|
Please stop posting that he shouldn't have invited her into his bed since that's apparently not what happened... read the OP and links BEFORE commenting. |
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
On July 10 2011 02:37 Irrelevant wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2011 02:34 Fenrax wrote:On July 10 2011 02:33 Irrelevant wrote:On July 10 2011 02:32 Fenrax wrote:On July 10 2011 02:29 Irrelevant wrote:On July 10 2011 02:27 Fenrax wrote:On July 10 2011 01:44 Myles wrote:On July 10 2011 01:36 Fenrax wrote:On July 10 2011 01:24 HereticSaint wrote:On July 09 2011 17:13 Kojak21 wrote:
if a person goes around killing people in his sleep, he should still be held responsible for it, even if he doesnt remember or means to, its to keep other people safe.
this applys to rape and other things also Being, "held responsible" isn't quite the appropriate description of what would be happening under this particular context. You want to know why? Because it would have absolutely no impact on if this occurs in the future again or not. So, what you are actually describing is the need for vengeance over something someone can't control. I'm sick of twits like you comparing someone who wanders around and murders people in their sleep to someone who will potentially stick it to someone who enters their bed (I don't even know for sure if he was naked, but if he was the girl deserved every bit of it and I don't feel bad for her at all, she's 16, not 12). The similarity is only the state of the individual, the crimes are different and therefore you handle them differently. So what if someone kills another person who comes into his bedroom while asleep? Would you also go and say "You were asleep so no big deal dude, go home, everything's okay. You just have no self control in that state and that person shouldn't have come to your bedroom in the first place."? Probably not, right? So where is the big difference to rape? Sure, rape is not as severe as murder but it is still one of the most serious and harmful crimes a person can commit. If there no mens rea, then there's no crime. Get that through your skull. Get out of this stupid black and white world where because something bad happened someone must be punished. Bad shit happens sometimes and people don't mean for it to happen. The guy didn't intend to rape the girl, punishing him for it is simply false justice. Ok, so you apparantly say that if he killed a person in his sleep who came into his bed, then there would be no reason for the court to do something? Is that what you try to tell me? Would be the same results temporary insanity with some time in under medical supervision in a padded room, would not be charged with murder. Yes. But "some time" is a nice understatement. Many years would be more appropiate. So why is there no such verdict for rape? Because there is no current threat posed to anyone that doesn't crawl into his bed And why would you assume there is a threat for murder if no one crawls into the murderers bed? I would not consider myself a murderer but if you crawl in bed with me in the middle of the night, there is a good chance I would kill you and I would get away with it for many reasons.
If you thought I was a 16-year-old girl I have to disappoint you.
|
On July 10 2011 02:31 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2011 02:27 Fenrax wrote:On July 10 2011 01:44 Myles wrote:On July 10 2011 01:36 Fenrax wrote:On July 10 2011 01:24 HereticSaint wrote:On July 09 2011 17:13 Kojak21 wrote:
if a person goes around killing people in his sleep, he should still be held responsible for it, even if he doesnt remember or means to, its to keep other people safe.
this applys to rape and other things also Being, "held responsible" isn't quite the appropriate description of what would be happening under this particular context. You want to know why? Because it would have absolutely no impact on if this occurs in the future again or not. So, what you are actually describing is the need for vengeance over something someone can't control. I'm sick of twits like you comparing someone who wanders around and murders people in their sleep to someone who will potentially stick it to someone who enters their bed (I don't even know for sure if he was naked, but if he was the girl deserved every bit of it and I don't feel bad for her at all, she's 16, not 12). The similarity is only the state of the individual, the crimes are different and therefore you handle them differently. So what if someone kills another person who comes into his bedroom while asleep? Would you also go and say "You were asleep so no big deal dude, go home, everything's okay. You just have no self control in that state and that person shouldn't have come to your bedroom in the first place."? Probably not, right? So where is the big difference to rape? Sure, rape is not as severe as murder but it is still one of the most serious and harmful crimes a person can commit. If there no mens rea, then there's no crime. Get that through your skull. Get out of this stupid black and white world where because something bad happened someone must be punished. Bad shit happens sometimes and people don't mean for it to happen. The guy didn't intend to rape the girl, punishing him for it is simply false justice. Ok, so you apparantly say that if he killed a person in his sleep who came into his bed, then there would be no reason for the court to do something? Is that what you try to tell me? That's exactly what he's saying. Holy fucking shit you people are dumb. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Parkshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
Only dumb ones are people like you who keep spewing cases, and Wikipedia pages about Law terminology. Stop linking cases and stop saying mens rea. Motive is NOT required for a crime to have been committed, just look at man-slaughter charges. Please stop. The situation is very simple, and has been explained many times. I will do so again.
