Girl May Be Charged ForTweeting Boys Names Who Assaulted Her

[Stealthy_Singh]

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.

Exactly. I don't understand why some people see accepting that what she did was wrong is equivalent to condoning what the boys did!

[+ir0nw0lf Subscriber²]

EDIT: Contempt motion withdrawn

http://www.courier-j...&nclick_check=1

Defense attorneys for two boys who pleaded guilty to assaulting a 17-year-old Savannah Dietrich have withdrawn their motion that she be held in contempt for tweeting the names of her attackers in defiance of a court order.

David Mejia, an attorney for one of the teens, said now that the Louisville teen?s story has gone global because of a Courier-Journal article on Saturday there was no reason to continue the contempt motion.

?What could contempt do now?? Mejia said in an interview, adding that the boys names have already been circulated far beyond the original tweet. ?Seems like a rather useless exercise doesn?t it?

Emily Farrar-Crockett, deputy division chief of the public defender's juvenile division and one of Dietrich's attorneys, said ?Savannah greatly appreciates the overwhelming support from all over the world and we are pleased these defense lawyers withdrew their motion for contempt.?

Farrar-Crockett also said they are still looking to set aside the original gag order, as it was too broad and Savannah should still be able to talk about aspects of the case.

Dietrich had been frustrated by what she felt was a lenient plea bargain for the two teens who pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting her and circulating pictures of the incident, so she tweeted their names and criticized the justice system last month.

"There you go, lock me up," Dietrich tweeted in June. "I'm not protecting anyone that made my life a living Hell."

Mejia and Chris Klein, attorneys for the two boys, then asked a Jefferson District Court judge to hold her in contempt because they said that in naming her attackers, she violated the confidentiality of a juvenile hearing and the court's order not to speak of it.

[Matthew_Thepc]

http://www.kentucky....ed-against.html < O.O IMO she should have at least gotten fined for it, but it was the judge's call ITE ;)

edit: ah, ir0nw0lf beat me to it ;P

[Ambroos]

EDIT: Contempt motion withdrawn

http://www.courier-j...&nclick_check=1

Good. I'm glad to see the defence attorneys and whoever put that gag order thing in place have used their common sense. Faith in humanity restored - for now.

[xpablo]

Her charges have been dropped.

Here's some links to info on this case.

http://craigeisele.wordpress.com/2012/07/22/kentucky-prosecutor-and-judge-appear-to-giving-a-political-favor/#comments

https://www.facebook.com/HelpSavannahDietrich

The boys pictures and names are listed on these and many other websites.

[Lyric]

I would have done the same thing as she did, no questions asked except I would have went to a further extent and put it on every social website and forum known to man.

I don't care what anyone says, laws are just books of bull****, if you choose to abide by them fully, or partially its your choice. No one is holding a gun to your head making sure you follow every law and order you are given. ultimately its your choice....

[Matthew_Thepc]

I would have done the same thing as she did, no questions asked except I would have went to a further extent and put it on every social website and forum known to man.

I don't care what anyone says, laws are just books of bull****, if you choose to abide by them fully, or partially its your choice. No one is holding a gun to your head making sure you follow every law and order you are given. ultimately its your choice....

If she did that, I'd track down every thread she posted it on, report the comments she made, and then condemn her actions on the forum. You just can't break the law (or a court order, as the case may be) because someone else did...that's not how, at least here in the US, it works, and she was lucky that her case brought up so much media attention, or else she would've probably gone to jail or paid a fine. but I've gotta say, the judge probably got extremely ****ed off at her, so if she was looking for some sympathy there, she's not gonna find any

[encarta]

If she did that, I'd track down every thread she posted it on, report the comments she made, and then condemn her actions on the forum. You just can't break the law (or a court order, as the case may be) because someone else did...that's not how, at least here in the US, it works, and she was lucky that her case brought up so much media attention. but I've gotta say, the judge probably got extremely ****ed off at her, so if she was looking for some sympathy there, she's not gonna find any

You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding.

[Noir Angel]

What happened to this girl was obviously horrible, but she shouldn't have the option to pick and choose what laws she follows either. There's absolutely no need for vigilantism, just let the justice system do it's job.

[mokthraka]

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.

if only people had that same view when is raped, but then he is lucky isn't he? Or when someone lies about getting raped.

[Matthew_Thepc]

You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding.

lol yeah, I was joking ;) but still, I don't think she should've gotten off without any punishment...

[Growled Member]

I think she did the right thing. The boys should have been charged as adults, just like they do in murder cases.

[Noir Angel]

I think she did the right thing. The boys should have been charged as adults, just like they do in murder cases.

Sure they should, but that's not justification for their names being given to the public, given the prevalence of vigilanteism in US culture.

[vanx]

"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?

A plea deal can also be given to someone where there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a more severe crime has been committed. I think there would have been an outrage of similar proportions if prosecution had a solid rape case but agreed to plea the defendants down to a lesser charge, wouldn't you?

[Barney T. Administrators]

Changed title slightly to make it less confusing

[Matthew_Thepc]

A plea deal can also be given to someone where there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a more severe crime has been committed. I think there would have been an outrage of similar proportions if prosecution had a solid rape case but agreed to plea the defendants down to a lesser charge, wouldn't you?

yeah, I would suspect that they didn't find any signs in her body (or else she didn't agree to testing) that she'd been raped, and none of the pictures really show anything that could've proven the boys did rape her.

Changed title slightly to make it less confusing

thanks :D but could you add a space between "For" and "Two"? :p

[Stealthy_Singh]

I think she did the right thing. The boys should have been charged as adults, just like they do in murder cases.

