. This is what would bring change about rather than dealing with this on a case by case basis. If I was in her position I would likely be very tempted to do same thing. If I did, looking at it dispassionately I would expect to be punished by the law. Obviously I would not be thinking that at the time. This is why we have the law.

For the record:

The boys did something totally messed up

The girls also messed up (not to same the degree but she messed up all the same)

Both should be punished APPROPRIATELY.

Then people should push for a change in the law.

hear, hear! well written and to the point; both of them screwed up and they should both face the appropriate consequences for their actions.

[Fezmid Reviews]

I just wish people who post in this thread would quit saying that those guys raped her. Nowhere but the thread title -- which is misleading -- does it say that a rape took place. The article calls it sexual assault. They pleaded guilty to sexual assault. If they did rape her, and there was evidence to prove that beyond reasonable doubt, prosecution would not have made a plea bargain and they would have been charged with rape of some degree. End of story.

Exactly. Heck, I even posted the laws from Kentucky that shows first degree sexual assault (which is what they were charged with) is that they touched her inappropriately when she couldn't resist because she was passed out. Not good, but as I've said SEVERAL times in this thread, it's NOT rape.

[Stealthy_Singh]

I just wish people who post in this thread would quit saying that those guys raped her. Nowhere but the thread title -- which is misleading -- does it say that a rape took place. The article calls it sexual assault. They pleaded guilty to sexual assault. If they did rape her, and there was evidence to prove that beyond reasonable doubt, prosecution would not have made a plea bargain and they would have been charged with rape of some degree. End of story.

Fair point. If we are going to discuss this we should be accurate and actually say what they were convicted of rather than what was mistakenly written in the forum title.

[Matthew_Thepc]

I find it pretty interesting that the sentiment is a lot different over in the CJ article's comments: http://www.courier-journal.com/comments/article/20120720/NEWS01/307200106/Sexual-assault-victim-s-tweets-about-attackers-prompt-contempt-case-against-Louisville-s-Savannah-Dietrich

nearly 100% of the people there are saying that she was in the right, and here it's a lot more 50-50

just pointing it out ;)

[+ir0nw0lf Subscriber²]

I'd like to know why the judge ordered the names to not be released. Nothing in the world excuses the two guys from what they did, but there was a court order for the names not to be released. She directly violated that. Time for her to pay the Piper. She is supposedly old enough to realize that violating a court order is a no no.

All you folks who keep yammering on about how those of us are unsympathetic, evil, etc. just because some of us feel she should indeed be held in contempt: we are not excusing the two snotwads at all over their crime, don't understand how you can conclude that.

[pwgarner]

"If they did rape her, and there was evidence to prove that beyond reasonable doubt, prosecution would not have made a plea bargain and they would have been charged with rape of some degree."

That is completely and totally false! A plea deal is usually given to someone to avoid a lengthy and expensive trial. It could also be used to keep certain aspects of the crime from being made public knowledge. You have heard of pleading guilty to a lesser charge right?