He knows about his condition full-well before the girl came to his house. Therefore as the host of the house, it is his responsibility to ensure any guests in the house know of any special rules or circumstances for living in said house. He did not inform her properly of his condition before she came to stay at the house, and therefore, due to negligence on his part to provide that information to the girl, it is in every way his fault what happened.
'She shouldn't have just crawled into his bed' - This is the number one thing you people seem to be saying about the case. Yes, you are right, she should not have. But by the same token if you go into someones room, whoever it is, and sleep in that room with them, in the bed, on the floor, or otherwise, 99% of people don't expect that person to rape you in their sleep.
Furthermore had she been properly informed of his condition there's a good chance she would not have even entered his house in the first place, and if she did decide to stay, she would have been properly aware of the accused's condition, and DEFINITELY would not have got into his bed. You are all seeming to forget, she is 16, he is 43, and given the situation of her staying there, it is clear he represents some sort of farther figure to her. You do not expect your father, or someone who acts a father to you, to rape you.
All of your points are invalid in this argument because she was not told of the person's condition, and that is 100%, very much in his control. It is his fault regardless of whether he had a motive, or whether he even was aware of the rape being omitted. He knew of his condition, his family did, they didn't tell the 16 year old. No mens rea, no fancy law terms, no case linking. Just simple circular logic.
If Person A has a serious sleep walking condition, and invites Person B to stay in his or her home, it is Person A's responsibility to make sure Person B knows of the condition - completely, before coming into the home. If Person A fails to provide such information, regardless of his state of consciousness at the time, any acts done by Person A to Person B are Person A's fault, as Person B was not aware of the condition. Just like its the responsibility of any business open to the public (that is retail businesses) to make sure any potential health hazards/dangers are well known to those coming in to make purchases and to ensure a safe environment is provided to its customers, it is the responsibility of the home owner to inform any guests to the home about possible mental/sleep walking conditions.
|
I know someone with sexsomnia. Not gonna tell whom since she's private about such things.
|
On July 10 2011 03:00 SichuanPanda wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Only dumb ones are people like you who keep spewing cases, and Wikipedia pages about Law terminology. Stop linking cases and stop saying mens rea. Motive is NOT required for a crime to have been committed, just look at man-slaughter charges. Please stop. The situation is very simple, and has been explained many times. I will do so again.
He knows about his condition full-well before the girl came to his house. Therefore as the host of the house, it is his responsibility to ensure any guests in the house know of any special rules or circumstances for living in said house. He did not inform her properly of his condition before she came to stay at the house, and therefore, due to negligence on his part to provide that information to the girl, it is in every way his fault what happened.
'She shouldn't have just crawled into his bed' - This is the number one thing you people seem to be saying about the case. Yes, you are right, she should not have. But by the same token if you go into someones room, whoever it is, and sleep in that room with them, in the bed, on the floor, or otherwise, 99% of people don't expect that person to rape you in their sleep.
Furthermore had she been properly informed of his condition there's a good chance she would not have even entered his house in the first place, and if she did decide to stay, she would have been properly aware of the accused's condition, and DEFINITELY would not have got into his bed. You are all seeming to forget, she is 16, he is 43, and given the situation of her staying there, it is clear he represents some sort of farther figure to her. You do not expect your father, or someone who acts a father to you, to rape you.
All of your points are invalid in this argument because she was not told of the person's condition, and that is 100%, very much in his control. It is his fault regardless of whether he had a motive, or whether he even was aware of the rape being omitted. He knew of his condition, his family did, they didn't tell the 16 year old. No mens rea, no fancy law terms, no case linking. Just simple circular logic.
If Person A has a serious sleep walking condition, and invites Person B to stay in his or her home, it is Person A's responsibility to make sure Person B knows of the condition - completely, before coming into the home. If Person A fails to provide such information, regardless of his state of consciousness at the time, any acts done by Person A to Person B are Person A's fault, as Person B was not aware of the condition. Just like its the responsibility of any business open to the public (that is retail businesses) to make sure any potential health hazards/dangers are well known to those coming in to make purchases and to ensure a safe environment is provided to its customers, it is the responsibility of the home owner to inform any guests to the home about possible mental/sleep walking conditions.
