back to this Rape and the paramedics thing ....

[stealthycat]

I think someone made a mistake and accidently deleted our thread on the paramedics being arrested on charges of aggravated sexual assault on the Girl Scout in Texas

Anyway, my argument was that there is (or should be) a big difference in the sentencing of these two guys IF they had consentaul sex with an underage girl as opposed to a situation where they violently raped her (violent forced sex).

I never argued what they did wasn't wrong - I think everyone agreed that it WAS wrong, but there are degrees of rape and/or sexual assault IMO.

Here's another clipping from a news source on that story ..

Scout accuses MedStar team of assault
09:00 AM CST on Friday, January 16, 2004

By JIM DOUGLAS / WFAA-TV


Police are searching for one of two MedStar employees accused of sexually assaulting a teenage girl in their ambulance during an overnight ride-along last month.

An arrest warrant has been issued for Richard Barash. The other employee, 28-year-old James Christopher Russell, was arrested Wednesday at his home in Azle and charged with sexual assault of a child under 17. He was being held in the Mansfield jail in lieu of $50,000 bail.

The alleged victim is a 15-year-old in MedStar's Explorer Scout program. She told police that while she rode with MedStar on Dec. 29, the crew parked the unit behind a shopping center, climbed into the back with her and talked her into sexual acts.

Although no force was used, the two could face up to 20 years in prison if tried and convicted.

"If someone knowingly engages in sex with someone under the age of 17, that's aggravated sexual assault," Lt. Mark Krey of the Fort Worth police said.

According to arrest documents, Russell warned the girl not to tell because she was quote "jail bait."

Following the accusation, MedStar immediately fired the two men.

"This is an isolated incident. I've never had anything like that in my tenure here," said Mike Collins, division general manager for MedStar.

Scout guidelines did not prohibit the girl from riding overnight with an all-male crew. Officials said those guidelines would be reexamined.

"We'll make any adjustments necessary, and we hope the program will continue," Collins said.

Other Explorer Scout programs have made headlines in similar cases. Last year, a former Haltom City police officer went to prison for sexually assaulting a teenage boy. Fort Worth police require their Explorers to be at least 18 in order to ride overnight.

[akbound]

Hi stealthycat,

I definitely disagree with that premise. There is a reason it is called statutory rape. The victim "is not old enough" by law, to legally give consent....which is in essence the same as "forcing it"!

Whether the sex was consensual.....is absolutely of no consequence....when under law the consentee....is not lawfully mature enough to enter into the agreement! Sex with an underage "minor" is essentially forced. Because the presumption of lack of maturity prevents the minor from giving the consent. No consent = "forced". In the most basic of the argument....society by "law" has "said NO!" And both of those men...being of age of majority...unless they can prove "reduced mental capacity"....are expected to be mature enough to understand that. And if they didn't....tough s**t. Ignorance is no excuse.

Personally I hope they get the "book thrown at them".....if they are proven guilty!

Dave

[Carpicon]

stealthy, I can't believe that anyone would argue with you on that.

Of course there are differing degrees of sexual assault. That's why the charges usually differ. i.e. 1st degree sexual assault, 2nd degree sexual assault, rape, statutory rape.

The question is, where do these charges overlap? What act is more "wrong" than another when the circumstances are different? That is a very difficult question to answer.

Which is more wrong? Coercing a 12 year old girl into quasi-"consentual" sex, or forceably raping a 21 year old woman. What if a weapon is involved in either case? Does that make it worse?

Sentencing has to be done based on circumstances of the situation.

[Jorgy]

I definitely disagree with that premise. There is a reason it is called statutory rape. The victim "is not old enough" by law, to legally give consent....which is in essence the same as "forcing it"!

So you think that a 18 y/o guy that has sex with his 17 y/o g/f should be jailed just like a man who knocks a woman in the back of the head tears her clothes off of her and brutally rapes her?

