nope, those aren't the facts of the case. Those are just the charges. There is way more a trial than just listing the charges.

An example of "the facts" would be like, the evidence and testimonies. That's what we apparently don't have access to.

Beginning to feel there truly isn’t any way to have a real conversation on this board lmao.

Netflix argument so far: white people are terrible. Everything you say is wrong although I am too much of a pompous dickhead to engage in any sort of civil discussion about the topic.

On multiple topics just telling bob he is a liar. So familiar.

The fact still remains that the original YO has a lot to do with the outcome. Somehow the focus is on the fact that the kid is white.

The guy is now a registered sex offender. He didn’t get off with a slap on the wrist. If he fucks up more we will see what happens, but just saying “white privilege I win” is such an absurd take.

Hey! Some facts... Sort of?

The Defendant, at the time of the "crime" was either 16 or 17. So while it couldn't be case number 2, it's not because of the fact that he's currently 20.

So, based on the tiny amount of fact you've given us regarding the case, it could have been an inebriated female OR two who were underage but with an age difference greater than 2 years (aka 14 and 17). Both hit case number 1, "Had sexual intercourse with a person who is not able to give consent,". Meaning if a 14 year old vs 17 year old, or an inebriated female consent, "they are not able to give consent" according to New York law.

And, as you said, that's 3rd Degree Rape. And as I said to Matt, that falls under what is referred to as "Statutory Rape" but is not referred to such in the charges. So the question is, was it that, or was it: "Had sexual intercourse with a person who did not give consent to the act." which is a form of forcible rape?

I've asked many MANY times now. Which is it? This is why your little news article is meaningless. If you provided the boildown we did in the live trial thread of Rittenhouse, there'd be no question here, now would there?

There was no trial. He plead guilty.

Seriously, you guys are making it obvious you didn't even read two sentences before drawing your conclusions.



Statutory rape would be sex when you are over 21 and they are 17 or under. It's covered under #2.
Sex with someone who can't give consent would be for example a mentally disabled person.



Can you find me any case of a black guy not getting jail time for rape, statutory or otherwise? Because I've seen many cases of that happening to white guys.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Nov 24 2021 12:28am

We haven't drawn any conclusions. Third degree rape is typically reserved, from what I'm reading, given scenario 2 is out, of age difference, inebriation, or the female is sleeping when he initiates.

AKA, this is not forcible rape, though if she was sleeping, we can probably come very close to the same conclusion on this on, that the penalty is shit. If, however, it's a consenting 14 year old with a consenting 17 year old, and the 17 year old is being penalized, that's very different.

This is why we keep asking, and this is why we want an answer. We cannot answer whether this was a quote unquote "rapist" in the generally accepted sense of the term (forcible rape) or if this is something else that needs to be taken on a simple case by case basis.

This reminds me of the gang rape in Alabama being compared to the guy in California that fingered the girl who left the club with him but passed out drunk. According to rabid communists, the only differences in the cases were that one was white, other was black. In reality, you had multiple men forcibly rape a woman, urinate on her, beat the shit out of her, while shouting racial slurs. On the other, a woman leaves a club with a guy, he fingers her in an alley. End of story. Are both bad? Absolutely. Do they justify the same sentence? Of course not!

So, let's get the context out there for everyone to see, and we can judge for ourselves. Or you can pull a Maddow defense. Whatever.



No. Statutory rape is any non-forcible rape. All 3 types of 3rd degree rape are statutory. Hence why it's 3rd degree. More lies from the Thor. smh.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Nov 24 2021 12:35am

I literally don't know a single person who wouldn't define "had sex with someone who is passed out" as rape.


Based on the facts that you can easily google, because I just did, this dude is a rapist. Not a statutory rapist where somebody was consenting. A straight up rapist. He plead guilty. He got off because of his privilege to be part of white culture, which is excessively toxic.

Please find where you got this definition, because that's not any definition of statutory rape I've ever heard or read, and if you google it the result is

stat·u·to·ry rape
/ˈstaCHəˌtôrē rāp/
Learn to pronounce
nounLAW
(in some jurisdictions) sexual intercourse with a minor.

(it says in some jurisdictions because the actual term 'statutory rape' is rarely used. usually it's a different charge)

and this website says

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/sex-crimes/statutory-rape-charges-punishment-defense

Statutory rape is a crime that involves sexual contact with a person who is under an age specified by law, commonly referred to as the "age of consent."

Wikipedia defines it as

In common law jurisdictions, statutory rape is nonforcible sexual activity in which one of the individuals is below the age of consent (the age required to legally consent to the behavior).



All definitions I'm finding have "under the age of consent" as an essential component.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Nov 24 2021 12:39am

Jacob Blake

To the first line, we agree with reservations. If you start fucking your wife while she's asleep, and she's into that sort of thing, it's not rape, is it?

There's a difference between implied consent and no consent at all. Now, I read the account of what happened for the one account I could find (4 charges, remember?) and it's definitely gray.

Summary: She was 16, he was 17. He asked her up to his room, she went willingly. There WERE drugs and alcohol involved. He stripped her, he stripped himself, he fucked her.

Now, there's the stage set. Was there any evidence or even claim that she said "no"? No. Was there any evidence or even claim that she fought him? No. Was there any evidence or even claim that there was any physical harm done to her? No.

So what do we have here? Sister's friend agrees to go to his room alone with him, does not say no to being made naked together, does not say no to sexual intercourse. Has no physical damage to show, did not struggle.

I cannot find the other counts, but this is the one that he apparently pled guilty to third degree. And that pleading would be entirely based on "she was not capable of providing consent" because NY Law states that inebriated persons cannot provide consent.

I don't know what I think about the verdict, because according to the New York Times' account of the events, it's absolutely statutory. Meaning it's only rape by statute, not by deed.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Nov 24 2021 12:48am

If it was that gray then he wouldn't have plead guilty. People with strong cases don't generally do that. Look at Kyle. He had a borderline case that depended on how the jury evaluated his actions. He fought it and won, and his case was much weaker than this guy's.



Was he convicted?

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Nov 24 2021 12:56am