Why do you keep on derping? You already made a distinction between murder and manslaughter and you are incapable of doing so for rape, yet you think this case falls under that of rape, instead of a lesser sexual assault crime.
Just shut up already, you are clearly unable of consistent logical reasoning.
|
On July 10 2011 04:18 MozzarellaL wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2011 03:00 SichuanPanda wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Only dumb ones are people like you who keep spewing cases, and Wikipedia pages about Law terminology. Stop linking cases and stop saying mens rea. Motive is NOT required for a crime to have been committed, just look at man-slaughter charges. Please stop. The situation is very simple, and has been explained many times. I will do so again.
He knows about his condition full-well before the girl came to his house. Therefore as the host of the house, it is his responsibility to ensure any guests in the house know of any special rules or circumstances for living in said house. He did not inform her properly of his condition before she came to stay at the house, and therefore, due to negligence on his part to provide that information to the girl, it is in every way his fault what happened.
'She shouldn't have just crawled into his bed' - This is the number one thing you people seem to be saying about the case. Yes, you are right, she should not have. But by the same token if you go into someones room, whoever it is, and sleep in that room with them, in the bed, on the floor, or otherwise, 99% of people don't expect that person to rape you in their sleep.
Furthermore had she been properly informed of his condition there's a good chance she would not have even entered his house in the first place, and if she did decide to stay, she would have been properly aware of the accused's condition, and DEFINITELY would not have got into his bed. You are all seeming to forget, she is 16, he is 43, and given the situation of her staying there, it is clear he represents some sort of farther figure to her. You do not expect your father, or someone who acts a father to you, to rape you.
All of your points are invalid in this argument because she was not told of the person's condition, and that is 100%, very much in his control. It is his fault regardless of whether he had a motive, or whether he even was aware of the rape being omitted. He knew of his condition, his family did, they didn't tell the 16 year old. No mens rea, no fancy law terms, no case linking. Just simple circular logic.
If Person A has a serious sleep walking condition, and invites Person B to stay in his or her home, it is Person A's responsibility to make sure Person B knows of the condition - completely, before coming into the home. If Person A fails to provide such information, regardless of his state of consciousness at the time, any acts done by Person A to Person B are Person A's fault, as Person B was not aware of the condition. Just like its the responsibility of any business open to the public (that is retail businesses) to make sure any potential health hazards/dangers are well known to those coming in to make purchases and to ensure a safe environment is provided to its customers, it is the responsibility of the home owner to inform any guests to the home about possible mental/sleep walking conditions. Why do you keep on derping? You already made a distinction between murder and manslaughter and you are incapable of doing so for rape, yet you think this case falls under that of rape, instead of a lesser sexual assault crime. Just shut up already, you are clearly unable of consistent logical reasoning.
And you clearly lack reading comprehension skills as the things you said I did are clearly not present in my latest post. I have continued consistent logical reasoning. I did not say he should be charged with rape, but I did say his rape is a valid sexual crime. I agree that it should receive a lesser punishment due to his condition - I do NOT agree whatsoever, that he should receive no reprimand of any kind, and that the girl should be blamed for what happened to her. Realistically it is both parties fault in some way, however, since he had a known, preexisting condition, and she was a guest in his home, I would think it should be on him to make sure any guests are fully informed of his condition. Failure to do so should mean he is responsible, not for rape, but in some sort of way for what happened.
|
On July 10 2011 04:24 SichuanPanda wrote:
And you clearly lack reading comprehension skills as the things you said I did are clearly not present in my latest post. I have continued consistent logical reasoning. I did not say he should be charged with rape, but I did say his rape is a valid sexual crime. I agree that it should receive a lesser punishment due to his condition - I do NOT agree whatsoever, that he should receive no reprimand of any kind, and that the girl should be blamed for what happened to her. Realistically it is both parties fault in some way, however, since he had a known, preexisting condition, and she was a guest in his home, I would think it should be on him to make sure any guests are fully informed of his condition. Failure to do so should mean he is responsible, not for rape, but in some sort of way for what happened.
Your beliefs and morals do not matter for legal proceedings.
On July 10 2011 02:34 Voros wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2011 01:44 Myles wrote:
If there no mens rea, then there's no crime.
