4chan archive /r9k/ (index)
similar threads
2012-09-06 02:25 3675866 Anonymous (Savannah-Dietrich.jpg 280x276 22kB)
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/07/23/563401/sexual-assault-victim-faces-jail-time-for-naming- her-assailants/?mobile=nc >Young female gets sexually assaulted by two males around her age >They even took pictures of the incident and downloaded them on the internet >They all go to court, etc etc. >Young girl violates the gag order by tweeting the names of the perpetrators on her Twitter account >She is now facing jail time for her actions What do you think? Would you have done the same thing that she has done?

0 min later 3675877 swami
this has been posted 10+ times before. she broke the law and has to pay for it

2 min later 3675886 Anonymous
>>3675877 OP here. Oh really? My bad. I'm a bit behind these days.

4 min later 3675908 Anonymous
so anyone got the pictures then?

5 min later 3675924 Anonymous
>When Savannah Dietrich was sexually assaulted and her attackers distributed photographs of the incident Yeah, fuck that, I would have done the same. Fuck the courts.

5 min later 3675927 Anonymous (1331506950912.png 2000x2000 1019kB)
And let me guess; women everywhere are supporting her bravery in attempting to get back at the horrible rapists who took pictures of her retarded drunk ass? I love how women think they are above the law while at the same time demand men be forced to follow it. >>3675908 It's nothing interesting. It's just her disgusting form passed out and low skirt flipped up. I've seen worse pictures taken of men who didn't bitch about it.

8 min later 3675960 Anonymous
She broke the goddamn law, but this will get thrown out as hardcore feminists will throw a never ending tantrum and get what they want. >>3675927 I cant be fucked to read into this more, but all that happened is an upskirt shot? Did they actually like rape her and shit? If its just the upskirt shot, then holy fuck, what the hell.

9 min later 3675976 Anonymous
Old. She broke court order, she has to deal with the consequences. Except there won't be any consequences, because she's a woman.

10 min later 3675981 Anonymous
>>3675960 Yes, it was just an upskirt shot. They didn't strip her naked and rub their dicks on her if that's what you're asking. Basically this bitch is just upset her stupidity had a consequence and rather than learn from this and not get blackout drunk in the future she will try to ruin the lives of two men to save her reputation.

10 min later 3675982 Anonymous
of course i would've done the same. but i wouldn't bitch when i got jail time for it.

12 min later 3676012 Anonymous
>>3675981 So she wasn't actually sexually assaulted?

13 min later 3676024 Anonymous
Man, this shit is so goddamn depressing. I don't know what's worse; the fact that taking advantage of stupid and irresponsible people is a crime, or the fact that "minorities" can get away with just about everything.

13 min later 3676025 CalleBorjesson
>Young girl violates the gag order by tweeting the names of the perpetrators on her Twitter account the judge knows the only reason she did this is because she was hoping some white knight beta fag would come and shoot the perpetrators

14 min later 3676034 Anonymous
>>3676012 No. She's just rectal-ravaged that people saw how irresponsible she is.

14 min later 3676036 Anonymous
>>3676017 cute/10 would let sit on face

19 min later 3676076 Anonymous
>>3676025 Pretty much this. Those laws are in place for a reason.

21 min later 3676094 Anonymous
I would have done the same. Those boys were spoiled boys whose lawyers were trying to smooth the whole thing over. This wasn't about getting justice for the victim. This was about making the incident go away for the boys. I think what the girl did was right, in tweeting their names, though I'm furious that she's mentioned "rape" because as far as I'm aware, there was no actual sexual intercourse. Just pictures and molestation.

22 min later 3676101 Anonymous
>woman gets sexually assaulted, photos are plastered on internet >takes situation into her own hands and announces who did it >WHORE BROKE THE LAW SHE DESERVES TO BE PUNISHED, BESIDES IT WAS HER FAULT FOR BEING A SLUT IN THE FIRST PLACE >man gets sexually assaulted, photos are plastered on internet >takes situation into his own hands and announces who did it >YEAH MAN FIGHT THE POWER IT'S BULLSHIT THAT HE GOT IN TROUBLE HE WAS THE VICTIM Oh /r9k/.

22 min later 3676102 Anonymous
If i'm not mistaken she was a whore or slut as well and always acted like this. They were stupid for taking pictures but ya whats she expect. >i'm glad a judge isnt bending over backwards for her ass.

23 min later 3676105 Anonymous
>>3676094 They took a picture of some passed out drunk with her skirt up. That's not rape or molestation. They'd be hard pressed to find proof they touched her. Though I haven't seen the pictures, so I may be incorrect about that last statement.

23 min later 3676109 Anonymous
>>3676101 Read the thread and article, she wasn't sexually assaulted.

23 min later 3676111 Anonymous
>tfw this girl is from the same metropolitan area as me Fuck.

24 min later 3676120 Anonymous
I don't believe in gag orders for people who have definitely done something wrong. For any gender or crime. So no I don't think she should be punished at all, because it is a stupid, unjust law.

25 min later 3676126 Anonymous
It's hard to say if it's right or wrong in this situation. One one hand, if she didn't announce the names of those boys, what if they boys either go to jail for several years before they get bailed out or something, or they (by some freak miracle mind you) are pleaded innocent and can walk as free men? If that's the case, she would have let go two of society's monsters and they will do it again to another victim. It's hard. I can't just say it's right or wrong.

25 min later 3676127 Anonymous
>>3676120 Innocent until proven guilty. The gag order is there to protect the accused while it's being determined. They have rights.

26 min later 3676133 Anonymous
>>3676126 They took a picture of a passed out drunk slut. They didn't touch her, or rape her.

26 min later 3676134 Anonymous
>get drunk as a minor >pass out around people you don't know/trust >they take an upskirt shot, nothing else >OMG FILTHY RAPIST SCUM RUINED MY LIFE! >THEY SHOULD BE PUBLICLY EXECUTED! >judge is reasonable for once, gives a light punishment >NO THAT'S UNACCEPTABLE, I WANT VIGILANTE JUSTICE! >tells everyone their names and say they violently raped her >surprised when she gets in trouble for this >women imho she's the bad guy here, the guys are the victims.

26 min later 3676137 Anonymous
>>3676105 >That's not rape or molestation. No, I agree that it's not rape, that's why I'm furious that she (as far as I know) tweeted that it was. Yes, she was wronged, but she wasn't raped. I could be misremembering, but I'm pretty sure there was something about molestation. I'll have to double-check.

28 min later 3676157 Anonymous
>>3676127 No, they were not innocent. They admitted to the crime, but they did so under the plea that they would not be named. This was decided without the victims consent. So your rebuttal, which I think is valid (note that I did say "definitely"), does not apply to this case. Criminal scum should be named as the victim sees fit.

29 min later 3676161 Anonymous
>>3676105 Ok. Double-checked. It says, "sexually assaulted".

30 min later 3676166 Anonymous (1306230079528.png 679x427 15kB)
>mfw /r9k/ completely ignores the other fact that the boys distributed, in the eyes of law, child pr0nz. It's not the sexual assault, it's the fact that they took a suggestive photo of an UNDERAGE girl.

30 min later 3676172 Anonymous
>>3676134 Why should people who committed a crime be protected from people knowing that they committed that crime? They should live with the consequences of their actions.

31 min later 3676173 Anonymous
>>3676157 >No, they were not innocent. They admitted to the crime, but they did so under the plea that they would not be named. This was decided without the victims consent. No wonder she's furious. I'd be enraged. I'm not condoning calling it rape or anything else other than what it is, but she got shafted in the justice system here. Boys obviously went for a plea deal and a light sentence so that they wouldn't actually have to pay for what they did.

31 min later 3676174 Anonymous
Gag orders are bullshit, but then again so are fake rape claims. Everyone involved should be shot.

31 min later 3676180 Anonymous
>>3675877 >actually saying something intelligent Keep up the good work and we can stay on friendly terms

32 min later 3676183 Anonymous
>>3676157 Confession =/= guilt. Guilt must be established in a court of law by a jury of your peers. She violated the law, the criminal scum

32 min later 3676184 Anonymous
>>3676173 >Boys obviously went for a plea deal and a light sentence so that they wouldn't actually have to pay for what they did. Because they didn't do anything worth worrying about.

33 min later 3676191 Anonymous
>>3676101 Call down femcunt, she broke the goddamn law with fucking twitter during an ongoing investigation, and then blew everything out of proportion. You don't "take justice into your own hands" during a fucking trial. And >implying anyone would care that a man was sexually assaulted. The best thing she could have done was ignore this all completely, and watch as it went away after a month. Instead, now the fact that her vagina can be found somewhere on the internet has national attention.

34 min later 3676195 Anonymous
>>3676173 >>3676157 Why the shit would she have a say in their sentencing? You don't punish criminals for the victims amusement, you punish them for the sake of society; so that they wont do that shit again.

35 min later 3676208 Anonymous
>>3676183 Confessing to being guilty of a crime = guilt Yeah she broke the law but its a fucking stupid law. Anyone guilty of a crime shouldn't be protected from someone else telling other people that they're guilty of that crime.

35 min later 3676210 Anonymous
>>3676184 >Because they didn't do anything worth worrying about. Three counts of child porn-- creation, possession, distribution. Sexual assault.

36 min later 3676216 Anonymous
>>3676184 If it's so "not worth worrying about" then there should be no problem with people knowing what they did.

36 min later 3676218 Anonymous
>>3676184 >kiddie porn >nothing to worry about

37 min later 3676222 Anonymous
>>3676173 >Go against court decision >Break law >WAAAAAHHHH WHY DO MY ACTIONS ALLSO HAVE CONSEQUENCESSS In addition >implying they didnt have to pay for what they did You seem to think they only got a stern talking to with that plea bargain. It was a goddamn photo likely taken while they were piss drunk, and she was fucking passed out without someone watching her Why can alcohol be used by women as an excuse to get out of a problem/do retarded things, but not men? Yeah, they took a picture of her ass hanging out of her skirt. Bad, yes. Disrespectful, yes. Worth national news attention and a trial? Fuck no.

