Basically, a school security guard kidnapped a 14 year old girl ten years ago and held her hostage in his home, sexually molesting her on a regular basis and brainwashing her to believe that her parents had disowned her.
She finally worked up the courage to escape him, and now he is facing charges. His lawyer is saying that she was a willing partner:
"I don't think you'll find anybody in these United States who says she was held against her will," Ecker said.
She was FOURTEEN YEARS OLD when she was first taken, you goddamned fucking piece of subhuman roach-eating monkeyshit! You can't argue that she was consenting because she isn't legally qualified to give consent at that age! And using mind games and brainwashing techniques on a 14 year old is not any normal person's idea of a real consenting relationship, asshole.
Sometimes I see a legal defense and I honestly cannot believe the chutzpah of the lawyer.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Well we can only hope the judge sees it that way, and that there isn't some obscure technicality this walking excuse for the death sentance can exploit.
Kojiro wrote:Well we can only hope the judge sees it that way, and that there isn't some obscure technicality this walking excuse for the death sentance can exploit.
There very well may be actually as far as kidnapping charges are concerned. The evidence presented so far is the girl had a history of running away from home and initially voluntarily agreed to run away from home and join the man in what was actually his parents house. (That aspect of the story is just plain wierd. ) At least to the best of my knowledge, although the laws may vary by state, kidnapping is different than statutory rape and a 14 year old would be treated differently than the same circumstances occuring with a 5 year old. Now the key that may change all this is apparently early on he told her that he would kill her if she tried to leave, and this is where kidnapping charges probably can be filed. It does mean conviction on that particular charge may be tougher than the others though since its likely just her word against his, with his lawyer arguing that the fact she didn't run away later proves that no coersion occured.
MRDOD wrote:Isn't this already covered by all those Stockholm Syndrome cases? I just can't see him getting out of this case.
While obviously this is what the prosecution is going to bring up, the 12 members of the jury may not be familiar with it and the question is whether they will accept the explanation. Basically I think its still likely he'll ultimately get convicted on a kidnapping charge as well, its just not as certain as the other charges and the prosecution will have to do a good job of making their case to ensure a conviction on this charge.
MRDOD wrote:Isn't this already covered by all those Stockholm Syndrome cases? I just can't see him getting out of this case.
Uh, the thing with Stockholm, the victim basically sides with their captor(s). The fact that she made an escape indicates she wasn't completely brainwashed.
"It was the hooker rationing that finally drove people over the edge." - Mike on coup in Thailand.
This doesn't strike me as anything new. Defense lawyers are real scumbags in that way. They'll say anything, no matter who insane or vicious or horribly hurtful if they think it will help their client, even traumatizing the victim so they crack in court. For example, I was watching on the news a story about a girl being knocked unconscious and gang raped recently by three boys, who all took a turn on her, violated her with objects at hand including a lit cigarette, and videotaped the entire thing. What did the boys lawyers do? Claimed the unconscious girl was not only a willing participant, but that she was practically the biggest slut on campus who loved the attention and wanted to be a porn star. The lengths these douchebags went to was incredible.
It's no wonder so many rape victims are afraid to report what happened to them. Who'd blame them? Going through it once was bad enough, but knowing that you are going to have to relive it in your head repeatly while an asshole stands in front of a courtroom saying that you wanted it and even deserved it? It's sick that the legal system lets this happen.
"Show me an angel and I will paint you one." - Gustav Courbet
"Quetzalcoatl, plumed serpent of the Aztecs... you are a pussy." - Stephen Colbert
"Really, I'm jealous of how much smarter than me he is. I'm not an expert on anything and he's an expert on things he knows nothing about." - Me, concerning a bullshitter
Allegheny County Police Superintendent Charles Moffatt said Kach wasn't allowed out of the house for the first four years she lived with Hose.
If she was kept confined for 4 yours, one would think that would equal to unwilling participent
The threaten to kill her angle is the only one which can really make this aspect stick. Simply asking or even ordering someone not to go out of the house doesn't qualify if the person voluntarily complies.
Standard "blame the victim" bullshit. I expect the defense will have character assassination witnesses to testify as to how the girl would always "be lookin' all hot like dat" and how much she obviously wanted it.
Damien Sorresso
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
If the guy is an adult, isn't sex with a minor automatically rape?
