So you answered an personal ad on Craigslist...

[Chazwozel]

Lesson learned:

If a stranger asks you to rape them, get them to sign a contract first that they're not going to call the cops afterwards. And even if you did sign a contract, you would still go to jail if they called the cops. So don't 'rape' strangers!

Because rape is illegal. There's no such thing as consensual rape. A rape fantasy is a bit of an oxymoron because it implies participation and consent. Rape has neither. What is considered a 'rape fantasy' is more 'pushing the line on rough sex'.

While it's a shame he's gonna go to jail for this, he only has himself to blame.

But that's why it's a fantasy. It's not real. This dude should have attempted to meet beforehand etc... Any kind of BDSM role-play stuff usually involves safety words so the other person stops if things are getting too rough. He should go to jail, if only because he's a dipshit.

 

[GasBandit]

This is why I have a policy in place for meeting someone in public, first

... so you don't accidentally rape them?... :wtf:

 

[Math242]

damn right

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

This is why I have a policy in place for meeting someone in public, first

... so you don't accidentally rape them?... :wtf:[/QUOTE]
Seems like a good policy.

 

[makare]

This is why I have a policy in place for meeting someone in public, first

... so you don't accidentally rape them?... :wtf:[/QUOTE]

Yet another lesson learned the hard way.

 

[Chazwozel]

Your Honor, I have no idea how my penis ended up in that vagina.

 

[phil]

I think I saw a three stooges like that. Larry and Curly keep slipping on banana peels Mo keeps leaving out and end up double teaming this chick. When they go to court for it the judge had to throw the case out, least his courtroom be covered in more pies.

 

[GasBandit]

.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

This is why I have a policy in place for meeting someone in public, first

... so you don't accidentally rape them?... :wtf:[/QUOTE]

...no. I just mean general safety and common sense when meeting a stranger from the internet.

 

[Iaculus]

This is why I have a policy in place for meeting someone in public, first

... so you don't accidentally rape them?... :wtf:[/QUOTE]

...no. I just mean general safety and common sense when meeting a stranger from the internet.[/QUOTE]

There's a difference?

 

[GasBandit]

This is why I have a policy in place for meeting someone in public, first

... so you don't accidentally rape them?... :wtf:[/QUOTE]

...no. I just mean general safety and common sense when meeting a stranger from the internet.[/QUOTE]

While a good idea, unfortunately even if the woman in question here also had that policy, it wouldn't have helped her in this case.

I'm also a little surprised the ex GF of a marine didn't have a gun. But maybe she didn't want to be reminded of the guy who eventually would arrange her rape.

 

[Chibibar]

This is why I have a policy in place for meeting someone in public, first

... so you don't accidentally rape them?... :wtf:[/QUOTE]

...no. I just mean general safety and common sense when meeting a stranger from the internet.[/QUOTE]

While a good idea, unfortunately even if the woman in question here also had that policy, it wouldn't have helped her in this case.

I'm also a little surprised the ex GF of a marine didn't have a gun. But maybe she didn't want to be reminded of the guy who eventually would arrange her rape.[/QUOTE]

hmmm that would have been an interesting twist.

So if the woman had a gun and kill the "fantasy rapist" would the marine be charge of accessory to murder? If it was in Texas, she would be protected by castle law (the guy did break in and rape her or attempt. She does have the right to defend herself)

 

[makare]

This is why I have a policy in place for meeting someone in public, first

... so you don't accidentally rape them?... :wtf:[/QUOTE]

...no. I just mean general safety and common sense when meeting a stranger from the internet.[/QUOTE]

While a good idea, unfortunately even if the woman in question here also had that policy, it wouldn't have helped her in this case.

I'm also a little surprised the ex GF of a marine didn't have a gun. But maybe she didn't want to be reminded of the guy who eventually would arrange her rape.[/QUOTE]

Why would a marine's ex have a gun? To defend herself from the marine?

 

[Iaculus]

This is why I have a policy in place for meeting someone in public, first

... so you don't accidentally rape them?... :wtf:[/QUOTE]

...no. I just mean general safety and common sense when meeting a stranger from the internet.[/QUOTE]

While a good idea, unfortunately even if the woman in question here also had that policy, it wouldn't have helped her in this case.

I'm also a little surprised the ex GF of a marine didn't have a gun. But maybe she didn't want to be reminded of the guy who eventually would arrange her rape.[/QUOTE]

Why would a marine's ex have a gun? To defend herself from the marine?[/QUOTE]

Evidently necessary.

 

[Espy]

This is why I have a policy in place for meeting someone in public, first

... so you don't accidentally rape them?... :wtf:[/QUOTE]

...no. I just mean general safety and common sense when meeting a stranger from the internet.[/QUOTE]

While a good idea, unfortunately even if the woman in question here also had that policy, it wouldn't have helped her in this case.