Complete non sequitur. Even if you feel she did the right thing it has nothing to do to judge if the boys should have been tried as adults. The two are separate issues in the case.

[Veiva]

I am shocked at the comments in this thread. Henry David Thoreau wrote a great work civil disobedience, aptly named Civil Disobedience, and this work is up there as one of the most important literary works that applies in this modern day and age.

I am with the girl in this case. Her rights were violated more so than the rights of the "boys." Morals are always more important than the law.

The most important moral code, I believe, is the ethic of reciprocity. Most moral and ethical systems are founded upon this and not for any frivolous reasons. I point this out in part because I know someone is going to present a straw man in order to disagree, but alas...

[andrewbares]

I am with the girl in this case. Her rights were violated more so than the rights of the "boys." Morals are always more important than the law.

No, they aren't more important than the law.

You apparently support getting vengance by doing illegal things, just because you think it's "morally" right.

A judge is an UNBIASED party that decides results using EVIDENCE. A plantiff is of course biased and thinks that he is right... that doesn't mean he actually *is* right. The judge decides that.

If you don't like that system, then you shouldn't be a citizen of the US.

[Veiva]

No, they aren't more important than the law.

You apparently support getting vengance by doing illegal things, just because you think it's "morally" right.

A judge is an UNBIASED party that decides results using EVIDENCE. A plantiff is of course biased and thinks that he is right... that doesn't mean he actually *is* right. The judge decides that.

If you don't like that system, then you shouldn't be a citizen of the US.

I do not support vengeance by doing illegal things. Don't put words into my mouth.

I am curious... Do you support the actions of Martin Luther King, Jr. during the Civil Rights Movement? How about Gandhi during turmoils in India? Even Thoreau, who was imprisoned for not paying into a tax system that support the Mexican-American War because he believed it to be immoral?

The girl may not be in the right. However, I support her because she did what she believed to be right. Do I honestly believe it's right? I'm not sure. I have no opinion. I was not affected by this event, so I cannot say either way.

Lastly, how are morals less than the law? Are you talking about Our Great Country, the United States of America, exclusively, or the laws of a country in which one resides? I disagree either way, but I hope you can see the error in your logic.

[ANON86364]

I am shocked at the comments in this thread. Henry David Thoreau wrote a great work civil disobedience, aptly named Civil Disobedience, and this work is up there as one of the most important literary works that applies in this modern day and age.

I am with the girl in this case. Her rights were violated more so than the rights of the "boys." Morals are always more important than the law.

The most important moral code, I believe, is the ethic of reciprocity. Most moral and ethical systems are founded upon this and not for any frivolous reasons. I point this out in part because I know someone is going to present a straw man in order to disagree, but alas...

I think I see what you're saying; that morals dictate law, not vice versa. Justice systems are created to revolve around this but inevitably fall behind. That is where discretion comes in the form of a judge. In this case, this aforementioned concept is upheld by the charges being dropped on the girl. I see no problem with this.

[bj55555]

No, they aren't more important than the law.

You apparently support getting vengance by doing illegal things, just because you think it's "morally" right.

A judge is an UNBIASED party that decides results using EVIDENCE. A plantiff is of course biased and thinks that he is right... that doesn't mean he actually *is* right. The judge decides that.

If you don't like that system, then you shouldn't be a citizen of the US.

Judges are supposed to be unbiased, but we all know that they're not. They also make mistakes. All the time. That's why we have appeals courts.

The judge should have never allowed there to be a gag order for the plea deal. These punks got off easy. They could have been convicted and sentenced to daily rape of their own at a correctional facility for adults. Instead, they were probably going to juvy hall for a few months before they head off to college for an even better "target-rich" environment.

[ANON86364]

The judge should have never allowed there to be a gag order for the plea deal.

They should have been tried as adults. That not being what happened is why there was a gag order.

[Tuishimi]

I am impressed that, for the most part, this thread has been more or less level headed with not a lot of name-calling.

I've been in court and I know the Judge's are very clear when they place a gag order or what-have-you on a case. They provide very explicit instruction to all who are involved.

The girl was told that she was not to reveal the names, she did it, contempt.

I am sure the boys will get what they deserve. But at the same time, now even if they realize the nature of their crime and wish to repent, their names are out there and it might possibly follow them for the rest of their lives as well, especially when employers do internet background checks these days. It is said that the human brain doesn't fully mature (especially in the "common sense" inhibitor area) until around 26 years of age. Teens do stupid things and just don't have the ability to override their hormones and emotions all of the time. Especially when they have been drinking... you can bet if the girl was passed out from drinking they too were drinking... combine the effects of alcohol with an immature mind and you get this mess. The girls age also reflects her decision to disobey a court order.

We don't know how contrite the boys were once it hit them what they did. The article doesn't really say.

I am sure the Judge will take all of this (for both sides) into consideration... I don't think I would want to be a judge, they must see so many depressing incidents.

Anyway... sorry for rambling.

PS - if it was my daughter, and I do have a daughter and a son, I'd want to crack heads as well, at the same time I'd be quite upset that my daughter was drinking (or whatever it was they were doing), especially enough to cause her to pass out. Actually I'd be p-o'd that she put herself in that situation to begin with.

[Southern Patriot]

Wrong.

The U.S.A. has a similar judicial system to Britain.

Innocent to proven guilty.

She could get time for contempt.

They were already proven guilty, they are awaiting sentencing. Guessing you didn't actually read the whole article?