37 min later 3676224 Anonymous
>>3676195 >Why the shit would she have a say in their sentencing? They didn't even go through the proper "get trial, get sentence". They just got a quick plea-deal that smoothed the whole thing right over. Basically, she got shafted. She has a right to demand justice. (Though I will reiterate-- calling it "rape" was not the fucking right way to go about it)

38 min later 3676234 Anonymous
>>3676208 Wrong, asshole. Confessions can be made under duress, by mistake, to protect another or in a moment of confusion. Innocent until PROVEN guilty.

38 min later 3676235 Anonymous
>>3676195 That unjust. Punishment of evil-doers should be done for a number of reasons. One of which is to provide justice to the victim.

38 min later 3676236 Anonymous
>>3676208 They still have a trial. Guilty pleas have been overturned before.

38 min later 3676243 Anonymous
>>3676224 The fact that they go an easy plea deal was the fault of the judge and her own lawyer. I don't see how breaking another law and going against a court ruling fixes anything.

39 min later 3676246 Anonymous
She retroactively justified her rape by breaking the gag order. Its a fact.

39 min later 3676255 Anonymous
>>3676224 Again, why the fuck would she have anything to say about how justice works? More so if she's an underage brat.

40 min later 3676257 Anonymous
>>3676224 If shes charging them with rape, they'll go innocent. It wasn't rape.

41 min later 3676279 Anonymous
Wait, was she wearing an underwear underneath the skirt? >ew if no.

41 min later 3676281 Anonymous (1346688854377.gif 256x192 1969kB)
>mfw most women on facebook put on pictures that are even more revealing

42 min later 3676293 Anonymous
>>3676234 Neither of those first two things apply here. Confession when not under duress or by mistake = guilt. And if you're willing to lie and halt justice to protect someone then you should be willing to accept being known for having committed that crime which you have lied about. These boys have both said "yes, we took pictures of underneath this girl's skirt while she was drunk and distributed them, but please don't let anyone find out". That's ample reason for the victim who believes that htey have done this to tell whoever she sees fit that that is what they have done.

43 min later 3676296 Anonymous
>>3676120 >public shaming >right and just Fuck off. First off, people are innocent until proven guilty, secondly, this is a private matter, it shouldn't be public knowledge unless these people are considered highly dangerous, in which case, they'd most likely be in jail or under constant surveillance. And besides, it just isn't right for the "victim" to decide what the punishment should be. She has no right to "punish" anyone, and she isn't capable of giving out a fair and rational punishment. Those kids will get punished as the law sees fit. Not how she feels fit. The law doesn't exist to give people emotional satisfaction, it exists to prevent crime and to stop people from re-offending. You can call the law unfair as much as you want, but that doesn't give her the right to decide the punishments of others.

43 min later 3676308 Anonymous
>>3676296 >First off, people are innocent until proven guilty >took pictures >distributed >not proven guilty My sides.

43 min later 3676310 Anonymous
>>3676293 Except that the judge said they should not be named. Its a goddamn law, she broke it. Fuck off.

44 min later 3676316 Anonymous
It's not child porn if there's no genitalia exposed you dumbcunts.

44 min later 3676321 Viking
>>3676157 If she's going against the court, then what she did was wrong. Doesn't matter if she felt it was right, it was the wrong thing to do.

45 min later 3676325 Anonymous
>>3676293 People often plead guilty when they're not at an attempt at getting a lighter sentence if they think they'll be convicted wither way. Hence why a trial is still needed.

45 min later 3676327 Anonymous
>>3676308 Yes, thats true. Guilt must be established in a court of law Just because the local posse of good ol' boys says you killed Farmer Ted, doesn't mean that you did

45 min later 3676329 Anonymous
>violating a court order >not tearing down the rule of law pick one

45 min later 3676331 Anonymous
>>3676316 >It's not child porn if there's no genitalia exposed you dumbcunts. My sides are moving at supersonic speeds, leaving a wake of sound-created destruction in my path.

45 min later 3676334 Anonymous
>>3676308 Has a court of their peers decided that that is the case?

46 min later 3676338 Anonymous
>>3676224 How did she get shafted? That was the proper punishment for a couple of drunk boys who took some compromising photos of a drunk whore. If they had molested her in anyway, then you might have a point.

46 min later 3676342 Viking
Also, age of consent in Kentucky is 16. Last time I checked, 16 < 17.

46 min later 3676345 Anonymous
>>3676316 Her ass is still showing. It's a suggestive picture.

46 min later 3676349 Anonymous
>>3676210 Oh boo fucking hoo. Som,e college girls beat up and stripped a middle school boy, videotaped it, and posted it on the internet. Nothing happened to them and not a single female called for their heads.

47 min later 3676354 Anonymous
>>3676331 Nah, you're retarded. Upskirts of fully clothed girls is not child porn.

48 min later 3676367 Anonymous
>>3676354 You're dealing with someone who says that someone should be able to break the law and disobey a court order. They're obviously irrational.

48 min later 3676373 Anonymous
>>3676345 Doesn't matter how suggestive it is, it's still not child porn. If she was sucking a dick = CP if her cunt is showing = CP no sex, no cunt/dick = not CP

48 min later 3676378 Anonymous
>>3676338 >How did she get shafted? That was the proper punishment for... Yeah, calling her a drunken whore totally shows you're not biased at all. Nope. And no, it's not. She's seventeen. I believe they call this "child porn".

49 min later 3676380 Anonymous
she broke the law, what more is there to it? as long as her sexual assault case isn't thrown out or anything and the perpetrators still pay for their crime, she should pay for hers too.

49 min later 3676387 Viking
>>3676281 my sides although I really wouldn't know because I dont facebook

49 min later 3676388 Anonymous
>>3676373 >Doesn't matter how suggestive it is People have been indicted for possession of child porn due to explicitly sexually suggestiveness, where others have not even with full genitalia showing. For obvious reasons.

49 min later 3676390 Anonymous
>>3676378 Defending someone who broke a court order show that you're not so biased either.

50 min later 3676398 Anonymous
>>3676157 >implying you can just make up your own plea bargain No, the bitch should be blaming her lawyer for accepting it without telling her. Here is what happened: >Go to party >gusie we all drunk lol >oh god look at that passed out chick >hahahahah upskirt fucking brofist >lol shit send that to steve >>>goes everywhere >bitch gets justifiably mad >goes to court >assholes plead guilty, her lawyer and their lawyers do a plea bargain as this trial is likely a waste of time and nothing really would come of it anyway >her lawyer and their lawyer, and them sign off on it >they do whatever restitution was assigned >bitch gets mad and then breaks the law because justice Yes, obviously they need to be publicly executed for taking a picture of a drunk whore.

51 min later 3676415 Anonymous
>>3676390 >how that you're not so biased either. Because I think the gag order was wrong. Sort of like the difference between screaming that Casey Anthony is a murdering bitch whore, and saying that you think the jury made the wrong call for x reasons.

51 min later 3676419 Anonymous
>>3676378 It's not child porn so your point is moot. >>3676388 The only time that ever happens is if they find other hard child pornography, never alone.

51 min later 3676423 Anonymous
Sorry /rwhinek/ I have no sympathy for your poor "oppressed" little molesters. I support the chick 100% >duh she should just accept the consequences of being a passed out chick Just like your little molester faggots should accept the consequences of being little faggot molesters amirite? >Bawww their lives were ruined! Crime don't pay bitch nigga.

52 min later 3676427 Anonymous
More importantly, where are the pics

52 min later 3676432 Anonymous
>>3676419 >It's not child porn so your point is moot. It's America. Sexually suggestive pictures of seventeen-year-olds constitutes child porn.

52 min later 3676433 Anonymous
>>3676378 Age of consent over there is 17 you dumbass. She was of age, its not goddamn child porn.

53 min later 3676437 Viking
>>3676415 It doesn't matter what you think. The judge ORDERED it. She's going against the law. That's what you call ILLEGAL.

53 min later 3676441 Anonymous
>>3676423 >taking pictures of passed out girls = molestation Jesus christ, what is rape to you? Walking on the same side of the road behind a girl?

53 min later 3676443 Anonymous
>>3676419 >The only time that ever happens is if they find other hard child pornography, never alone. Prove it.

53 min later 3676445 Anonymous
>>3676432 >implying age of consent is 18 in every state lel.

53 min later 3676448 Anonymous
>>3676423 >being this mad and this normalfag

53 min later 3676451 Anonymous
>>3676423 She was under a court order for the duration of the trial.. Are you illiterate? Do you not understand the bill of rights out country was founded upon?

54 min later 3676455 Anonymous
>>3676398 Except they apparently sexually assaulted her too.

54 min later 3676457 Anonymous
>>3676432 Provide me a source of anyone being convicted for merely having "suggestive" photos or you're full of shit. If it was child porn, you think the prosecutor wouldn't have charged them with it?

55 min later 3676464 Anonymous
>>3676427 Fuck off, pedo. >hurrr it's no pedoph- I don't care. Pedo.

55 min later 3676466 Anonymous
>>3676455 No where was that ever stated but in her own tweets.

55 min later 3676471 Anonymous
>>3676445 >implying age of consent is 18 in every state Sixteen-year-olds are allowed to have sex with each other in NC, but if one of them takes a sexually explicit picture of the other or sends on, it's CP. Wanna know how I know? Because I live here, and got the fully lecture along with everyone else. It's child porn. Legally.

55 min later 3676478 Anonymous
>>3676455 Where is the proof? Was this proved in a court of law?