I'm also a little surprised the ex GF of a marine didn't have a gun. But maybe she didn't want to be reminded of the guy who eventually would arrange her rape.[/QUOTE]

Why would a marine's ex have a gun? To defend herself from the marine?[/QUOTE]

I guess it depends on his actions towards her previous to this. If he was this nuts who knows if he had already been harassing her or whatnot.

 

[makare]

You guys are missing the key part of what he said

he did not say the girlfriend of THE marine he said girlfriend of A marine. as in a marine's girlfriend would be expected to own a gun. That was what I was asking about.


This chick needed a gun AND restraining order and possibly the guts to make a preemptive strike on that douchebag.

 

[Iaculus]

You guys are missing the key part of what he said

he did not say the girlfriend of THE marine he said girlfriend of A marine. as in a marine's girlfriend would be expected to own a gun. That was what I was asking about.


This chick needed a gun AND restraining order and possibly the guts to make a preemptive strike on that douchebag.

Oh, I saw that, but I couldn't resist the wisecrack. So it goes.

 

[Philosopher B.]

They should both get a shotgun blast to the tits.

(That's my new official answer to everything).

 

[Green_Lantern]

Hi, just to add something, not sure if it wasn't posted before.

I think the "actual rapist" should be charged with rape, even if at a lesser degree, I also think that the Marine should be charged with rape of his ex at highest degree possible (Wouldn't mind that much if it was bigger than the actual rapist).

Now this a new angle: The marine should be charged with "rape" of the actual rapist think about this, as far he is telling us, the guy never agreed with actually raping someone, so the marine tricked him in to commit a sex act without his consent, might not be the most common variation of rape, but still is a damn evil act, "actual rapist" life is now ruined because the marine manipulated him so. I am not, by any means, saying that the rapist is innocent, I am just saying that he can also considered a victim.

I am mostly telling this, because I really would like to see the marine to be sentenced as if he has raped both.

>.<

 

[Chazwozel]

You guys are missing the key part of what he said

he did not say the girlfriend of THE marine he said girlfriend of A marine. as in a marine's girlfriend would be expected to own a gun. That was what I was asking about.


This chick needed a gun AND restraining order and possibly the guts to make a preemptive strike on that douchebag.

He meant that Marines are usually gun nuts and therefore own guns therefore their significant others also share this same interest. I will post that my cousin, a former Marine and someone who's quite knowledgeable about modern weapons, does not own a gun himself. I have a friend who's the ex wife of a marine; she does not own a gun. My wife's cousin's current girlfriend is the ex wife of a Marine. She does not own a gun. I've got two buddies and an ex girlfriend in the Air Force, none of them own guns. Being enlisted does not equal having to own a gun by some weird arbitrary logic.

 

[WolfOfOdin]

Hi, just to add something, not sure if it wasn't posted before.

I think the \\"actual rapist\\" should be charged with rape, even if at a lesser degree, I also think that the Marine should be charged with rape of his ex at highest degree possible (Wouldn't mind that much if it was bigger than the actual rapist).

Now this a new angle: The marine should be charged with \\"rape\\" of the actual rapist think about this, as far he is telling us, the guy never agreed with actually raping someone, so the marine tricked him in to commit a sex act without his consent, might not be the most common variation of rape, but still is a damn evil act, \\"actual rapist\\" life is now ruined because the marine manipulated him so. I am not, by any means, saying that the rapist is innocent, I am just saying that he can also considered a victim.

I am mostly telling this, because I really would like to see the marine to be sentenced as if he has raped both.

>.<

....Alright then.

The thing is, the marine did not physical rape the woman in question. He cannot be charged with Rape in the First Degree. That requires him to have physically have done the act. As of the current statute, by causing Rape in the Third Person, the Marine would be liable to a fine of an unlimited amount, as well as a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.

Now, obviously he is guilty of conspiracy to commit a criminal act as well, which as of United States V Shabani, adopts the common law principal wherein the fact that a conspiracy alone is proof of a criminal act, further compounded with the harm and damages done by the act in and of itself.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=513&page=10

I'll get back to you on the specifics of the fines and terms of imprisonment associated with Conspiracy to commit a criminal act.

Also, with the idea of precedent...yes, going very lenient or letting off the hook the manipulated party could in fact create a viable defense for new defendants to argue the same. Difficult, but doable with a good lawyer and a scapegoat with a bad past/connections to the defendant. It's a shitty thing, but there are obvious cues as to when someone doesn't want a thing to continue or at all. Sexual arousal does not excuse that and is not grounds for incompetence. If he's charged with Rape in the First, that's again, an unlimited fine as well as a sentence of possible life imprisonment

...And yes, I am a 2nd year law student...AND A MALE. HOW THE HELL DID YOU THINK I WAS WOMAN?!