That doesn't make any sense to me

[stealthycat]

ahbound - Do you find it odd that a 17 year old girl is old enough to give consent in one state, but drive into another state and she somehow becomes not old enough ? The laws define what is and isn't consent, and it varies from state to state. I looked into this a bit more and found that in Texas, its IS stautory rape/sexual assault -

Without consent. "Without consent" means that the victim has not consented to the sexual act and is an unwilling participant in it. There are basically three methods of gaining sexual access to a person:

Consent. Both parties freely participate as the result of mutual interest and negotiation.
Coercion. An unwilling person is intimidated into sexual activity by a person in a position of power or dominance. Refusal by the victim to participate could have economic, vocational, or social consequences.
Force. Either there is risk of bodily harm, injury, or death if the victim refuses to participate, or the victim is physically unable to escape.

Carpicon - Ask Charlie P and VC - they argued that its all the same, rape is rape and several otehrs were calling for the death penalty.

Jorgy - Texas law I believe says

Any participation in a sexual act that is obtained through either force or coercion is obtained "without consent." All instances of force and some instances of coercion are illegal sexual assaults under Texas law. Automatically considered to be "without consent" in Texas is sexual access obtained:

by physical force or violence, or with the threat of force or violence;
when the victim is unconscious, unaware of what is occurring, or physically or mentally unable to resist;
when the victim is under the age of 14, or under the age of 17 if the offender is more than three years older;
as a result of coercion by
any public servant;
a mental health or health care services provider upon whom the person is emotionally dependent; or
a clergyman upon whom the person is emotionally dependent.

My point is that there are lots of variation in the charges that can be filed and the sentencing , and that all cases of sexual assault CANNOT be gauged the same.

[akbound]

Hi Jorgy,

Let me sum up my position as precisely and succintly as possible. If a person of the "age of majority"......has sex with another person who is "age of minority".....and it occurs in a state that defines that as "statutory rape"....."how I believe" about the incident will be of no consequence. (I won't debate degrees of "wrong". Because my feelings are not part of the equation.)

If you as an adult...with no reduction in mental capacity....have sex with a "minor"...you have committed "by definition of law"...statutory rape. If you do it....and get caught.....explain it to the judge! (The judge will decide which circumstances they believe to be mitigating.) Each state defines for itself what is an appropriate punishment for violating its laws. What I think will have absolutely no bearing on the outcome.

What was described in the "article" and the circumstance you described are NOT one and the same. But even if we were comparing apples with apples....the law is still the law. That is as simple as I can state "what I believe"!

[burniegoeasily]

I never argued what they did wasn't wrong - I think everyone agreed that it WAS wrong, but there are degrees of rape and/or sexual assault IMO.

You are right stealthy. I agree, the only problem is, in court it turns into a he said, she said thing. Look at the mess going on with the Coby Briant trial.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted by Admins]

[akbound]

Hey Hip....Hip.....HHHIIIIPPPP!

Wake up....you're dreaming and talking out loud!

[vc1111]

Carpicon - Ask Charlie P and VC - they argued that its all the same, rape is rape and several otehrs were calling for the death penalty.

Bzzzzt. Wrong.

I argued no such thing.

What I have stated and continue to state is that one has to be willing to take the heat for one's attitudes toward the female of the species.

You are on record as doubting the credibility of the 15 year old Girl Scout in this case, Stealthy, and that is precisely why I have taken you to task.

Allow me to refresh your memory: (Unfortunately I can only paraphrase because the thread was yanked)

"A 15 year old Girl Scout can be a slut too."

If you wish to try the reputation of the 15 year old going in, I will question your core values toward women in general.

And Carpicon, you cannot fully understand the nature and tone of this discussion without the advantage of having read the conversations and the original post.

Just as those that are vehementally pro-life question the morals of those that disagree with them, you (Stealthycat) must be willing to have your morals examined if you feel that a 15 year old girl scout that was intimidated into having sex by TWO adult males is of questionable moral character based upon nothing more than your life experience. It is that type of flawed reasoning that allows rapists to walk off the stand smirking and laughing at the women that they rape.