56 min later 3676483 Anonymous
>>3676457 >>3676464 >17 is age of consent in Kentucky Just want to point that out.

56 min later 3676487 Anonymous
>>3676464 Haha, oh man. You are so normal it hurts. Go mow your lawn and wash your car

56 min later 3676492 Anonymous
>>3676471 It's Kentucky bro. It's not considered CP there.

56 min later 3676493 Anonymous
>>3676433 Age of consent is irrelevant. There's a reason there are no 16 year old pornstars in America and lord knows it isn't because of lack of demand.

57 min later 3676500 Anonymous
>>3676466 http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/savannah-dietrich-not-charged-twitter-sexual-assault-victim-1255 27199.html Every single article I come across for her, loudly and clearly, labels her "sexual assault victim".

57 min later 3676504 Anonymous
>>3676478 Now we wont ever know the truth because she interrupted the fucking trial, and now all facts will go out the window, and the only thing I know for certain is that dumbasses who have nothing to do with the trial and know thing more than the headline of the news article to pass judgement on.

58 min later 3676510 Anonymous
she deserves it, because shes a whore.

58 min later 3676517 Anonymous
>>3676296 They admitted to their guilt. Whether it's a "private matter" or not is irrelevant. The victim should be allowed to say what they did to anyone she wants to. And being known for committing a crime is a punishment that every crime should have. Why should people who have done something wrong be protected from the consequences of their actions? It isn't libel. Why should any worse to tell people that two guys named x and y took pictures under your skirt while you were drunk than it is to tell people that, say angelina jolie has adopted children. They're both true. why should the truth be censored to protect people who have done something wrong? You have no sense of justice.

58 min later 3676520 Anonymous
>>3676504 Exactly. She ruined the trial.

58 min later 3676522 Anonymous
>>3676500 That's a broad umbrella term. Having suggestive pictures taken against your will is considered sexual assault.

58 min later 3676523 Anonymous
>>3676493 Because of how they would have to control the distribution of it. That would be a nightmare. And I don't know of anywhere in the US where the age is 16.

59 min later 3676530 Anonymous
>>3676492 Please see: >>3676493 Also, if that were true, I'd be able to make some mega-bucks in high school as a part-time stripper. Lord knows I could use the extra cash.

59 min later 3676531 Anonymous
>thinkprogress Fucking communist propagnda.

59 min later 3676536 Anonymous
>>3676325 Then in that case they should be prepared for people to think that they are guilty of that crime.

59 min later 3676537 Anonymous
>>3676517 Because one is a fact, and one is still to be decided in a court of law. The accused have rights. Emotions like yours have no place in the justice system.

1 hours later 3676538 Anonymous
>>3676500 Well, shit, if the zionist media says it it must be true.

1 hours later 3676539 Viking
>>3676523 Plenty of places. 18 is only the AoC in a small amount of the states.

1 hours later 3676544 Anonymous
I say they all should be stoned to death. the boys for being dicks. the girl for being a cunt.

1 hours later 3676547 Anonymous
>>3676423 >Crime don't pay >so, commit a crime back! Brilliant.

1 hours later 3676548 Anonymous
>>3676523 >And I don't know of anywhere in the US where the age is 16. In NC, again, two sixteen-year-olds can have sex with each other. Or sixteen and seventeen, though usually most acceptable if they're only a few months apart. But the age of consent is 18.

1 hours later 3676550 Anonymous
>>3676483 You think age of consent actually matters? Like someone else said, there's a reason why 16 and 17 year old porn stars don't exist. Legally, anyway! >>3676487 You're so pedo it hurts. Go assault children and distribute photos for the lulz.

1 hours later 3676552 Anonymous
>>3676517 Because the accused have rights and even those convicted have rights. That is the rule of law and that is justice, please leave your emotional blubbering at the door, woman.

1 hours later 3676553 Anonymous
>>3676327 But it wasn't a local posse who said you killed farmer ted, you yourself admitted to killing farmer ted.

1 hours later 3676557 Anonymous
>>3676423 An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

1 hours later 3676559 Anonymous
>>3676517 because sexual assault isnt equal to having your life ruined forever(no jobs, no houses, no loans, no nothing, could result from that kind of publicity being spread),as much as dumb whores would like you to believe it is.

1 hours later 3676560 Anonymous
>>3676111 >>3676111 Even better >tfw I go to the boy's same school

1 hours later 3676564 Anonymous
>>3676448 lol Why would I be mad? Your heroes got what was coming to them. Also I bear the status of normalfag with pride when I am compared to scum like you pathetic robots, as I unlike you am a Gentleman.

1 hours later 3676572 Anonymous
>>3676564 No true gentleman would condemn someone without a proper trial.

1 hours later 3676574 Anonymous
>>3676553 Its exactly the same. Just because someone says that you or I did something, even if that someone is you or I, it doesn't make it true.

1 hours later 3676579 Anonymous
>>3676398 Who said anything about being publicly executed? They admitted to doing what you say, so why shouldn't other people know about it ? Why should the truth be censored?

1 hours later 3676585 Anonymous
>>3676559 >because sexual assault isnt equal to having your life ruined forever Having pictures of yourself posted on the internet isn't the same? Really? I agree they don't deserve to be crucified, and she should have kept her mouth shut, but they shouldn't have gotten off so lightly.

1 hours later 3676591 Anonymous
>>3676536 Exactly, but the deal was that they were not to be named by court order. I don't give a fuck what you think about that, you are not a judge. She broke the law by violating a court order. You would make a fucking terrible judge. The facts have to trump emotions in court.

1 hours later 3676593 Anonymous
>>3676579 The truth has not been determined. I could say I have a 16 inch penis. Does that make it true?

1 hours later 3676595 Anonymous
>>3676423 >Crime don't pay bitch nigga. Damn right. I'm glad I'm not the only person here who isn't morally bankrupt.

1 hours later 3676601 Anonymous
>>3676579 a) Guilt is established at trial b) The identity of the accused should be kept secret to protect their reputation and their safety from vigilantes

1 hours later 3676606 Anonymous
>>3676595 Yeah but you are financially bankrupt >tfw crime does pay

1 hours later 3676607 Anonymous
>>3676585 I find it funny, that she immortalized herself with this bullshit. Nobody knew that her ass is on the internet until this trial. She ruined her own life in that regard.

1 hours later 3676629 Anonymous
>>3676559 >implying their lives are actually ruined forever >implying anyone will remember their dumb asses in five years

1 hours later 3676630 Anonymous
>>3676585 yes "Really?". If an employer noticed her, and had also seen her naked pussy, she'd probably be even more likely to get hired. Being portrayed as a violent sex offender, is the exact opposite effect. so yes, really.

1 hours later 3676648 Anonymous
>>3676629 do you know what background checks are? do you know what the are based on? 1 article or page portraying theyre actual names could show up in a background check for life

1 hours later 3676663 Anonymous
>>3676537 They admitted to doing exactly what the girl said they did. That's it. If they decided to lie about their guilt of their own accord, which they almost certainly didn't, then they deserve to live with the consequence of people knowing that they did what they admitted to. Their rights shouldn't include that it be forbidden for the victim to say what they did. That's a stupid right. People should live with the consequences of their actions. Your lack of justice has no place in the justice system.

1 hours later 3676669 Anonymous
>>3676630 >she'd probably be even more likely to get hired If this happened to me-- and I doubt it would, because I don't put myself in these situations, but just hypothetically, if I did-- and my ass ended up on the internet, and employer saw that... there's no way I'm getting that academia job I'm shooting for.

1 hours later 3676682 Anonymous
>>3676663 Justice doesn't care what you say. It doesn't care what they say. It cares about facts. Justice is a cold emotionless bitch. The fact that you support denying someone a fair trial disgusts me.

1 hours later 3676686 Anonymous
>>3676648 Gues they should have thought of that before molesting a passed out chick huh?

1 hours later 3676691 Anonymous
>>3676669 i dont think you know how the world works. sure if the employer was a female, it wouldnt help. however if it was a male, he'd hire you even if you were underqualified, just to be able to fap to naked picture of someone he knows irl.

1 hours later 3676698 Anonymous
USA USA USA you are going backwards in time, just like the muslims

1 hours later 3676699 Anonymous
>>3676559 Life ruined forever? What of it? How people decide to treat you once they know what kind of person you are is their prerogative, provided they don't do anything against the law like beat you up. Should all criminals have their crimes hidden from the public and their victims not allowed to tell anyone? Fuck off you evil-doer-sympathiser.

1 hours later 3676701 Anonymous
>>3676686 A court of law hasn't determined that yet. Thus, it has no place on a record.

1 hours later 3676713 Anonymous
>>3676698 Yes, because a proper trial is barbaric and primitive.

1 hours later 3676731 Anonymous
>>3676686 This. What the fuck, /r9k/, why is it always THA WIMMINZ FAULT?

1 hours later 3676734 Anonymous
Fuck, /r9k/, you're pathetic. Can't believe this shit gets your panties in such a twist. Don't you have better things to do? Or at the very least, more interesting things to talk/rage about?

1 hours later 3676740 Anonymous
She broke the law, deal with it.

1 hours later 3676748 Anonymous
>>3676731 I am completely indifferent to whether or not its a female or not that's accusing. I'm upset that people are defending a broken court order with emotional appeals. Emotions have no place in justice.

1 hours later 3676753 Anonymous
>>3676682 One of the cold hard facts of justice is that there's no reason that definitely guilty criminals should be protected from someone saying that they're guilty. People should live with the consequences of their actions. These two guys have admitted to doing exactly what they've been accused of. And they aren't going to get a trial because they've admitted to their guilt in exchange for an easy deal. If they wanted a trial then they would have received one. They haven't been denied anything you fucking retard.