This sentence is the best one-line legal education possible. Courts of law deal with legal issues, not morality or personal beliefs. The sooner everyone understands this, the sooner we can stop having conversations about issues that are irrelevant to a criminal trial.
|
On July 10 2011 04:24 SichuanPanda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2011 04:18 MozzarellaL wrote:On July 10 2011 03:00 SichuanPanda wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Only dumb ones are people like you who keep spewing cases, and Wikipedia pages about Law terminology. Stop linking cases and stop saying mens rea. Motive is NOT required for a crime to have been committed, just look at man-slaughter charges. Please stop. The situation is very simple, and has been explained many times. I will do so again.
He knows about his condition full-well before the girl came to his house. Therefore as the host of the house, it is his responsibility to ensure any guests in the house know of any special rules or circumstances for living in said house. He did not inform her properly of his condition before she came to stay at the house, and therefore, due to negligence on his part to provide that information to the girl, it is in every way his fault what happened.
'She shouldn't have just crawled into his bed' - This is the number one thing you people seem to be saying about the case. Yes, you are right, she should not have. But by the same token if you go into someones room, whoever it is, and sleep in that room with them, in the bed, on the floor, or otherwise, 99% of people don't expect that person to rape you in their sleep.
Furthermore had she been properly informed of his condition there's a good chance she would not have even entered his house in the first place, and if she did decide to stay, she would have been properly aware of the accused's condition, and DEFINITELY would not have got into his bed. You are all seeming to forget, she is 16, he is 43, and given the situation of her staying there, it is clear he represents some sort of farther figure to her. You do not expect your father, or someone who acts a father to you, to rape you.
All of your points are invalid in this argument because she was not told of the person's condition, and that is 100%, very much in his control. It is his fault regardless of whether he had a motive, or whether he even was aware of the rape being omitted. He knew of his condition, his family did, they didn't tell the 16 year old. No mens rea, no fancy law terms, no case linking. Just simple circular logic.
If Person A has a serious sleep walking condition, and invites Person B to stay in his or her home, it is Person A's responsibility to make sure Person B knows of the condition - completely, before coming into the home. If Person A fails to provide such information, regardless of his state of consciousness at the time, any acts done by Person A to Person B are Person A's fault, as Person B was not aware of the condition. Just like its the responsibility of any business open to the public (that is retail businesses) to make sure any potential health hazards/dangers are well known to those coming in to make purchases and to ensure a safe environment is provided to its customers, it is the responsibility of the home owner to inform any guests to the home about possible mental/sleep walking conditions. Why do you keep on derping? You already made a distinction between murder and manslaughter and you are incapable of doing so for rape, yet you think this case falls under that of rape, instead of a lesser sexual assault crime. Just shut up already, you are clearly unable of consistent logical reasoning. And you clearly lack reading comprehension skills as the things you said I did are clearly not present in my latest post. I have continued consistent logical reasoning. I did not say he should be charged with rape, but I did say his rape is a valid sexual crime. I agree that it should receive a lesser punishment due to his condition - I do NOT agree whatsoever, that he should receive no reprimand of any kind, and that the girl should be blamed for what happened to her. Realistically it is both parties fault in some way, however, since he had a known, preexisting condition, and she was a guest in his home, I would think it should be on him to make sure any guests are fully informed of his condition. Failure to do so should mean he is responsible, not for rape, but in some sort of way for what happened.
Well clearly, since you read through the entirety of the proceedings at the trial and know everything about what his condition entails.
|
He knows how criminal court works, you can charge someone for murder 1, murder 2, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, and negligent homicide for the killing of the same person in the same trial, whatever sticks right?
|
The first article stated that he claimed he had no idea the girl was even staying at his house btw. He wouldn't have been able to tell her beforehand, so the importance of informing her of his condition doesn't apply anyway.
|
On July 10 2011 04:24 SichuanPanda wrote:
And you clearly lack reading comprehension skills as the things you said I did are clearly not present in my latest post. I have continued consistent logical reasoning. I did not say he should be charged with rape, but I did say his rape is a valid sexual crime. I agree that it should receive a lesser punishment due to his condition - I do NOT agree whatsoever, that he should receive no reprimand of any kind, and that the girl should be blamed for what happened to her. Realistically it is both parties fault in some way, however, since he had a known, preexisting condition, and she was a guest in his home, I would think it should be on him to make sure any guests are fully informed of his condition. Failure to do so should mean he is responsible, not for rape, but in some sort of way for what happened.