 

[makare]

....Alright then.

The thing is, the marine did not physical rape the woman in question. He cannot be charged with Rape in the First Degree. That requires him to have physically have done the act. As of the current statute, by causing Rape in the Third Person, the Marine would be liable to a fine of an unlimited amount, as well as a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.

Now, obviously he is guilty of conspiracy to commit a criminal act as well, which as of United States V Shabani, adopts the common law principal wherein the fact that a conspiracy alone is proof of a criminal act, further compounded with the harm and damages done by the act in and of itself.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=513&page=10

I'll get back to you on the specifics of the fines and terms of imprisonment associated with Conspiracy to commit a criminal act.

Also, with the idea of precedent...yes, going very lenient or letting off the hook the manipulated party could in fact create a viable defense for new defendants to argue the same. Difficult, but doable with a good lawyer and a scapegoat with a bad past/connections to the defendant. It's a shitty thing, but there are obvious cues as to when someone doesn't want a thing to continue or at all. Sexual arousal does not excuse that and is not grounds for incompetence. If he's charged with Rape in the First, that's again, an unlimited fine as well as a sentence of possible life imprisonment

...And yes, I am a 2nd year law student...AND A MALE. HOW THE HELL DID YOU THINK I WAS WOMAN?!

I am the female law student.

If the rapist is telling the truth the only thing he conspired to do was to fulfill a fantasy, which is not a criminal act, that was his intent and to the best of his knowledge what he was doing. If he could prove that then I fail to see how he can be convicted of conspiracy. The marine manipulated the situation but since he didn't conspire with the rapist to actually plan a rape I dont see how he can be convicted of conspiracy either.

 

[WolfOfOdin]

Ah, sorry misread the earlier post :O

Honestly Makere, I am going to assume conspiracy is going to be put on to the marine's charges to lengthen punishment, not the poor sap who raped the girl though. Prosecutors now a days have a habit of tossing what they can and seeing what sticks, at least in the stuff I've been forced to read (admittedly not as widespread as that statement may seem).

Would you be more comfortable slapping the marine with a variant of fraud?

 

[makare]

Ah, sorry misread the earlier post :O

Honestly makare, I am going to assume conspiracy is going to be put on to the marine's charges to lengthen punishment, not the poor sap who raped the girl though. Prosecutors now a days have a habit of tossing what they can and seeing what sticks, at least in the stuff I've been forced to read (admittedly not as widespread as that statement may seem).

Would you be more comfortable slapping the marine with a variant of fraud?

Like i said it is a kitchen sink charge, used when nothing else fits right. But frankly, charge him with whatever, charge him with it all! See what a jury can do with it. Nothing really just is going to happen in this situation, might as well do whatever can be done.

 

[WolfOfOdin]

Yeah. He's a tricky case and I agree with you there. Rape in the third person's a definite fit. I could see fraud, false representation of a personage...hell, if you want to be REALLY creative, Conspiracy to Corrupt Public Morals would -technically- fit, since Craigslist is a periodical of sorts, and crime calls for a person or persons to seek to induce immoral behavior via a periodical or publication, but that's stretching that law to the damn limits.

 

[makare]

Yeah there are lots of things he can be charged with but none of them give that slight satisfaction of labeling him the raping bastard that he is. That's the problem.

 

[WolfOfOdin]

Heh, you could always throw him to the Corp and let them have their fun with him. Repeatedly. With live ordnance

 

[Tinwhistler]

article 134 is the general UCMJ charge that he'd likely get stuck with. It's the catch-all when other charges don't quite fit.
"Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court."

They'd likely give him a good long sentence on it.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

While a good idea, unfortunately even if the woman in question here also had that policy, it wouldn't have helped her in this case.

I'm not talking about her, I'm talking about him. If he had set up a meeting, or wouldn't do it unless meeting somewhere first, then this wouldn't have happened because she wouldn't have shown up. It sure as hell would've helped HER case if he set up a meeting beforehand instead of just jumping right into it.

 

[Shannow]

Give the most that you can to the both of them under the law. Peroid. One raped a woman, whether he thought it was a fantasy or not. The other set it up. whatever the law states these two fuckers can get, give it to them.

 

[Chibibar]

Give the most that you can to the both of them under the law. Peroid. One raped a woman, whether he thought it was a fantasy or not. The other set it up. whatever the law states these two fuckers can get, give it to them.

of course I hear stories that sometimes a woman did "give it up" but later call "rape" cause she didn't like it.

not saying that this is the case (it could who knows until more info are given)

I mean she could have set it up and trying to pin on her ex. Of course then the case would be totally different wouldn't it? I would assume the rapist (the guy who did the act) would be release since there was consent from HER at the time.