1 hours later 3676758 Anonymous
>>3676691 >How the world works I know how the adult, academically rigorous world works. Yes, there's unprofessionalism, but this would sure as hell not get me hired.

1 hours later 3676759 Anonymous
>>3676698 Are you fucking stupid? She violated the way a trial should be conducted and is being punished for it. Saying that we're degenerating because we don't give sexual assault victims special rights and put them above the law is beyond fucking stupid. Why do people think that once sexual assault is involved, the accusers get special rights and powers that victims of other crimes don't?

1 hours later 3676765 Anonymous
>>3676663 Except they do. Don't like it? Run for the supreme court and try to change it. You cant just "chose" what is justice. That is called a dictatorship. Laws have to be followed as they are written. She broke the law, facts are facts. You letting your emotions get so involved is a cancerous weakness. I don't give a fuck about some dumb 17 year old chick that cant hold her liquor, or some other horney dumb asses with smartphones. For the last goddamn time, The law as it is currently written has been broken by her. She now should have to face consequences. I doubt anything will come of this though, as an uproar caused by people and moronic news anchors that know nothing of the law, or facts about the situation all freak out on message boards throwing tantrums. I pity the 2 accused, a dumb mistake made on a drunk weekend will now follow them for life as they will now forever be labeled as sexual assaulters for taking a picture of a drunk chicks ass.

1 hours later 3676772 Anonymous
>>3676740 It's a shit law that isn't righteous.

1 hours later 3676774 Anonymous
>>3676753 Pleading guilty isn't an end to a trial. She broke a court order. She broke the law, and should be punished.

1 hours later 3676783 Anonymous
>>3676734 There wasn't anything to talk about until people started to defend her (ie troll). Pretty clear cut, she blabbed their names on twitter when she was told not to before the trial started. The charges are irrelevant she broke the law, and was punished in kind. Arguing one way or the other is a waste of time as it won't change what happened, and no one in this thread will change society or the law to ensure it doesn't happen again.

1 hours later 3676784 Anonymous
>>3676772 Disobeying a court order should be allowed? You're retarded.

1 hours later 3676790 Anonymous
>>3676772 >accuse someone of a crime >instead of allowing the justice system to establish that persons guilt you take matters into your own hands >Ruin that persons reputation >Trial finds them innocent >Reputation still ruined How isn't it righteous?

1 hours later 3676804 Anonymous
>>3676783 actually she wasn't punished. Social justice warriors, feminists and manginas complained and got her off scott free >America being in charge of liberty

1 hours later 3676810 Anonymous
>>3676790 They're blinded by emotional garbage.

1 hours later 3676815 Anonymous
>>3676804 Is there a source to this claim?

1 hours later 3676834 Anonymous
Until I'm shown proof she was drunk she did nothing wrong in my opinion. The only reason I'd want her to be put in jail is because I want to see how honest she was with that whole "I don't care if they throw me in jail" line.

1 hours later 3676836 Anonymous
>>3676815 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/savannah-dietrich-contempt-charege_n_1696303.html

1 hours later 3676844 Anonymous
>>3676753 You left out the part where the plea was art of the trial, and the chick broke the law because she was maf. This is honestly the first time I have EVER seen the female party in a trial actually not recieve special rights. Anyone remember that scandal where that one chick in college had like a 3some and then claimed rape? Was like a 6 month trial, the names of the accused got leaked, and then it was found out to all be a lie because she was afraid of being called a slut. She walked away scott free, the male students all got kicked out,lost scholarships, and could not find work. These kind of laws exist for a reason. Breaking them is not "justifiable" because your incompetent lawyer did not attempt to grill the defendant(s) hard enough. I liken doing this to suing someone, not getting the cash you wanted, and then robbing them because i deserve "justice." Everyone involved in this is despicable.

1 hours later 3676845 Anonymous
>>3676765 So if it was teh law that a woman should marry her rapist then that would be fine with you because the law? Laws don't decide what is just or righteous or fair. They aim to be all those things as much as possible but often they aren't and when they aren't they're worth being acknowledged as such. When a law is unjust then it should be changed. Arguing that all laws shouldn't be criticised simply because they exist is utter fucking stupidity. I don't pity anyone who merely has to suffer people knowing what they did. "Oh no, people know that I took photos of a passed out girl from under her skirt. Boo hoo poor me. Its so unfair that people should know the crimes that I have committed." Your morals are contemptible and your understanding of justice is worse than juvenile.

1 hours later 3676852 Anonymous
The guys who did it were their high school's "star athletes". And of course this all went down at a teenaged party where everyone was smashed drunk. So these are, you know, the sort of guys who probably tormented all of you robots in school daily and made you hate yourselves. Mind you, I'm not saying "durr they're assholes they deserve it", but it's kind of odd that you're all defending these guys so readily. IRL, you'd probably HATE those fuckers. You'd think they were arrogant dim-witted douchebags. You realize this, right?

1 hours later 3676856 Anonymous
>>3676772 So, this law is 'shitty' because you don't agree with it? The criminals have rights too, why can't you understand this? If she decides to "righteously tell all of the evil done to her", then she deserves to live with the consequences, including the negative. She decided she was above the law, broke it and got punished. Why does she deserve to get off with no punishment, while the people who took photos get their reputation ruined because she thought the court was "wrong."

1 hours later 3676860 Anonymous
>>3676790 That isn't the case here dumbass. see >>3676157

1 hours later 3676861 Anonymous
>>3676845 see >>3676790 That law protects innocent people

1 hours later 3676870 Anonymous
>>3676774 She shouldn't be punished because it's a shit, unjust law that should be changed.

1 hours later 3676873 Anonymous
>>3676860 Welcome to the real world, where laws affect everyone not just a case by case basis. A plea bargain was struck and a gag order was ordered by the court. She violated the law and SHOULD be punished

1 hours later 3676881 Anonymous
>>3676836 Of course, she gets away with a federal crime. What a load of horse shit. >>3676852 Does it matter who they are? They still have rights, you worthless cunt.

1 hours later 3676882 Anonymous
>>3675866 >They even took pictures of the incident and downloaded them on the internet >downloaded them on the internet >downloaded Fucking retard.

1 hours later 3676884 Anonymous
>>3676870 Yes, lets give precedent to ignoring a court order. What a fantastic idea

1 hours later 3676898 Anonymous
Read the Facebook comments below. Fucking retards

1 hours later 3676899 Anonymous
>>3676870 So court orders should hold no power? What you're saying would cripple the justice system entirely. Your emotions are clouding your judgement.

1 hours later 3676900 Anonymous
>>3676870 How is it unjust? Give me one reason that doesn't equate to 'the boys were scum' or 'justice'

1 hours later 3676903 Anonymous
>>3676870 Part of me says that but the other part is nagging at me that she got off because she's a woman... I respect her for standing up but you know what I mean.

1 hours later 3676907 Anonymous
>>3676882 This, throw the whole case out. >OBJECTION! >Images are UPLOADED to the internet not DOWNLOADED >Case dismissed

1 hours later 3676913 Anonymous
>>3676903 Anyone who infringes on the rights of others deserves no respect.

1 hours later 3676918 Anonymous
>>3676845 >if the law was that a man should marry her rapist What an extreme example. I can tell that you have no argument. If you took your head out of your ass for longer than 3 mins and actually bothered to read my post, I said that you should go ahead and fight the law, but not break it. You are not supposed to repeal or change laws by breaking them. Lets say I don't like the laws governing the usage of high capacity magazines in California. By your logic, I should go ahead and just by one and start shooting everything, instead of contacting lawmakers in an attempt to get such a law lifted or changed in a way that I desire. This is how the system works. I don't know how you do not know this, or seem to think that I do not myself. I am patiently awaiting an actual rational response from you.

1 hours later 3676919 Anonymous
>>3676861 But the boys in this case aren't guilty. They admitted their guilt in exchange that they remained anonymous.

1 hours later 3676936 Anonymous
>>3676873 >hurr so what if laws are unjust durr hurr its da laww At least you're being open about your morals.

1 hours later 3676949 Anonymous
"WHAT REALLY HAPPENED!!!! reported July 26, 2012. She passed out topless after a throwing up violently from alcohol poisoning... they only took pictures. The boys plead guilty to sexual assault because it has fewer repercussions than child pornography charges. Thus why the DA accepted the plea, in cases of "rape" plea bargains are very rare because evidence so incriminating can support the crime." .....hmmm.

1 hours later 3676950 Anonymous
>>3676881 No guilty criminal should have the right to have the truth of what they've done censored.

1 hours later 3676955 Anonymous
>>3676936 That's not morality there. Its the law. The law knows no race, sex, set of morals or emotion. The law is absolute. And creating a precedent for breaking a court order wont be good for anyone.

1 hours later 3676956 Anonymous
>>3676936 If a law is unjust then you contact lawmakers and/or create a movement. You don't just break the law

1 hours later 3676963 Anonymous
>>3676950 They were minors, did you know that? Minors do have their identity remain secret

1 hours later 3676972 Anonymous
>>3676963 The blubbering cunt doesn't care about the law. Only MUH FEELINS

1 hours later 3676974 Anonymous
>>3676884 Yes that is a great idea. It means in the future when a victim or someone related is unjustly told that he or she can't tell anyone who it was who definitely committed the crime against them or the person they won't be endanger of this shitty, unjust law affecting them.

1 hours later 3676980 Anonymous
>>3676950 Okay, so let's say someone steals a candy bar for a store. They get caught and get a warning. Then, the storeowner decided "they got off too light!" and told the company they work at that they tried to steal all the money in the store. Shitty analogy aside (i'm tired), what right does the storeowner have to slander the thief because they committed a crime?