Then what's your point? You don't read through the thread at all (many people have already expressed your viewpoint using a third as many words and being less of a combative asswipe about it), or maybe you did read the thread, and yet you still think you're advancing a novel idea nobody else has thought of, in which case your reading comprehension is even worse than mine.
edit: you don't even know what mens rea is (hint: it isn't motive. motive isn't a requirement for any crime). Just stop.
|
I have a hard enough time getting it in while awake, maybe he should wear underwear to bed. What 16 year old climbs into bed with someone when they are sick anyways? I bet when she gets older she will happily spread STD's to people.
|
as far as I know about sexomnia is that you can have sex with ppl in your sleep..but really? does that also mean that if i'd be to sleep next to a girl that has sexomnia she'd rape me IN her sleep even if i didnt want to ? thats really odd if you ask me... this seems like a flaw in the system IMHO.
sick with sexomnia or not.
|
On July 10 2011 02:14 SichuanPanda wrote:
You can very much fake brain activity actually, just think something different. Bottom line is simple, it is not the girls FAULT for what happened, and anyone trying to say so is truly a piece of shit. 'She shouldn't have climbed into his bed', yea and HE SHOULDN'T HAVE RAPED. Unconscious or not it is unacceptable, its HIS fault that she wasn't aware of his condition, and HIS fault for what happened to her. Sorry but most people don't expect that if you were to lay beside someone in bed that they are gonna turn around and have sex with you.
Holy shit. The complete stupidity and arrogance of your post is astounding.
Are you a DOCTOR? Are you a SLEEP EXPERT? If not, then WHAT MAKES YOU THINK YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THE SLEEP EXPERTS WHO STUDY THIS AS A CAREER? Do you have ANY foundation for arguing about faked brain activity IN YOUR SLEEP?
If your brain is asleep, it produces alpha, thata, and delta waves, as opposed to beta waves while you are awake. YOU CAN'T FAKE THIS. If they're watching the guy's brain waves and he's producing said waves while trying to hump a blow-up doll they put next to him, then they know he has sexsomnia.
On July 10 2011 02:25 SichuanPanda wrote:
I didn't say you could while you're asleep. What I said is that if you are given a brain wave test and are awake you can very much fake them.
Yes, because the doctors are idiots and you're the only one brilliant enough to have deduced that they should test him while he's not awake. 
On July 10 2011 02:25 SichuanPanda wrote:
Therefore, he is guilty of raping the girl, regardless of his condition. And sorry but the excuse 'she shouldn't have just hopped into his bed' isn't valid. Because while sure, she probably should not have, I doubt that the last thing she was thinking was that he'd turn around and start groping and having sex with her. Had she known of his condition, she would have not got into his bed. End of discussion.
Except she shouldn't have been there in the first place. She wasn't given permission.
You have no repsonsibility to inform others of things that would not reasonably happen, especially if they happen without your intent. If you have AIDs, do you need to tell everyone who sleeps in the same house in case they decide to have sex with without your permission you in your sleep? -_-
|
On July 10 2011 05:53 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2011 02:14 SichuanPanda wrote:
You can very much fake brain activity actually, just think something different. Bottom line is simple, it is not the girls FAULT for what happened, and anyone trying to say so is truly a piece of shit. 'She shouldn't have climbed into his bed', yea and HE SHOULDN'T HAVE RAPED. Unconscious or not it is unacceptable, its HIS fault that she wasn't aware of his condition, and HIS fault for what happened to her. Sorry but most people don't expect that if you were to lay beside someone in bed that they are gonna turn around and have sex with you. Holy shit. The complete stupidity and arrogance of your post is astounding. Are you a DOCTOR? Are you a SLEEP EXPERT? If not, then WHAT MAKES YOU THINK YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THE SLEEP EXPERTS WHO STUDY THIS AS A CAREER? Do you have ANY foundation for arguing about faked brain activity IN YOUR SLEEP? If your brain is asleep, it produces alpha, thata, and delta waves, as opposed to beta waves while you are awake. YOU CAN'T FAKE THIS. If they're watching the guy's brain waves and he's producing said waves while trying to hump a blow-up doll they put next to him, then they know he has sexsomnia. Show nested quote +On July 10 2011 02:25 SichuanPanda wrote:
I didn't say you could while you're asleep. What I said is that if you are given a brain wave test and are awake you can very much fake them. Yes, because the doctors are idiots and you're the only one brilliant enough to have deduced that they should test him while he's not awake. Show nested quote +On July 10 2011 02:25 SichuanPanda wrote:
Therefore, he is guilty of raping the girl, regardless of his condition. And sorry but the excuse 'she shouldn't have just hopped into his bed' isn't valid. Because while sure, she probably should not have, I doubt that the last thing she was thinking was that he'd turn around and start groping and having sex with her. Had she known of his condition, she would have not got into his bed. End of discussion. Except she shouldn't have been there in the first place. She wasn't given permission. You have no repsonsibility to inform others of things that would not reasonably happen, especially if they happen without your intent. If you have AIDs, do you need to tell everyone who sleeps in the same house in case they decide to have sex with without your permission you in your sleep? -_-
Give up man. Just give up. There's absolutely no point arguing this any more.
