"Sexsomniac" cleared of rape charge - Page 32

On July 10 2011 03:00 SichuanPanda wrote:


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.

On July 10 2011 03:00 SichuanPanda wrote:


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.