1 hours later 3676981 Anonymous
>>3676974 Hmm and if this happens >>3676790

1 hours later 3676983 Anonymous
>>3676974 It wasn't unjust. She had a lawyer represent her, and they agreed to it. You're just an irrational bitch who thinks someone should be able to break the law. You are scum. People like you don't deserve the liberties you try to take from others.

1 hours later 3676998 Anonymous
>>3676913 You've never wanted to slap a loud mouth little brat talking to adults like they're above them? You wouldn't find joy in that? Just an analogy but the law isn't necessarily justice

1 hours later 3677011 Anonymous
>>3676899 No I'm not saying that all court orders shouldn't be allowed. I'm saying that this partiuclar court order and cases exactly analagous, as specified in >>3676974 shouldn't be allowed. Nothing's clouding my mind. I can perfectly see what justice is and what is unjust about this victim not being allowed to say which two people, who admitted their guilt, took pictures of underneath her skirt.

1 hours later 3677018 Anonymous
>>3676998 Laws are created to ensure justice. In no way is being held in contempt for disobeying a court order unjust.

1 hours later 3677026 Anonymous
>>3677011 The boys were minors. Minor have their identity kept secret. This was a court order. She broke the law. How can't you understand this? Its not even something serious like she was raped, beaten, murdered etc etc

1 hours later 3677029 Anonymous
>>3677011 But the decision was agreed to by both sides. It's also illegal to give out the names of minors in court. She is absolute trash, who thinks herself above the law.

1 hours later 3677037 Anonymous
This thread is ridiculous she won't even be punished for it, she was simply charged, and even the mere idea that she might have done something wrong is too much for people. For those of you who don't agree with the law, call you fucking representative and talk to them about it, though I doubt they will do anything about since that law is there for a reason.

1 hours later 3677053 Anonymous
>>3677011 But something is clouding your mind. It's the fact that you're incredibly ignorant to the reasons why what she did wrong, and you instead strawman and give circular logic as to what she did was right. All you say is how it's 'unjust' and a 'shit law', and anyone who disagrees is 'hurf durf the law is the law why is ur morals not law'. 2/10, thank you for helping me burn some leisure time.

1 hours later 3677072 Anonymous
The boys got off on a low sentence because they 1: Were also underage 2: Took a plea deal The reason the girl is facing jail time is because what the judge says goes. If you fuck with him, he will send you to the pack of niggers that infest American jail, since hes a fucking judge. Moral of the story: it has hardly anything to do with the bitches trial, you just don't fuck with a judge. I don't understand how this even warrants attention. If a judge tells you to do something, listen because he has more power than all your fucking white knights and beta followers combined.

1 hours later 3677083 Anonymous
>>3676560 So you and I must live near each other.

1 hours later 3677085 Anonymous
>>3677018 no they are created to ensure stability, you "justice" fuckers are ridiculous. You know why it isn't left up to "justice"? Justice is subjective, whose justice do we accept as true? In this thread we have a dozen different ideas on this one issue alone. None of that will ensure stability, none of it will make for a efficient civil society, which is what we will all must admit is what we want.

1 hours later 3677109 Anonymous
>>3676918 >What an extreme example. How is it extreme? That used to be the law. Then people saw that it was unjust and changed the law. It perfectly illustrates how your stance that the law is the law and the law must be just because its the law is something only a complete fucking retard would think. And furthermore, in civilised countries that possess a sense of justice at least, laws do get changed retroactively when people realise that those laws aren't just. For example a few decades ago in the UK a woman accused her husband who was seperated but not yet divorced (because in england its the case that unless there is violence or something then a couple can't be divorced if one party doesn't want to be divorced unless they've been lving seperately for 5 years) of raping her. And in his defence he said "yeah, okay, I did force her to have sex with me against her will, but it says in the law that a husband cannot rape his wife, and I'm still her husband". At which point the public and the legal system said " hold on that's bullshit" and changed the law then charged him for rape like they should have done. And justice was served. That's what should happen here. She shouldn't be punished because the law that she broke is shit and should be changed.

1 hours later 3677112 Anonymous
Wait what, the men were fucking minors?!?! WHAT THE FUCK. Honestly, because of everyone freaking out of child porn charges and molestation a dhsit, I had assumed they were like 25 or something. Jesus fucking christ. If they were goddamn minors, they cannot be named for stuff that is not a felony. I was sort of siding with her, but fuck that noise now. She wasn't even fucking "assaulted". I mean fuck if I was goddamn 17, and drunk, and some chick fucking passed out naked, I would be hard pressed to try to avoid taking pictures of that shit. Dumb drunk whorechick just got away with a federal crime.I really dont want to live in this country anymore. Courts I guess can now pic and choose what laws they should follow, and the media is having too big of an impact on the verdicts of trials. A new law needs to be passed preventing ANY news outlet from reporting on a trial until a verdict is reached. No naming of suspects either. Shit is ridiculous.

1 hours later 3677149 Anonymous
>>3676955 Creating a precedent for breaking an unjust court order would do a lot of good. Hopefully it would make it easier for that kind of unjust court order to be removed. >Its the law. >The law knows no race, sex, set of morals or emotion. >The law is absolute What meaningless platitudes. The law is intended, among other things, to uphold justice, and justice is an expression of , or rather decided by morality. If a law is deemed to be unjust, like many of the laws 200 years ago would be considered today, e.g. slavery being legal, then it should be changed. Retroactively if need be.

1 hours later 3677157 Anonymous
This girl did not get raped. She got drunk at a party and passed out at the house of people she did not know or trust. This girl is not responsible for what they did to her, but she is responsible for her own actions. These actions are in no way heroic. You know what the pictures are? They're of her with her skirt up. That is it. Humiliating? Sure. Worth an enormous trial and this much attention? Not at all. There are more important things people could be doing with their time. She is responsible for her actions. She should NOT be excused from a punishment, because those boys certainly weren't. Her opinion of how the plea deal was "lenient" should not provoke vigilante justice, and that all of you are so in favor of this shows a disgustingly biased system. This girl made stupid decisions, as did these boys. They are paying for them, as should she. And as an update, she is not going to be held in contempt because 63,000 people petitioned for her not to be. Congratulations American women, you can be drunken whores, but if someone takes a picture of your ass without your consent, you can also be an uppity drunken whore and America will back you up. Why? Because you're a womyn.

1 hours later 3677174 Anonymous
she violated a gag order welcome to judges, they really don't like being disobeyed >hurr misogyny bait

2 hours later 3677186 Anonymous
>>3677149 Whose morality? Yours? Mine? Honestly our society can't be led by something as arbitrary as morals. Think about why our morals came about in the first place, to create a stable society that allows us to succeed as a species. We have changed these moral over time, religions have come about and the morals from these were blended with morals from other religions, and the arbitrary mess we have now does not always reflect what our society needs in order to be stable.

2 hours later 3677190 Anonymous
>>3677026 Minors shouldn't have their identies kept secret. It is known that they're minors. If people think that htey deserve some slack for that then it will factor into their evaluation when they find out the names of these two people who took pictures of up an unconscious girl's skirt. And indeed ifthe crime isn't that serious then people will also think that. But if not so be it. It's the truth, they admitted to it, people deserve to have their crimes known. Victims shouldn't be punished for revealing the identities of people who are definitely guilty.

2 hours later 3677196 Anonymous
>>3677109 They changed the law by ratifying a new one into existence, Not by breaking federal crimes. I don't think you even have the slightest clue how the court system works in the US. I also believe that you cannot be tried for a retroactive ruling if a certain time has passed between the event and the change in the law. The statute on rape is longer than 5 years anyway, so your example is useless bullshit. And please kindly explain yet again where I insist that laws should not and can not be changed? I said laws CANNOT BE IGNORED IN THE COURTS IF THEY CURRENTLY EXIST AT THAT TIME. Until that law pertaining whatever this bullshit is about is changed, the courts are obligated by federal law to pursue the case against her. This is how it works. Please get your head out of your ass, you may actually learn something. Anyway, I am going to bed now.

2 hours later 3677198 Anonymous
>>3675877 I never expected you to say something that reasonable Bravo

2 hours later 3677210 Anonymous
>>3677190 Except now thier names will only come up with "Sexual Assault" and not specify "drunken horney male takes pictures" That word will be enough to prevent them from accomplishing anything. I hope everyone in this thread enjoys paying their unemployment benefits.

2 hours later 3677218 Anonymous
>>3677190 but you are wrong and just trying to portray your opinion as moral truth

2 hours later 3677219 Anonymous
>>3677112 If what they did is so minor then why is it so bad if people know what they did? It's just a minor thing, right? And why should the victim not tell the truth and say who took photos of underneath her skirt? Is it libellous? Is it false? Might they be innocent? No. They admitted their guilt. The victim should be allowed to tell the truth.

2 hours later 3677229 Anonymous
>>3677083 East end You?

2 hours later 3677231 Anonymous
>>3677190 How does that improve anything? We have more people in prison than any other nation, hell more than most other nations combined. We have imprisoned more people than fucking china. While most people have moved towards rehabilitating their prisoners, and fixing that socioeconomic factors that lead people to crime, we are busy publicly crucifying two horny morons for taking a picture of an idiot who probably didn't even know she was breaking the law when she tweeted their names.

2 hours later 3677250 Anonymous
>>3677210 How so? Their names aren't on an official sexual assault registry? She should be entitled to say what they did. If other people then falsely say other stuff then that's not her problem. And no I will not enjoy paying their employment benefits. PRisons manage to find jobs for people who've committed violent crimes.

2 hours later 3677261 Anonymous (Hitman-upcoming-movies-216094_1280_1024.jpg 1280x1024 175kB)
>relying on the courts for justice I think we all know where true justice lies

2 hours later 3677267 Anonymous
>>3676172 >Why should people who committed a crime be protected from people knowing that they committed that crime? They should live with the consequences of their actions. Very interesting statement. So then do you feel that women that have been found to make false rape allegations should have their names released to the public? Because under current law the alleged rapist's identity is reveled to the public right away(before guilt is proven) but the accuser's identity never is. What do you think?