Anybody who's willing to learn from what you have to say, will do so the first time you say it. The rest are just trolling or wilfully ignorant.
|
On July 10 2011 06:35 Eleaven wrote:
Give up man. Just give up. There's absolutely no point arguing this any more.
Anybody who's willing to learn from what you have to say, will do so the first time you say it. The rest are just trolling or wilfully ignorant.
Yeah, point taken.
|
On July 10 2011 03:00 SichuanPanda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2011 02:31 seppolevne wrote:On July 10 2011 02:27 Fenrax wrote:On July 10 2011 01:44 Myles wrote:On July 10 2011 01:36 Fenrax wrote:On July 10 2011 01:24 HereticSaint wrote:On July 09 2011 17:13 Kojak21 wrote:
if a person goes around killing people in his sleep, he should still be held responsible for it, even if he doesnt remember or means to, its to keep other people safe.
this applys to rape and other things also Being, "held responsible" isn't quite the appropriate description of what would be happening under this particular context. You want to know why? Because it would have absolutely no impact on if this occurs in the future again or not. So, what you are actually describing is the need for vengeance over something someone can't control. I'm sick of twits like you comparing someone who wanders around and murders people in their sleep to someone who will potentially stick it to someone who enters their bed (I don't even know for sure if he was naked, but if he was the girl deserved every bit of it and I don't feel bad for her at all, she's 16, not 12). The similarity is only the state of the individual, the crimes are different and therefore you handle them differently. So what if someone kills another person who comes into his bedroom while asleep? Would you also go and say "You were asleep so no big deal dude, go home, everything's okay. You just have no self control in that state and that person shouldn't have come to your bedroom in the first place."? Probably not, right? So where is the big difference to rape? Sure, rape is not as severe as murder but it is still one of the most serious and harmful crimes a person can commit. If there no mens rea, then there's no crime. Get that through your skull. Get out of this stupid black and white world where because something bad happened someone must be punished. Bad shit happens sometimes and people don't mean for it to happen. The guy didn't intend to rape the girl, punishing him for it is simply false justice. Ok, so you apparantly say that if he killed a person in his sleep who came into his bed, then there would be no reason for the court to do something? Is that what you try to tell me? That's exactly what he's saying. Holy fucking shit you people are dumb. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Parkshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea Only dumb ones are people like you who keep spewing cases, and Wikipedia pages about Law terminology. Stop linking cases and stop saying mens rea. Motive is NOT required for a crime to have been committed, just look at man-slaughter charges. Please stop. The situation is very simple, and has been explained many times. I will do so again. He knows about his condition full-well before the girl came to his house. Therefore as the host of the house, it is his responsibility to ensure any guests in the house know of any special rules or circumstances for living in said house. He did not inform her properly of his condition before she came to stay at the house, and therefore, due to negligence on his part to provide that information to the girl, it is in every way his fault what happened. 'She shouldn't have just crawled into his bed' - This is the number one thing you people seem to be saying about the case. Yes, you are right, she should not have. But by the same token if you go into someones room, whoever it is, and sleep in that room with them, in the bed, on the floor, or otherwise, 99% of people don't expect that person to rape you in their sleep. Furthermore had she been properly informed of his condition there's a good chance she would not have even entered his house in the first place, and if she did decide to stay, she would have been properly aware of the accused's condition, and DEFINITELY would not have got into his bed. You are all seeming to forget, she is 16, he is 43, and given the situation of her staying there, it is clear he represents some sort of farther figure to her. You do not expect your father, or someone who acts a father to you, to rape you. All of your points are invalid in this argument because she was not told of the person's condition, and that is 100%, very much in his control. It is his fault regardless of whether he had a motive, or whether he even was aware of the rape being omitted. He knew of his condition, his family did, they didn't tell the 16 year old. No mens rea, no fancy law terms, no case linking. Just simple circular logic. If Person A has a serious sleep walking condition, and invites Person B to stay in his or her home, it is Person A's responsibility to make sure Person B knows of the condition - completely, before coming into the home. If Person A fails to provide such information, regardless of his state of consciousness at the time, any acts done by Person A to Person B are Person A's fault, as Person B was not aware of the condition. Just like its the responsibility of any business open to the public (that is retail businesses) to make sure any potential health hazards/dangers are well known to those coming in to make purchases and to ensure a safe environment is provided to its customers, it is the responsibility of the home owner to inform any guests to the home about possible mental/sleep walking conditions.
