BF2S Forums The Semantics of "Rape"

The question is who is going to press charges, and more obviously this is all under duress. Essentially nothing you do can be held against you in a courtroom if someone made you do it with a gun to your head.

Is this really DST?

mtb0minime wrote:

So could A and B press charges against C and claim it was rape?

Yes they can...

Marlo Stanfield wrote:

mtb0minime wrote:

(don't worry about how, they just do)

The how is the most important part. There is a big difference between having a gun to someone head and threatening them with something like monetary loss.

How they were forced to have sex isn't the arguing point here.

why don't you dumb goat fuckers read the links i posted

because that would be setting a precedent.

you want educated cunts posting intelligent shit?

post elsewhere bra.


mahahahahaha

I sure could go for some rape right now.

More importantly how is porn not prostitution?

Turquoise wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

More importantly how is porn not prostitution?

It's a question I've often asked myself.   Apparently, paying for sex is only illegal if you don't film and then sell copies of it.

pretty much, even though the filming and selling part of it makes it seems a lot more morally dubious.

mtb0minime wrote:

Where does attempted murder fit into all this?

(604):

Fucked her within an inch of her life. Seriously. Don't choke bitches when they ask. Was way too drunk to be pulling that shit.

Let me put it this way...   These days, if you meet a girl who likes it rough, you should probably get her to sign a waiver before you have your fun.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

That is essentially the only point that matters if you want to know who is going to be charged with what.

Good point....

Well, I guess we've established that putting a gun to someone's head and forcing him/her to rape someone will result in the gun wielding guy/girl to get charged with forcing rape on someone -- which appears to be about the same charge as literally raping someone directly.

However, forcing someone to rape someone else through extortion doesn't excuse the direct raping.  So the extortionist gets charged probably on multiple counts, and the raper is still charged with rape.

Wow, this is a morbid thread....  lol

Question is whose the raper A or B?
C is not a rapist, there no penetration, no conspiracy, he forced others to commit a crime but I'm not sure what C would get charged with.

But as far as A or B goes, in this messed up hypo they could both be charged with rape because neither consented and they both forced intercourse on each other. Do two wrongs make a right, do they cancel each other out? If you're going strickly by the definition or rape and not asking whether descretion would be exercised on bringing charges, then why wouldn't they both be charged.


I feel like I'm doing someone's homework....

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

That is essentially the only point that matters if you want to know who is going to be charged with what.

Good point....

Well, I guess we've established that putting a gun to someone's head and forcing him/her to rape someone will result in the gun wielding guy/girl to get charged with forcing rape on someone -- which appears to be about the same charge as literally raping someone directly.

However, forcing someone to rape someone else through extortion doesn't excuse the direct raping.  So the extortionist gets charged probably on multiple counts, and the raper is still charged with rape.

Wow, this is a morbid thread....  lol

Question is whose the raper A or B?
C is not a rapist, there no penetration, no conspiracy, he forced others to commit a crime but I'm not sure what C would get charged with.

But as far as A or B goes, in this messed up hypo they could both be charged with rape because neither consented and they both forced intercourse on each other. Do two wrongs make a right, do they cancel each other out? If you're going strickly by the definition or rape and not asking whether descretion would be exercised on bringing charges, then why wouldn't they both be charged.


I feel like I'm doing someone's homework....

Well, in the first example, I would think having a gun placed to someone's head would basically negate any responsibility of that person.  Let's say that person is A.  C is the person holding the gun.  B is the person being raped.  B can't be charged with rape unless he/she was actually in on the crime.  For the sake of brevity, we'll assume that B is somehow unable to escape (he/she is tied up or something).  Then again, I guess if B was not tied down or something like that, then he/she could still be absolved of responsibility if we assume that C threatens to pull the trigger if B runs away.  In that particular case, B is complying to save the life of A.

When there's no gun, knife, or other deadly weapon involved, things get tricky.

If it's extortion, that's not a serious enough threat to justify rape.  However, if the threat still works, then the extortionist is an accessory to the resulting rape.  So, there's no question that C is going to get charged with two things: the extortion itself and creating a situation where someone gets raped.  Assuming A is the rapist, then B cannot be charged with anything unless he/she was again privy to the conspiracy itself.  Although, investigators would need to scrutinize the actions of B during the rape to ensure that this isn't the case.