2 hours later 3677270 Anonymous
>>3677231 Crucifying them? I'm not advocating that. However individual members of the general public decide to treat these two people knowing what they've done is their prerogative. More important is that the victim shouldn't be punished for saying which two people, two people who are guilty by their own admission, took pictures of up her skirt while she was unconscious.

2 hours later 3677283 Anonymous
From what I gather she got drunk and stripped. That's not sexual assault. The boys are dicks for doing it but that's what you get when you get drunk with asshole jocks. She was underage for drinking too so if she was following the law it wouldn't have happened. You know what, she deserved it.

2 hours later 3677288 Anonymous
>>3677267 Yes. I definitely do. Was that question meant to expose that I'm a feminist? because I'm not. I'm a misogynist (or rather a person with a pre-1960s set of values that are often tantamount to misogyny) who has a sense of justice, and isn't hypocritical or retarded. Proven false rape accusers should definitely be allowed to be revealed by the victim of their accusations.

2 hours later 3677306 Anonymous
>>3676441 Rape is any form of unwanted sexual innuendo to a women This includes pornography, Staring too long at her, unwanted advances, and anything more lewd than that It's not my fault you fags can't stop thinking with your dick, I'm a women with rights

2 hours later 3677314 Anonymous
>>3677219 what they wanted wasn't such a big thing. you're being a huge hypocrite because: the boys didn't realize at first what they did was wrong, but once they went to court they did and they took a plea deal to get off a little easier the girl knew very well what she did was wrong, but she got away with no punishment because it was 'justice'. Party A was unconsciously breaking the law, party B consciously broke a court order. Why does party B deserve less punishment than party A? also before you argue "THE BOYS SHOULD HAVE KNOWN WHAT THEY DID WAS WRONG HGHGHDKSHGHG" realize that they were shitfaced and didn't think ahead. She was perfectly sober. ugh, why does ignorance get my panties in a bunch so much. >>3677306 the legal definition of rape is when a dude puts his dick in a girl without her consent, jesus.

2 hours later 3677317 Anonymous
>>3677306 Confirmed for troll

2 hours later 3677332 Anonymous
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2197400/Savannah-Dietrich-told-lawyer-assaulted-classmates.h tml?ito=feeds-newsxml http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/savannah-dietrich-not-charged-twitter-sexual-assault-victim-1255 27199.html Much better articles. Not good, just better.

2 hours later 3677337 Anonymous
>>3677250 Except for the fact that a simple google search of their names (which almost all businesses do) now brings the sexual assault up. Their resume will be immediately tossed aside. They will be on unemployment for the rest of their lives, or working an incredibly bottom of the barrel shit job for the rest of their lives, with that sex assault (hurr dur pictar is rape). Do you really want to wish that on 2 stupid, drunk, horny kids? Who is the heartless bastard here, exactly?

2 hours later 3677345 Anonymous
>>3677314 >the legal definition of rape is when a dude puts his dick in a girl without her consent, jesus. I don't care what the law says, we both know it's written by men

2 hours later 3677365 Anonymous
>>3676845 >B-B-BUT ITS NOT FAIR DAT'S NOT JUSTICE NO ONE CAN TELL ME WHAT TO DO I'm so glad neckbeards don't run this country and never will.

2 hours later 3677367 Anonymous
>>3677345 so you think you're above the law because it was written by men this is what a whole bunch of people decided rape was, it's because of people like you that they had to make that definition 1/10, got me to reply

2 hours later 3677408 Anonymous
>>3677288 >Proven false rape accusers should definitely be allowed to be revealed by the victim of their accusations. unless of course the trial rules set by the judge or the plea deal agreed to by you and your lawyer say otherwise this isn't rocket science

2 hours later 3677470 Anonymous
what a bunch of fucking trolls. no rational person actually thinks what she did was excusable when presented with the facts

2 hours later 3677479 Anonymous
>>3677314 I'm not being hypocritical at all. You're the one pushing your own warped sense of justice on me. The boys shoudl be punished because obviously taking a picture of a underneath a girl's skirt while she's unconscious and distributing it is wrong. The girl shouldn't be punished because it isn't wrong to say what two people definitely, by their own admission, did to you. Whether each party knew what they did was wrong or breaking the law is irrelevant. You've just now drawn that up as an arbitrary criteria.

2 hours later 3677484 Anonymous (Untitled.png 637x528 33kB)
I really hate people sometimes. I don't want to, but they just keep letting me down. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2197400/Savannah-Dietrich-told-lawyer-assaulted-classmates.h tml?ito=feeds-newsxml

2 hours later 3677492 Anonymous
Seems like a pretty straightforward case. She violated a court order, now she's being held responsible for it. What's fair is fair.

2 hours later 3677507 Anonymous
>>3677484 the feminazis follow these stories like hawks man, anything opposing is gonna get downvoted through the 7 stages of hell

2 hours later 3677519 Anonymous
>>3677345 YAAAH. LETS ALL GET SHITFACED ON 2 LIGHT BEERS AND STRIP BEFORE PASSING OUT AT PARTY FULL OF OTHER DRUNK HORNEY MALES AND THEN SUE THEM WHEN THEY TAKE A PICTURE OF MY ASS EVEN THOUGH EVERYONE HAS ALREADY SEEN 95% FROM FACEBOOK PICTURES. ANYWAY, WHEN WE AGREE ON THE OUTCOME OF A TRIAL BUT THEN REALIZE THAT IT WASNT GOOD ENOUGH AFTER THE FACT, WE CAN GO AND BREAK FEDERAL LAWS AND THEN RUIN THEIR LIVES, AND THEN MAKE NATIONAL NEWS BECAUSE I AM A WOMYN AND THE TRIAL INVOLVES SOMETHING TO DO WITH SEXUAL INSTINCTS THUS CANNOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR ANYTHING, AND THEN SINCE I GET SO MUCH MEDIA ATTENTION, I ESSENTIALLY BROADCASTED TO THE WORLD THE FACT THAT MY ASS CAN BE FOUND ON THE INTERNET WHEN PREVIOUSLY ONLY A SELECT FEW WOULD KNOW, AND THEN I WILL GET PUBLIC AND MEDIA SUPPORT SO THE COURTS YET AGAIN WONT FOLLOW THE OWN LAWS THEY MADE its foolproof guise. i lurve democrazy tee hee.

2 hours later 3677522 Anonymous
>>3677408 Stating that doesn't state what should or shouldn't be allowed. whether something should be allowed or not depends whether it is morally just and righteous, not on the law. You're stating the law as though the fact that it's a law and it exists means that it must be righteous and just. Grow up you juvenile fucking infant. Some time ago slavery was legal. Does that mean that it was okay? Laws should reflect what is fair and just. Laws are not automatically what is fair and just by definition. When laws aren't fair and just and righteous they should be cahnged, like this law taht makes it illegal for a victim to say the identities of two people who are definitely guilty of the crime accused.

2 hours later 3677539 Anonymous
Oh well I'm going to bed. I'd like to keep schooling you unjust losers but I'm tired and need to get up tomorrow.

2 hours later 3677598 Anonymous
>>3677522 I don't think you understand how anything works. The only juvenile I see in this argument is you. First of all, slavery was never "legal" it just was never "illegal". Come up with a new argument. Second, for the last fucking time, you cant just say "buuut i dont like this law so I can break it and not be tried because i dont like it" That is not how shit works. I cant just get out of a speeding ticket by saying "but officer my car has a turbo and speed limits are stupid and unfair so fuck you im going to do it anyway". I would have to petition with the county/state to get the limits raised FIRST. This has not been done with this gag law thing. You also seem to think that this law states that EVERY "victim" cannot name names. This is only the case when the TRIAL VERDICT FUCKING STATES THIS AS EVERYONE INVOLVED WAS A FUCKING MINOR. If she had not have fucking blabbed, this would have all blown over, her pics would have gotten deleted, the guys would go see that "counseling shit blah blah blah feminism is gud dont ever look at women again" classes, and her ass would not be forever preserved in every corner of the internet now. Also the case against her is already dropped because she is a woman and the evil patriarchy is preventing "a rape victum" from getting full justice even though justice was already served.

2 hours later 3677619 Anonymous
>>3677539 If you are that retard "guuse morals matter in court" faggot, I fail to see one instance where you had a valid point. All I get from you is "go break laws that you think are bad" I think the law preventing murder is bad, brb gonna go shoot up a movie theater.

2 hours later 3677659 Anonymous
Fuck, this makes me so fucking mad. Men should never be criminaly charged for raping women, it's been done since we were cavemen. RAPE IS A PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE NATURAL INSTINCT FOR GODS SAKE! I dont understand how something so natural has been blown out of proportion feminism to the point where its considered on par with murder. What she did was obviously a pitiful cry for attention, and with the modern attitudes on rape she was obviously trying to demonize them. She deserves to be punished for her actions, she broke the law.

2 hours later 3677661 Anonymous
i disagree that it's unethical to release their identities so whatever

3 hours later 3677699 Anonymous
>>3677619 laws are examined all the time nothing wrong with calling a law unjust

3 hours later 3677702 Anonymous (1333590365843.png 444x646 96kB)
>>3677659 >implying she was raped >implying you are not a man pretending to be a womyn that is pretending to be a horrible troll exaggerate of the logical side of this stupid debate 1/10. Fuck the human race.

3 hours later 3677710 Anonymous
>>3677699 yeah but until then you dont break the law, you just argue against it like any non-retard.

