California Judge: "The body will not permit [rape] to happen"

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

boots:

Uhhh, no.

If someone doesn't want to have sexual intercourse, the body shuts down

That's what he said. He echoed the Todd Akin rubbish about vaginas magically sealing themselves.

The lack of a period in your quote is sort of symbolic, really. It's like the time the romney campaign quoted Obama saying that he would lose if they talked about the economy when the full quote was Obama saying the republicans were saying that...

It's almost like you forgot the

The body will not permit that to happen unless a lot of damage is inflicted, and we heard nothing about that in this case...

part of his statements.

The reason this is an issue is that A) His real reasons weren't revealed until recently, B) If this was his reasoning, and he gave the guy a lighter sentencing because of it, then that is a BIG problem regardless of how long ago it happened, mainly because C) Someone who thinks this way should not be in charge of judging sexual assault cases.

I trust that man a hell of a lot more than anyone in this thread, I'll tell you that. If you were a judge, and you believed the the prosecution claiming the girl was raped was full of it, but the laws were written in such a way that you had to magically prove that she wasn't raped or the guy gets the book thrown at him, would you not try to do something? Or would you really go "she said rape! that guys evil! make him pay!"

tstorm823:
I trust that man a hell of a lot more than anyone in this thread, I'll tell you that. If you were a judge, and you believed the the prosecution claiming the girl was raped was full of it, but the laws were written in such a way that you had to magically prove that she wasn't raped or the guy gets the book thrown at him, would you not try to do something? Or would you really go "she said rape! that guys evil! make him pay!"

So if you were the judge and thought the guy was innocent or something wasn't adding up, you wouldn't state your reasoning but lie about it and present some wacky made-up reasoning instead, including but not limited to anti-scientific, misogynistic crap? Do you really think the hypothetical you created here justifies anything he said (or did)?

renegade7:
What, did you guys not know that for anything to access a woman's vagina she has to first lower her energy shield? See, all women are equipped with an energy shield projector just past the opening, and it is completely impenetrable unless the woman lowers it. It's operated by the same nanobots that destroy sperm cells when a woman is legitimately raped.

You people really need to brush up on your biology.

I smirked but the abhorrent reality that people promote these ideas stifles a true guffaw.

tstorm823:

boots:

Uhhh, no.

If someone doesn't want to have sexual intercourse, the body shuts down

That's what he said. He echoed the Todd Akin rubbish about vaginas magically sealing themselves.

The lack of a period in your quote is sort of symbolic, really. It's like the time the romney campaign quoted Obama saying that he would lose if they talked about the economy when the full quote was Obama saying the republicans were saying that...

It's almost like you forgot the

The body will not permit that to happen unless a lot of damage is inflicted, and we heard nothing about that in this case...

part of his statements.

The reason this is an issue is that A) His real reasons weren't revealed until recently, B) If this was his reasoning, and he gave the guy a lighter sentencing because of it, then that is a BIG problem regardless of how long ago it happened, mainly because C) Someone who thinks this way should not be in charge of judging sexual assault cases.

I trust that man a hell of a lot more than anyone in this thread, I'll tell you that. If you were a judge, and you believed the the prosecution claiming the girl was raped was full of it, but the laws were written in such a way that you had to magically prove that she wasn't raped or the guy gets the book thrown at him, would you not try to do something? Or would you really go "she said rape! that guys evil! make him pay!"

Firstly, the judge does not get to just "decide" such things. The judge acts in accordance with the law, even ones they disagree with. Secondly, you are creating a somewhat unlikely hypothetical. A reasonable judge could come up with far better explanations than this if pushed to. This is a totally unreasonable statement and is unarguably a harmful one as well.

Indecipherable:

renegade7:
What, did you guys not know that for anything to access a woman's vagina she has to first lower her energy shield? See, all women are equipped with an energy shield projector just past the opening, and it is completely impenetrable unless the woman lowers it. It's operated by the same nanobots that destroy sperm cells when a woman is legitimately raped.

You people really need to brush up on your biology.

I smirked but the abhorrent reality that people promote these ideas stifles a true guffaw.

At a certain point you just can't take this kind of crap seriously anymore.

tstorm823:

It's almost like you forgot the

The body will not permit that to happen unless a lot of damage is inflicted, and we heard nothing about that in this case...

part of his statements.

I trust that man a hell of a lot more than anyone in this thread, I'll tell you that. If you were a judge, and you believed the the prosecution claiming the girl was raped was full of it, but the laws were written in such a way that you had to magically prove that she wasn't raped or the guy gets the book thrown at him, would you not try to do something? Or would you really go "she said rape! that guys evil! make him pay!"