But by the same token if you go into someones room, whoever it is, and sleep in that room with them, in the bed, on the floor, or otherwise, 99% of people don't expect that person to rape you in their sleep. Really? 99% of people? That seems a bit odd.
Just simple circular logic. You know that this is a logical fallacy right?
All of your points are invalid in this argument because she was not told of the person's condition, and that is 100%, very much in his control. It is his fault regardless of whether he had a motive, or whether he even was aware of the rape being omitted. He knew of his condition, his family did, they didn't tell the 16 year old Yea I guess before inviting anyone to stay over, the family should have pulled out their medical record and mental evaluation and fully inform everyone of their problems. Did the article say that he went to bed knowing the girl was going to stay over? If he just went to bed and didn't know that the girl would be staying over then I don't think you can put the fault on him.
Otherwise agreed with most of your post.
|
All of your points are invalid in this argument because she was not told of the person's condition, and that is 100%, very much in his control. It is his fault regardless of whether he had a motive, or whether he even was aware of the rape being omitted. He knew of his condition, his family did, they didn't tell the 16 year old. No mens rea, no fancy law terms, no case linking. Just simple circular logic.
Hi there 16 year old girl who is staying in my home, I am Mr Davies, and just in case it's too hot in your room tonight and someone tells you to sleep in my bed with me because it's cooler, just be aware that I have sex with people in my sleep. Nighty night, keep yo butthole tight!
|
On July 10 2011 02:33 Fenrax wrote:Ok, thanks for proving my point. If you seriously think the court should let people go back to the street who kill in their sleep then you are just stupid.
Hahaha, oh man. Do you know what, I have to try to take a positive out of the way you think Fenrax...
People who think like you are more likely to chase legal resolutions that you have a hope of actually achieving. More money for the legal industry. Yay for me :D
To that end... Yes, Fenrax, everything you have said makes complete sense. *nod nod*
When someone is asleep, they are actually the exact same as awake. *nod nod*
And as a result, if you have sex with someone in your sleep, or kill someone in your sleep, you obviously fully 100% intended the consequences of your actions. *nod nod*
But even if it is found that having sex with someone in their sleep isn't intended...the intention that someone had if they have sleep sex as opposed to sleep killing is actually completely different. *nod nod*
In fact, if you kill someone in your sleep, the circumstances never actually matter, because murder is a strict liability offence. *nod nod*
Now go, Fenrax! Go inform the courts of all this! We wouldn't want them to make any more mistakes!
|
On July 10 2011 03:00 SichuanPanda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2011 02:31 seppolevne wrote:On July 10 2011 02:27 Fenrax wrote:On July 10 2011 01:44 Myles wrote:On July 10 2011 01:36 Fenrax wrote:On July 10 2011 01:24 HereticSaint wrote:On July 09 2011 17:13 Kojak21 wrote:
if a person goes around killing people in his sleep, he should still be held responsible for it, even if he doesnt remember or means to, its to keep other people safe.
