Lawerance Taylor accused of rape

[zamboni]

Fact is, this is all speculation as he has not been found guilty yet.

You are right, finding a person not guilty in court must mean he didn't do it. In fact, OJ is so innocent of killing 2 people in 1994 he was still looking for their actual murderer until he got sent to prison. My point? Finding a person innocent or guilty in court don't mean squat.

[FISHINGURU]

The 16 yr old girl is obviously a moron like the other two are. Not like she couldn't of stopped it from happening, she went into the hotel and left with money. I'm sure somewhere throughout all that she could of got help, she stuck around with the other guy while he beats her up and has her be a prostitute. They told Taylor she was 19, I can't believe Taylor can't go down the the bar and get his own action.

[harvey lee]

Originally Posted By: harvey lee

Fact is, this is all speculation as he has not been found guilty yet.

You are right, finding a person not guilty in court must mean he didn't do it. In fact, OJ is so innocent of killing 2 people in 1994 he was still looking for their actual murderer until he got sent to prison. My point? Finding a person innocent or guilty in court don't mean squat.

Boy I must be missing it all here. I thought one was innocent until found guilty.

Maybe we do not need our court system with this type thinking. Maybe all are guilty without thier day in court.

[TR21HP]

Being found guilty or innocent in a court of law isn't so black and white as has been said. Has the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect did it or has the defense put enough doubt in the jury's mind that they can't or won't issue a statement of guilt. It all has to do with evidence and unfortunately a he said she said also enters into the equation.

A person can be guilty of the crime but the prosecution has to prove it, conversely the person can be innocent and the defense has to present its case to the satisfaction of the jury. It isn't so cut and dried as one would believe.

[harvey lee]

Well, its our system. I do not know if anyone has come up with a better system yet.

If the state cannot prove he did it, then he should walk.

[Dave S]

I agree Harvey. I don't agree with everything about our justice system, but IMO there's none better.

[zamboni]

My point was innocent or guilty, the courts get it wrong alot. Funny how lawyers have to go to college for 7 years or whatever it is, but juries are made up of the common man that range from burger flippers to ditch diggers and they are actually the person that determines whether a person is guilty or not

[Dave S]

I've never been called in for jury duty, but don't the people sitting on the jury have to go through some sort of interview process before they're selected?

[Shack]

My point was innocent or guilty, the courts get it wrong alot. Funny how lawyers have to go to college for 7 years or whatever it is, but juries are made up of the common man that range from burger flippers to ditch diggers and they are actually the person that determines whether a person is guilty or not

IMO that is the way it should be, or at least they way I was taught and brought up to think. A jury of my peers.

I will highly doubt this will even go to a jury trial. LT will plead guiltily to a lessor charge and avoid the rope-a-dope. I heard this morning that the next move on LT's behalf is to shift the rape charges to indecent exposure charges. It sounds he may change his story in front of the judge to include that he never touched her and only himself.

Personally I could careless about this whole ordeal. IMO loosing the Vikes in 2012 is more of priority for me than anything involving LT. The guy (innocent or not of rape) put himself in this position and frankly if you can not stand the heat, check out of the Holiday Inn & get home to your own kitchen. Funny he has not brought up the "I was trying to help her" option yet?

[mrklean]

I've never been called in for jury duty, but don't the people sitting on the jury have to go through some sort of interview process before they're selected?

Yes they have to sit though questioning to see if they have a bias

[Shack]

Thanks mrklean. I forgot to put that in their. I do honestly dislike Jury Duty . The qualifying from both the prosecution & defense IMO gets a little personal. If it gets that tough, that is when I say/use "I think everyone should be free". That gets you an instant "Thank You Sir.", at least during criminal cases. Civil cases are a total another kind of bore altogether.

[Scott K]

I have never been asked to be in jury duty, and I hope I never get asked.

[Juneau4]

Everyone should have to be selected for jury duty a least once in their lifetime. Great pay, lots of sitting and doing nothing, and you get the opportunity to try to get 6 or 12 people to agree on something. Oh 1 other thing you get to do it at the courts conveniance and usually find out if you have to go in the night before or the morning of and at times only after you get to the courthouse. You can be exempt though if your 70+ years old.

Some cases can be interesting.

[LightningBG]

Never heard of there being a legal age of consent law in MN in cases like you explained. At least nothing that states that a 16 y.o. is old enough to consent to sex with an adult age 18 or older.

Here is some info about the ages. The different degrees have slight variations.

609.345 CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT IN THE FOURTH DEGREE.

Subdivision 1. Crime defined. A person who engages in sexual contact with another person

is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree if any of the following circumstances

exists:

(a) the complainant is under 13 years of age and the actor is no more than 36 months older

than the complainant. Neither mistake as to the complainant's age or consent to the act by the

complainant is a defense. In a prosecution under this clause, the state is not required to prove

that the sexual contact was coerced;

( the complainant is at least 13 but less than 16 years of age and the actor is more than 48

months older than the complainant or in a position of authority over the complainant. Consent by

the complainant to the act is not a defense. In any such case, it shall be an affirmative defense

which must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the actor believes the complainant

to be 16 years of age or older;

© the actor uses force or coercion to accomplish the sexual contact;

(d) the actor knows or has reason to know that the complainant is mentally impaired,

mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless;

(e) the complainant is at least 16 but less than 18 years of age and the actor is more than 48

months older than the complainant and in a position of authority over the complainant. Neither

mistake as to the complainant's age nor consent to the act by the complainant is a defense;

[LightningBG]

Originally Posted By: LightningBG

I dont get it? Whats not to believe? I'm not condoning it. You don't think a 15-16 can try/want to get jiggy w/it? Take a look at all the lady teachers making it with 14-15 yr old boys. I'm pretty sure they weren't being forced/tortured into it.

Still doesn't make it right. (again)

I couldn't believe that you would even post something about this being a consentual situation, only then to acknowledge that a 15 year old cannot have consentual contact with an adult.

Holy cripes man, what in the HE double L are you thinking? Why even post something like that? Saracastic or not, it's just not right.

Fine, a minor cant legally consent. What I was getting at is we dont know if © the actor uses force or coercion to accomplish the penetration; (copied from mn statute)

They call it "statutory rape" for a reason.

The my mind the natural definition would include all of the below minus #3.

–noun

1.

the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.

2.

any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.

3.

statutory rape.

4.

an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.

5.

Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.

–verb (used with object)

6.

to force to have sexual intercourse.

7.

to plunder (a place); despoil.

8.

to seize, take, or carry off by force.

Again, Again and Again, not defending or condoning. Just pointing out that in my mind there is a difference between statutory rape and "natural" rape. Not that either is right, but they are different.

What if all of the sudden they changed the law to 30yrs old, age of consent? Then I'd be in trouble under the statute, but not under the "natural" definition.

Truthfully, I think that girl was in on it. She could have had the hotel employees call the police if she was there against her will. I think she got upset when her pimp smacked her up and decided to flip on him.

[Dave S]

Thanks for posting the actual statutes LBG. I'm assuming these are MN statutes? As was mentioned earlier, not sure if it was by you, but other states may be different.

I do recall a story in our local paper about a celebration for a local girl turning 15. The reason for the celebration was because at that age in their culture, 15 is the age of majority.

In a case like this, I would lean towards that MN Statutes would take precedence over someone's culture or religious beliefs.