So his reasoning was that the girl hadn't been beaten up enough, which means that she didn't fight hard enough, and therefore it doesn't count as a rape?

Try reading this bit:

Johnson, a former prosecutor in the Orange County district attorney's sex crimes unit, said during the man's 2008 sentencing that he had seen violent cases on that unit in which women's vaginas were "shredded" by rape.

The guy actually thinks that when it's a proper rape, there's damage done to the vagina due to a built in defence mechanism, and you have to defeat the vagina and tear it to pieces before you may be permitted to enter.

That is why people are wondering if his judgement might have been a little shaky.

EDIT: Also:

Or would you really go "she said rape! that guys evil! make him pay!"

Yes, because that's how rape trials usually go down. The girl says that the guy raped her and BOOM he's in jail.

It seems like, despite not knowing the details of the case of the prosecution/defence's arguments, you've decided that the guy was innocent, the girl was just lying, and the judge is a hero who put his ass on the line to save an innocent man from going to prison. Which is all well and good in fantasy land, except...

Johnson said he believed the prosecutor's request of a 16-year sentence was not authorized by law. Johnson sentenced the rapist to six years instead, saying that's what the case was "worth."

... for the part where he prosecuted the guy anyway. So even the judge believed that she was raped, but just that it was a low-value rape.

These backwards paint sniffing assholes may not believe in legitimate rape, but maybe that's because they're legitimate retards.

It's not rape without "a lot of damage" huh?

Roofies aren't rape I guess.

Could we at least look at his record before passing final judgement please?

Isn't the record of a judges decision available for study and review online or something?

We should at least look at what he's done 'on the bench' re: rape before deciding he's unfit.

tstorm823:

Edit: Just noticed this happened 4 years ago and suddenly people are upset... talk about digging. You should all be ashamed of yourselves for reacting to this crap the way they want you to.

In my own defense: We are just becoming aware of this. The transcript itself was apparently unpublished, and the admonishment itself dates to December 5, 2012, ten days ago today. It also doesn't help matters that when the full quote apparently reads:

"I'm not a gynecologist, but I can tell you something: If someone doesn't want to have sexual intercourse, the body shuts down. The body will not permit that to happen unless a lot of damage is inflicted, and we heard nothing about that in this case. That tells me that the victim in this case, although she wasn't necessarily willing, she didn't put up a fight. And to treat this case like the rape cases that we hear about is an insult to victims of rape. I think it trivializes rape."

This in turn is compounded by his response to the prosecution's statement about the physical threats the victim was subjected to: "I found the threats to be technical threats. I found this whole case to be a technical case. The rape is technical. The forced oral copulation is technical. It's more of a crim law test than a real live criminal case."
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2012/john121412.htm

Mind you, those 'technical threats' included: bruising her breast with a metal baton, shattering her cell phone, heating a screwdriver and threatening to use it to maim her face and vagina, threatening to burn her face and hair with a lit cigarette lighter, and threatening to shoot and kill her
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/12/14/53138.htm

Asita:

This in turn is compounded by his response to the prosecution's statement about the physical threats the victim was subjected to: "I found the threats to be technical threats. I found this whole case to be a technical case. The rape is technical. The forced oral copulation is technical. It's more of a crim law test than a real live criminal case."
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2012/john121412.htm

Mind you, those 'technical threats' included: bruising her breast with a metal baton, shattering her cell phone, heating a screwdriver and threatening to use it to maim her face and vagina, threatening to burn her face and hair with a lit cigarette lighter, and threatening to shoot and kill her (emphasis mine)
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/12/14/53138.htm

Oh dear, do we have to add technical rapes to the rape column?

That is so weird. What's the difference between a technical threat and a real threat? Was it comforting to the victim to find out that she was only "technically" raped?

Skeleon:

So if you were the judge and thought the guy was innocent or something wasn't adding up, you wouldn't state your reasoning but lie about it and present some wacky made-up reasoning instead, including but not limited to anti-scientific, misogynistic crap? Do you really think the hypothetical you created here justifies anything he said (or did)?

No, probably not. But someone actually reading these articles comprehensively can see that the judge didn't believe she was raped at all, and the difference was a decade of a man's life.

I'm not saying the man was making good decisions with his statement, but someone has to stop the flood of "what an idiot, the GOP is bad at biology, I'm tired of a world with people this dumb as judges" crap that has filled this thread. It's clearly not the case.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked