Skip

'A willing participant'?
February 8, 2002 3:33 PM   Subscribe

'A willing participant'? A woman parties and cavorts with athletes, brags about posing for Playboy. Fast forward a couple of days and she presses rape charges. NFL defensive lineman is one of the guys supposedly holding the camera videotaping the sex, so he's charged. He's got a record of drug use so he's no angel either. Of course, "no means no" but what was she doing there in the first place?
posted by owillis (21 comments total)

 
I also wonder what effect laws where the accusor's identity is shielded while the defendant's name is released has on all this. Juveniles have their names protected. Maybe until evidence or a trial or something more than an accusation surfaces, the accused should be protected as well?

[one of the few times I'll argue for the accused in a criminal situation]
posted by owillis at 3:36 PM on February 8, 2002


what was she doing there in the first place?

Maybe she was drinking like a fish. Maybe she was looking for drugs. Maybe she wanted a consenual gang-bang with 5 football players. It doesn't matter. She wasn't there to get drugged against her will and gang-raped.

Now, I'm not saying that's what happened. This seems like a pretty straightforward case, and the truth will most likely be evident to the jury. After all, there was a drug test done, and there's a videotape of the alleged crime. Really, though, the crime is the crime--if it's a crime. And if it isn't--well, then it ain't. Knowhattamean?
posted by jpoulos at 3:45 PM on February 8, 2002


police seized a videotape that Murphy said shows at least one of Russell's friends having sex with the woman, who is not fully conscious.

the accused are protected by that old 'innocent until proven guilty' bit. I've got a sensitive spot for stuff like this, if i walked in on guys video-taping sex with an uncouscious woman i would throw them out of a window. [well, obviously not if they here NFL, in which case, i would get thrown out instead.]
posted by th3ph17 at 3:46 PM on February 8, 2002


Having sex with a woman who isn't fully conscious is rape, no matter if she's wearing a cat suit or not. F*%**^ing slimeballs.

I'm sure she's no angel, but she doesn't deserve to be raped, especially by a gang and videotaped.
posted by aacheson at 3:53 PM on February 8, 2002


Well, in the whole 'he said/she said' thing is pretty fucked up, and it seems to be weighted against guys a lot of the time.

Oh, and according to the artical, hospital drug tests indicated that she did not have any drugs in her system after 24 hours. I don't know how long GHB takes to clear from the system, but I would think it would still show up in that amount of time.

Of course, if the tape shows that she really is unconsious, or said no, then it's clear cut. If it dosn't, well...

And don't forget that there could be a lot of money in this for the girl in setlements and stuff..
posted by delmoi at 5:01 PM on February 8, 2002


aacheson is right -- a woman who is semi- or unconscious or severely intoxicated cannot give consent, and because consent is not implied, having sex with a woman in that state is rape. Even if she put herself in a really stupid, unsafe place and position, and even if she willfully ingested the intoxicants which led to her loss of consciousness. This has numerous shades of Desirée Washington all over it...
posted by Dreama at 5:07 PM on February 8, 2002


I have no idea whether the football guy is guilty of being an accomplice to rape or not, but having a history of drug use (ecstasy according to the article) does not make him any less than angelic. Perhaps if he had a history of drug abuse that would be the case.
posted by mlinksva at 5:09 PM on February 8, 2002


I'm open-minded about the charge, but you notice the DA doesn't say she was unconscious, just "not fully conscious"?

Doesn anyone know what that means? She had one eye open and one closed? How does one determine is a sex partner is "fully conscious"?

If you're having sex with a woman and she falls asleep in the middle of it, does that mean you're a rapist in addition to being a lousy lover?
posted by norm29 at 5:19 PM on February 8, 2002


It is possible for a woman to give consent in advance to having sex while she is unconscious, if she knows that's what the situation will be. I dated a girl who encouraged it. I'm not saying that's what happened in this case. Maybe she passed out while it was going on, too, or maybe she was fading in and out of consciousness during sex, and that's exactly the situation she wanted. There are some weird people out there.
posted by bingo at 5:21 PM on February 8, 2002


I don't know how long GHB takes to clear from the system...

it metabolizes completely out in under 24 hours. in fact, most standard bring-someone-in-unconscious drug tests don't even look for it.
posted by jessamyn at 5:22 PM on February 8, 2002


one of the few times I'll argue for the accused in a criminal situation

That is the funniest thing I've read all day. Thanks.
posted by Doug at 6:30 PM on February 8, 2002


Why is that?
posted by owillis at 6:40 PM on February 8, 2002


Reminiscent of the Lisa Gier King / University of Florida case, the subject of a lionized documentary -- as well as a fairly recent MeFi thread which I can't find.

In the future, more crimes than ever will be videotaped -- and the interpretation of the action on the videotape will be more uncertain than ever.
posted by dhartung at 7:18 PM on February 8, 2002


This guy isn't in as much trouble as R. Kelly apparently is.
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 7:55 PM on February 8, 2002


"How does one determine is a sex partner is "fully conscious"? "

I don't know about the rest of you people, but "fully conscious" isn't enough. I'm into the whole "active enthusiastic participant" thing m'self.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:48 PM on February 8, 2002


NFL players and R Kelly can surely afford a RealDollâ„¢. Especially if they don't need to be conscious.
posted by dhartung at 11:42 PM on February 8, 2002


i don't think they sell a realdoll young enough for r. kelly.

i had a friend in high school who got into the same trouble. two girls consented to let him and his friend drug'em and have their way with them. one of the parents of the girls found out somehow, and she denied that she agreed, and they all went to court and blah blah blah.. i only say blah blah blah 'cause i finished school before i could figure out how that turned out.
posted by lotsofno at 7:48 AM on February 9, 2002


If I type 'NO' or 'no' or 'No' or even 'nO' ...er I still mean 'no' - get it?
posted by Arqa at 2:37 AM on February 10, 2002


Arqa: But I think there's some doubt as to whether the girl in the article said it at all.
posted by bingo at 9:19 PM on February 10, 2002


Bingo: you amaze me. you must be a real stud. the next time someone slips me some gbh i hope you are around...
posted by goneill at 11:52 AM on February 11, 2002


goneill: I hope so too. As always, your productive, thoughtful, and even-handed approach to disagreement casts a soft glow about you, which no doubt makes you as attractive in real life as you are here.
posted by bingo at 3:50 PM on February 11, 2002


« Older Missing Schüss, the stylized skier, or Mikhail...   |   Enduring Freedom: The action figures Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post