3 hours later 3677747 Anonymous
>>3677522 For one, there are acceptable ways to combat laws, and then there is being dumb about it. The boys were considered minors, and its unjust objectively, as long as the legal age of adulthood is 18, to treat them any different than other minors. And when dealing with trials like these you don't disclose info, including names. This is not designed to protect the boys, but actual minors (on trial or not) involved in the trial/case. However, like I said, its objectively unfair to all past, current, and future subjects of this law to somehow treat these boys as adults and have their name outed. So please, before you go around saying 'x' law is unjust or unmoral, understand what laws serve to do.

3 hours later 3677761 Anonymous (8527stupid-people-posters.jpg 400x266 41kB)
>>3677699 And calling it unjust means jack shit until the court says that the law is unjust. The fact of the matter is, she broke the law as it stands today, unsurped a court decision, and broke the agreement that her lawyer accepted as a plea bargain. And now, we have courts ignoring laws for fear of backlash from a bunch of people that think she was raped, or that her clothes were removed without her consent, yet evidence suggests that she was actually stripping, and thus technically putting her body on public display. The media will have another frenzy over this stupid bullshit, meanwhile people are starving to death, debt is out of control, corruption in business and politics continues, and people being beheaded in syria. I am so glad that as a nation we have our priorities in order, we must defend the modesty of every drunk 17 year old chick that was stripping at a party, by giving her national attention thus forever preserving the fact that her ass can be found online. AMERICA FUCK YEAH.

3 hours later 3677923 Anonymous
Just a note to everyone stating that a law broken must inevitably lead to punishment, jury nullification does have a place in the legal system.

3 hours later 3677983 Anonymous
Why shouldn't minors be named if they committed a crime? Serious question.

3 hours later 3678038 Anonymous
>>3677761 Is that Ronald Reagan in that picture?

3 hours later 3678103 Anonymous
>>3677983 If the crime is a felony they are.

3 hours later 3678123 Anonymous
>>3677761 yep. any faith i had left in people is slowly diminishing to nothing.

3 hours later 3678125 Anonymous
Everyone is stupid as fuck. From the guys who took the pics to the girl who violated a gag order and everyone else in between

4 hours later 3678342 Anonymous
>>3677983 Because minors are young and stupid, and society has agreed that mistakes made before one has fully had a chance to make mature decisions shouldn't have an impact when they become adults. Also this is a crock of shit, "sexually assaulted" - all they did was take pictures. Look how disingenuous the media is, portraying the boys as having "sexually assaulted her then took pictures" when they know what image that is going to evoke.

5 hours later 3679016 Anonymous
Those fucking comments http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/savannah-dietrich-not-charged-twitter-sexual-assault-victim-1255 27199.html

5 hours later 3679050 Anonymous
>>3679016 I wonder where all those people were when those girls got away with ACTUALLY sexually assault a little boy and videotaping it. But I guess as this case shows, the law doesn't apply to women.

5 hours later 3679081 Anonymous
>>3679050 You mean the middle school girls stripping the 11 year old boy? (The video title was something like "boy gets owned.")

6 hours later 3679116 Anonymous
Okay, so they did a plea bargain in criminal court, but she can/should also take them to civil court, where any gag order can be decided. Since when can a criminal prosecutor deal a gag order to the victim without the victim's consent? I am really confused here. There should be two separate cases. captcha: the staturep

6 hours later 3679117 Anonymous
>>3679081 Yeah, that one. They didn't even get charged for a crime. They were questioned by police and then released, and the only person who said anything about it was the kid's mother. Everyone else said " there just little girls dey dont know no better ;_;" Meanwhile reading those yahoo comments, it seem women want the heads of two guys who just took pictures of some dumb, drunk slut and have the gall to complain that the law is unfair to women. And they actually succeeded. She's getting away with breaking the law just because she has a vagina. I wish they'd just hurry up and codify a separate legal system for crimes committed by women so we can stop pretending the current one is impartial and fair to men.

6 hours later 3679134 Anonymous
>>3679116 Didn't her lawyer agree on it?

6 hours later 3679172 Anonymous
>>3679134 iirc, a plea deal has to be accepted in words/writing by the plaintiff and defendant themselves, not their lawyers, if the case is indeed plaintiff vs defendant. But she and her lawyer should have nothing to do with the criminal case or the plea bargain involved. Regarding leaking names of minors, that can indeed be prosecuted as if a newspaper were to do so, but that is another case entirely. Which brings me again to the point: which case is which, and who agreed to what in which?

6 hours later 3679199 Anonymous
>>3676101 Im happy that women think this nowdays. Now you cunts understand how us men feel. How scared and alienated and powerless we feel when it comes to these things. You created all this hate amongst the sexes. YOU did. One side has to benefit and its gona be us men.

6 hours later 3679204 Anonymous
>>3679134 Ah, it wasn't *her* lawyer, but the prosecutor, who made the bargain. After which he told her to "get over it." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2197400/Savannah-Dietrich-told-lawyer-assaulted-classmates.h tml?ito=feeds-newsxml Still begs the question, WHY DOESN'T SHE SUE THE ATTACKERS IN CIVIL COURT?

6 hours later 3679218 Anonymous
>>3679204 I don't think they attacked her robot.

6 hours later 3679255 Anonymous
>>3679218 I'm not saying I don't feel for the dudes who are literally just idiot kids who don't need their lives ruined with names getting googlable, but seriously this is shit that needs to be handled in two separate trials: civil and criminal. The girl should be prosecuted for revealing names from criminal court as if she was a newspaper revealing the names of minors. However, the civil court will be a different story, and that's where she gets to make her own settlement. That's only fair for the guys, too. Then they can deal with the crime and the girl separately, and serve their ills for each without fucking over the other.

6 hours later 3679264 Anonymous
This entire thread is dumb, because people are dumbly uninformed of a dumb case, surrounding two dumb decisions by two dumb parties, regarding dumb laws fraught with dumb gender issues that will dumbly bitched about on a dumb imageboard populated by fucking retards.

6 hours later 3679269 Anonymous
>>3679255 Why should she be entitled to any money?

6 hours later 3679272 Anonymous
She broke a court order, what does she expect? Truth is, that court order should've never been given, but still.

6 hours later 3679280 Anonymous
>>3679272 Why shouldn't it have been given? The judge obviously didn't want two kids careers and lives ruined over an upskirt photo, and the best way to do that is to stop their names from getting out. They deserve punishment, but putting them on the common law sex offender list is a bit much.

6 hours later 3679305 Anonymous
She did well. Human turds are not the kind of creatures I have sympathy for. Now people know not to get drunk in presence of those lowly beings.

6 hours later 3679322 Anonymous
>>3679305 Guys who take upskirts of drunk girls are assholes, but girls who get that drunk around those assholes, and bring such a small issue to court are just as bad. People just assume the dude's raped her because of the sensationalist wording, which is probably why there was a gag order in the first place.

6 hours later 3679326 Anonymous
She deserves all the jail time she gets. dfgdgf0

6 hours later 3679341 Anonymous
Let this be a reminder to all of you males; don't get involved with women in any way, shape or form.

6 hours later 3679346 Anonymous
>>3679269 Not saying she's entitled to money - a civil suit is not necessarily resolved in a dollar amount (for example, it can be custody of children, pre-nup, copyright ownership, etc etc). But if it comes down to a dollar amount settlement, then I'd be all for that, because having *control* over that settlement is essential to both parties moving on. That's closure, or at least as much as one will ever be entitled to.

6 hours later 3679373 Anonymous
>>3679346 I don't know why I fucking said that

6 hours later 3679403 Anonymous
>women getting away with crimes Feminism has turned this country into a steaming pile of shit. I'm moving out of this shithole. Fuck America. Fuck the West.

6 hours later 3679415 Anonymous
This whole thing is fucking retarded. Just let it die. Even if you're a so-called feminist in the year 2012, just fucking let it go. There are bigger issues concerning women's rights you could be bitching and filling up bottles full of your salty tears with, but this is really not one of them. The girl (and yes, she is a fucking little girl, much like anyone who would support her immaturity), made the choice to go against a court order. I'm not sure if any of you have ever taken even an entry-level community college criminal justice/law course, but let me fill you in on something, that is a federal offense. Okay? When you commit a federal offense just because the courts aren't punishing someone to what you deem to be the best of their abilities, you take the law into your own hands, and when you take the law into your own hands, you get punished for it. Don't give me any fucking bullshit about being a misogynist, or being a bigot, or whatever fucking retarded bullcrap you idiots love to spew. This little girl committed a federal offense, and agree with it or not, she deserves to be punished accordingly. Of course, she probably won't because she's a 21st century woman, but still. What's fair is fair. Deal with it.

6 hours later 3679425 Anonymous
>>3679415 Let me revise one bit >she'll get away with it because she is a GIRL in the 21st century. better. deal with it.

6 hours later 3679441 Anonymous
>>3679425 What a redundant revision. Whether she is a girl or a woman doesn't change anything. She still will get away with it.

6 hours later 3679473 Anonymous
>>3679441 I did it for consistency. Don't be a faggot.

7 hours later 3679490 Anonymous
>4chan >no one posted the video/photos yet What happened to you? You are not concerned about privacy, are you?

7 hours later 3679492 Anonymous
>>3679473 >autistic enough that he has to revise a post and correct that the female is a GIRL >autistic enough to claim it was for consistency >and i'm the faggot Yeah, nah.

7 hours later 3679503 Anonymous
>>3679403 >Feminism has turned this country into a steaming pile of shit. It has always been a pile of shit, you just couldn't notice it 100 years ago. Feminism was created by the same ideals that the country was built on.

7 hours later 3679507 Anonymous
>>3679503 First wave feminism was fine, since they had genuine worries, like the right to vote and be employed. It's been shit since second wave.

7 hours later 3679510 Anonymous
>>3679492 Replace "autistic" with "drunk" and you've got a more accurate outcome. Ah, who am I kidding? You're probably a troll or some cuckolding male feminist instead. >autistic enough to argue with a drunk nigger on 4chan do you even produce music?