Stranger, if you passing meet me and desire to speak to me, why should you not speak to me? And why should I not speak to you? (Walt Whitman)
"We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn them behind us, with nothing to show for our progress except a memory of the smell of smoke, and a presumption that once our eyes watered." (Tom Stoppard)
Still here I carry my old delicious burdens/I carry them, men and women, I carry them with me wherever I go/I swear it is impossible for me to get rid of them/I am fill'd with them, and I will fill them in return. (Whitman)
Sofia wrote:If the guy is an adult, isn't sex with a minor automatically rape?
Depends on Age of consent in the state. Some states have it as low as 12 others as high as 18.
Just want to ask what the defense lawyer is supposed to do in this instance? It's his job to defend his client, if his client says he wants to plead not guilty then its his duty as an officer of the court to provide his client with a zealous defense. Plus you've all jumped to the conclusion he's guilty without hearing any evidence save that reported by the media - information carefully controlled by the prosecution - and most important of all ignoring one of the foundations of our criminal justice system. He is assumed to be innocent unless proven otherwise.
Do I think he's scum, etc? Sure. But if its my job I'll do my best to defend him so that when a truly innocent person comes along he gets the same zealous defense that a guilty one gets. Not much more different than the concept of protecting the KKK's free speech rights so that the rest of us are protected.
Wherever you go, there you are.
Ripped Shirt Monkey - BOTMWriter's GuildCybertron's FinestJustice League
This updated sig brought to you by JME2
I thought about that as well, Stravo. Long story short, my ire would be aimed solely at the defendant, assuming that his defense lawyer is one of those provided-for attorneys mentioned in the Miranda rights readings (and thus, frankly, it's his gov't-specified job to act as the "voice" of the defendant side -- however shittily he does it).
"Yee's proposal is exactly the sort of thing I would expect some Washington legal eagle to do. In fact, it could even be argued it would be unrealistic to not have a scene in the next book of, say, a Congressman Yee submit the Yee Act for consideration. " - bcoogler on this
"My crystal ball is filled with smoke, and my hovercraft is full of eels." - Bayonet
Stark: "You can't even GET to heaven. You don't even know where it is, or even if it still exists." SirNitram: "So storm Hell." - From the legendary thread
Stravo wrote:Do I think he's scum, etc? Sure. But if its my job I'll do my best to defend him so that when a truly innocent person comes along he gets the same zealous defense that a guilty one gets.
Why? Why should a defense lawyer who knows that his client did something wrong bust his ass and abuse the victim in an attempt to get him off anyway? What exactly is the social benefit of this policy?
Not much more different than the concept of protecting the KKK's free speech rights so that the rest of us are protected.
It's not? In the case of the KKK, it is believed that speech itself is specially protected. That is certainly not the case with crimes, so I don't see how the two situations are analogous.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Stravo wrote:Do I think he's scum, etc? Sure. But if its my job I'll do my best to defend him so that when a truly innocent person comes along he gets the same zealous defense that a guilty one gets.
Why? Why should a defense lawyer who knows that his client did something wrong bust his ass and abuse the victim in an attempt to get him off anyway? What exactly is the social benefit of this policy?
Because if you decide to provide only the innocent with a sound defence and not the guilty, then you are desciding in advance who is innocent and who is guilty, and the trial becomes meaningless.
Of course in extreme situations like this, that seems a mite off, but in seriousness, where do you draw the line? Just how strong must the evidence against someone be before you descide that he does not deserve a defence? The problem is that one cannot draw such a line because to do so is to take upon oneself the powers that it is the function of the courts to exercise: distinguishing between the innocent and the guilty. If the courts system works, the guilty can be given a defence and STILL get convicted. If you play favourites, the courts system becomes a kangaroo business.
CotK <mew> | HAB | JL | MM | TTC | Cybertron
TAX THE CHURCHES! - Lord Zentei TTC Supreme Grand Prophet
And the LORD said, Let there be Bosons! Yea and let there be Bosoms too!
I'd rather be the great great grandson of a demon ninja than some jackass who grew potatos. -- Covenant
Dead cows don't fart. -- CJvR
...and I like strudel! -- Asuka
Stravo wrote:Do I think he's scum, etc? Sure. But if its my job I'll do my best to defend him so that when a truly innocent person comes along he gets the same zealous defense that a guilty one gets.