this applys to rape and other things also Being, "held responsible" isn't quite the appropriate description of what would be happening under this particular context. You want to know why? Because it would have absolutely no impact on if this occurs in the future again or not. So, what you are actually describing is the need for vengeance over something someone can't control. I'm sick of twits like you comparing someone who wanders around and murders people in their sleep to someone who will potentially stick it to someone who enters their bed (I don't even know for sure if he was naked, but if he was the girl deserved every bit of it and I don't feel bad for her at all, she's 16, not 12). The similarity is only the state of the individual, the crimes are different and therefore you handle them differently. So what if someone kills another person who comes into his bedroom while asleep? Would you also go and say "You were asleep so no big deal dude, go home, everything's okay. You just have no self control in that state and that person shouldn't have come to your bedroom in the first place."? Probably not, right? So where is the big difference to rape? Sure, rape is not as severe as murder but it is still one of the most serious and harmful crimes a person can commit. If there no mens rea, then there's no crime. Get that through your skull. Get out of this stupid black and white world where because something bad happened someone must be punished. Bad shit happens sometimes and people don't mean for it to happen. The guy didn't intend to rape the girl, punishing him for it is simply false justice. Ok, so you apparantly say that if he killed a person in his sleep who came into his bed, then there would be no reason for the court to do something? Is that what you try to tell me? That's exactly what he's saying. Holy fucking shit you people are dumb. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Parkshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea Blah blah blah All of your points are invalid in this argument because she was not told of the person's condition, and that is 100%, very much in his control. Blah blah blah
I roll around in my sleep and may accidentally ram my elbow into someones face. If I were to do this when not sleeping, this would be assault. However, I can't control what I do in my sleep and therefore if you decide to crawl in my bed without informing me what happens to you is YOUR fault. He doesn't have to tell anyone shit.
Besides the fact that most people would opt to never have guests over rather than tell people (Especially in the moronic way you and your ilk keep suggesting) "Hey, if you stay over I may randomly rape you".
You said a whole lot which amounted to a whole lot of nothing, really.
Edit: Also, not that I need more but hey, let's roll with it. Furthermore, if I invite someone to stay over at my house that doesn't mean they can do whatever the hell they want, if I were sleeping and the person I invited over started stealing things it'd still be theft. Basically, being invited over doesn't mean you can do whatever the hell you want and I'm pretty sure the guy didn't say, "Hey, if you get too hot, come and sleep in my bed instead" (especially without notifying her of his condition, had he done that) which is pretty much the one and only thing that would make him guilty.
That's only addressing this logically and not looking at it scientifically or lawfully, which we've already established is on his side. GG.
|
On July 10 2011 05:53 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2011 02:14 SichuanPanda wrote:
You can very much fake brain activity actually, just think something different. Bottom line is simple, it is not the girls FAULT for what happened, and anyone trying to say so is truly a piece of shit. 'She shouldn't have climbed into his bed', yea and HE SHOULDN'T HAVE RAPED. Unconscious or not it is unacceptable, its HIS fault that she wasn't aware of his condition, and HIS fault for what happened to her. Sorry but most people don't expect that if you were to lay beside someone in bed that they are gonna turn around and have sex with you. Holy shit. The complete stupidity and arrogance of your post is astounding. Are you a DOCTOR? Are you a SLEEP EXPERT? If not, then WHAT MAKES YOU THINK YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THE SLEEP EXPERTS WHO STUDY THIS AS A CAREER? Do you have ANY foundation for arguing about faked brain activity IN YOUR SLEEP? If your brain is asleep, it produces alpha, thata, and delta waves, as opposed to beta waves while you are awake. YOU CAN'T FAKE THIS. If they're watching the guy's brain waves and he's producing said waves while trying to hump a blow-up doll they put next to him, then they know he has sexsomnia. Show nested quote +On July 10 2011 02:25 SichuanPanda wrote:
I didn't say you could while you're asleep. What I said is that if you are given a brain wave test and are awake you can very much fake them. Yes, because the doctors are idiots and you're the only one brilliant enough to have deduced that they should test him while he's not awake. Show nested quote +On July 10 2011 02:25 SichuanPanda wrote:
Therefore, he is guilty of raping the girl, regardless of his condition. And sorry but the excuse 'she shouldn't have just hopped into his bed' isn't valid. Because while sure, she probably should not have, I doubt that the last thing she was thinking was that he'd turn around and start groping and having sex with her. Had she known of his condition, she would have not got into his bed. End of discussion. Except she shouldn't have been there in the first place. She wasn't given permission. You have no repsonsibility to inform others of things that would not reasonably happen, especially if they happen without your intent. If you have AIDs, do you need to tell everyone who sleeps in the same house in case they decide to have sex with without your permission you in your sleep? -_-
Wrong.
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