Why? Why should a defense lawyer who knows that his client did something wrong bust his ass and abuse the victim in an attempt to get him off anyway? What exactly is the social benefit of this policy?
Because if you decide to provide only the innocent with a sound defence and not the guilty, then you are desciding in advance who is innocent and who is guilty, and the trial becomes meaningless.
I am not talking about a "sound defense"; I am talking about the zealous defense that Stravo is talking about, where any kind of loophole, technicality, deception or other underhanded tactic is acceptable.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Well...defending the ideal of innocent until proven guilty...
As shitty as people are, everyone diserves to be treated to a fair trial where all evidence is presented and their guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The reason i say this is personal interest. I dont give a fuck about this idiot and i hope he rots in prison...however, if HE gets railroaded, weather he diserves it or not, then so can you and me and everyone else because it says that railroading people is 'OK'.
So everyone gets a fair shake, a jury of their peers, and a zealous defense. Same as you, same as me, same as this gutless fucker, same as a KKK grand dragon, etc, etc.
Then after its proven he's a shit eating fucker in a court of law and a jury of his peers convict him, send him to jail and let the biggest, meanest gangbanger there have at him.
Why does anyone believe that a "zealous defense" (where the lawyer will use any technicality or sophistry to get the guy off if he can) has anything to do with a "fair trial"?
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Darth Wong wrote:I am not talking about a "sound defense"; I am talking about the zealous defense that Stravo is talking about, where any kind of loophole, technicality, deception or other underhanded tactic is acceptable.
What is the difference between 'zealous' and 'sound'? Of course in order to be fair, everyone "deserves" an equally zealous defence otherwise, you are still playing favourites. Because you can be assured that the prosecution will try whatever they can to get a conviction.
Of course, the line should be drawn at fraud and perjury, etc. However, if there are loopholes in the law, that is the fault of the legislature.
CotK <mew> | HAB | JL | MM | TTC | Cybertron
TAX THE CHURCHES! - Lord Zentei TTC Supreme Grand Prophet
And the LORD said, Let there be Bosons! Yea and let there be Bosoms too!
I'd rather be the great great grandson of a demon ninja than some jackass who grew potatos. -- Covenant
Dead cows don't fart. -- CJvR
...and I like strudel! -- Asuka
Lord Zentei wrote:What is the difference between 'zealous' and 'sound'?
Maybe it's because I'm an engineer rather than a lawyer, but I just don't see how bullshitting people in order to win can be considered "sound" in any sense of the word.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Well if we say that there is a defined line where 'sound' ends and 'zealous' begins then we have to ask who draws that line? Then once that's decided, where is the line drawn?
18-Till-I-Die wrote:Well if we say that there is a defined line where 'sound' ends and 'zealous' begins then we have to ask who draws that line? Then once that's decided, where is the line drawn?
Is it really that hard to say that there's a difference between uncovering reasonable objective evidence to doubt a criminal charge and manipulating the ignorance and prejudice of the jury to do the same?
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Police find evidence of man commiting a murder. Lawyer finds way to throw out evidence because he wasn't properly read his rights or there was no search warrant. Is it fair for this guy to get away with murder? Is the lawyer being morally corrupt when he finds this loophole?
Moreover, do you agree with Stockwell Day when he accused lawyers defending pedophiles to be morally corrupt (assuming in the majority of these cases the lawyer knew the pedophile was guilty)?
brianeyci wrote:Police find evidence of man commiting a murder. Lawyer finds way to throw out evidence because he wasn't properly read his rights or there was no search warrant. Is it fair for this guy to get away with murder? Is the lawyer being morally corrupt when he finds this loophole?
Of course he's immoral. Do you disagree?
Moreover, do you agree with Stockwell Day when he accused lawyers defending pedophiles to be morally corrupt (assuming in the majority of these cases the lawyer knew the pedophile was guilty)?
That's a pretty big assumption which rather invalidates Stockwell Day's original argument.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
) At least to the best of my knowledge, although the laws may vary by state, kidnapping is different than statutory rape and a 14 year old would be treated differently than the same circumstances occuring with a 5 year old. Now the key that may change all this is apparently early on he told her that he would kill her if she tried to leave, and this is where kidnapping charges probably can be filed. It does mean conviction on that particular charge may be tougher than the others though since its likely just her word against his, with his lawyer arguing that the fact she didn't run away later proves that no coersion occured.
" - 
-- Asuka