7 hours later 3679514 Anonymous
>>3676157 They were innocent. Sexual assault cannot happen with the eyes alone. If she got drunk and passed out in a short skirt, that's entirely her own fault. She should be fucking thankful she wasn't raped for being an irresponsible retard. And your opinion is irrelevant, the law is the law. You can come up with excuses all day, but if you break it you're in the wrong. The sad thing is that she won't actually get jail time for this. It'd cause too much of a feminist shitstorm against the evil patriarchy always keeping them down so they'll end up dropping it. Fuck that though, I hope she gets jailed. Send a clear fucking message.

7 hours later 3679519 Anonymous
>>3679510 >implying I'm a cuckolding male feminist I have a feeling we're both on the same side here. I'd prefer not to be at odds with a fellow bro.

7 hours later 3679528 Anonymous
>>3679519 Same here. /brofist

7 hours later 3679539 Anonymous
>>3677484 Sometimes I wonder if those women actually give a shit about these cases, or just use them to circlejerk. Each time, it doesn't even take 5 comments until one of them abuses this to slam her own 'sad' story into the faces of her girlfriends there.

7 hours later 3679545 Anonymous
Whats sad about this is, the defense could probably use this to get themselves a lesser penalty. She is such a stupid girl. So incredibly stupid. In fact, everyone involved is incredibly stupid.

7 hours later 3679596 Anonymous
It's funny how when a man is accused of sexual assault or downloading CP or whatever, /r9k/ is all up in arms with accusations of police corruption and laws designed to destroy innocent men's lives, but then this girl publicly names and shames some bullies and suddenly the law is sacred and how dare she violate a court order! Oh yeah, and remember how much /r9k/ hates bullies? I guess this is different because the victim was a girl...

7 hours later 3679612 Anonymous
>the girl deserved it, she was being a whore I'm sorry bros, but I don't agree with that statement. From what I gathered in this thread, she was passed out and they took the pictures. Now, I'd understand if she was drunk and consented, a la 'Girls Gone Wild', but this was pretty much creeper somnophilia tier, drunk or not, taking panty shots of someone sleeping/passed out isn't cool. Imagine you yourself getting drunk and falling asleep, and then some guys taking pictures of your junk and spreading it around? What, because you got drunk it's ok?

7 hours later 3679624 Anonymous
>>3679612 >Imagine you yourself getting drunk and falling asleep, and then some guys taking pictures of your junk and spreading it around? What, because you got drunk it's ok? Yep. You got THAT drunk at a party that you passed out. You're irresponsible. Not only that, you didn't bring anyone responsible with you to look after you if you were going to be so fucking dense. And again, taking pictures of a passed out girls knickers when she's wearing a skirt and most likely collapsed on a sofa somewhere is not sexual assault. Not even close.

7 hours later 3679640 Anonymous
>>3679624 >You're responsible for letting people grope you while passed out Fucking retarded logic right there, those guys were possibly her former friends whom she trusted, but you sad beta fucks jump to conclusions.

7 hours later 3679641 Anonymous
>>3679612 It's your fault that you got THAT wasted at a party full of people you didn't know, nobody else's. Evolve and claim responsibility for your own actions or continue being treated like a second-class citizen and a child. The choice is clearly yours. Nobody else gives a fuck.

7 hours later 3679645 Anonymous
>>3679640 >jumping to conclusions That's exactly what you're doing, though. If you don't have any actual refutes, then thanks for playing, dipshit. Next.

7 hours later 3679652 Anonymous
>>3679645 She knew the names of the people, she was obviously friends or at least mutual friends. That doesn't change the fact that you guys give all the blame on the girl, yes she's fucking stupid, but the guys are worse.

7 hours later 3679667 Anonymous
>>3679652 You wouldn't find out the names of someone who took pictures of you in your undies while you were asleep? That information wouldn't come off as important to you at some point? Come on, man. I won't even bother with an ad-hom. Surely, you've got more intellect than this.

7 hours later 3679671 Anonymous (nofun.jpg 448x473 102kB)
>>3679624 That's right guys! You should never get drunk! You should never go to parties! Doing anything but sitting in your basement and ranting about how getting drunk is idiotic is how to live life! Why, if we never left our homes, nothing bad would happen!

7 hours later 3679672 Anonymous
pics??? please thank you sir

7 hours later 3679686 Anonymous
>>3679671 Don't be an idiot. There's a fine line between partying responsibly and being a stupid fucking whore. She crossed it. Whine all you want and put the blame where you deem necessary, but that's not going to change the facts. Again, evolve and take responsibility, or continue being a stupid hillbilly piece of shit for the rest of your life. Society doesn't give two (count them: one. two) two fucks. The choice is yours. I'm not even a woman-hater, you're all just fucking retards who don't think women should have to claim any responsibility for their own actions whatsoever. I'd tell you to grow up, but I know you'd miss the point entirely.

7 hours later 3679689 Anonymous
>>3679667 Unless the guys are total dumbasses(OH WAIT THEY ARE THEY GOT CAUGHT) they wouldn't take pictures and let random strangers(her friends) know about it. Either way, there's no way to confirm so lets leave it at that. And the article says they did assault her, the pics came later. And stop being a pretentious fuck, you're not winning an argument by insulting someone.

7 hours later 3679698 Anonymous
>>3679671 >You should never get drunk! You shouldn't. If you're going to complain afterwards, then no, you shouldn't. If you can't drink responsibly to the point where you're not passing out and unable to have normal judgement, you shouldn't drink at all. If you can't think ahead to make sure someone responsible will be with you because you're incapable of monitoring your own alcohol intake, you shouldn't drink at all. You are all dumb faggots who like to say 'HURR DO ANYTHING YOU WANT, YOLO, NOTHING IS YOUR OWN RESPONSIBILITY YOU SHOULD DO AS YOU PLEASE, IT'S ALWAYS OTHER PEOPLES FAULT'. Fuckoff kid. >>3679652 It's her fault. What they done is akin to putting someones hand in a bowl of warm water when they passed out at a party. You got that drunk? Your fault. You went alone? Your fault. You have shitty judgement and thought everyone would look after you? Your fault. It's nobodies responsibility to look after you like a fucking child but your own. Dense fucks.

7 hours later 3679709 Anonymous
>>3679689 >pretentious Good to know your out of arguments. Bow down and admit defeat, bitch. > Either way, there's no way to confirm so lets leave it at that. >there's a pretty good chance I'm wrong so let's just agree to disagree Whatever you say, dipshit retard.

7 hours later 3679712 Anonymous
>>3679698 >It's her fault 2 guys did sexual things to her while she was asleep! >It's her fault they took pictures! No, it's not. They didn't have to be dumbasses, they could've laughed it off. If I see some drunk fuck at a party I'll stay away to not cause trouble. >What they done is akin to putting someones hand in a bowl of warm water when they passed out at a part Oh God, you have to be trolling at this point.

7 hours later 3679721 Anonymous
>>3679709 The argument is still there, how the fuck is it her fault two guys did whatever to her? You said all they did was take pictures, it says in the first paragraph of the article they did whatever and took pics during the act. And there's a chance you are wrong too, ever considered that?

7 hours later 3679726 Anonymous
>>3679698 >NOTHING IS YOUR OWN RESPONSIBILITY YOU SHOULD DO AS YOU PLEASE, IT'S ALWAYS OTHER PEOPLES FAULT'. But you consider it's her fault, and that the rapists are not responsible? What a fucking son of a bitch you are.

7 hours later 3679737 Anonymous
>>3679712 >It's her fault 2 guys did sexual things to her while she was asleep! >It's her fault they took pictures! Yes, it is. Would they have done it if she wasn't drunk and passed out? No. She created the situation. >'sexual things' >taking pictures Pick one. Also 'asleep' lol. Asleep and passed out are two very different things son. >Oh God, you have to be trolling at this point. Why? It's the exact same thing. If you differentiate between that and this, you are a monolithic retard. They're both pranks intended to embarrass the person. Until they actually rape her or something, it's not anywhere close to sexual assault. It must be fun to try and argue when you're a sub 20 year old child.

8 hours later 3679747 Anonymous
>>3679726 >But you consider it's her fault, and that the rapists are not responsible? What a fucking son of a bitch you are. >Rapists Got any evidence there kiddo? Not even a source? Not everything is rape and sexual assault just because you deem it to be chucklefuck. But yes, still her fault. What do you think the last guy working at a bank at night would do if he didn't bother locking up and left all the vaults open? Is it his fault someone robbed it? Only partially. Did he, however, create the entire situation and enable it? Yep. Thus, responsible. You faggots seem to think that it's either 100% someone's fault or 0% with no in between.

8 hours later 3679751 Anonymous
>>3679737 So if I'm buying something and the cashier opens the cash register, I can take as much money as I can and walk out because they created the situation? That's exactly what you're implying. I say sexual things because the article states that's what happened, and then pics were taken you retard. >They're both pranks If I groped you and took a picture would we all laugh about it later? Well maybe, you guys are into freaky shit

8 hours later 3679761 Anonymous
>>3679751 >groped That didn't happen though.

8 hours later 3679769 Anonymous
>>3679721 >You said all they did was take pictures No, actually, I didn't say that even once, but you don't even know who you're arguing with, so why should ANYONE in this thread take you seriously. they shouldn't . What the boys did was wrong, and they ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY deserved to punished for it, but to alleviate this little girl from having any responsibility in her own fate is straight-up horseshit. She made the choice to drink too much, even if she thought she knew the guys better than she actually did, she made the choices that she did and therefore she should be held responsible. Was she raped? no. Was she even fucking molested? no. Would that make this all A-OK if she were? Hell fucking no. But the fact of the matter is she had at least SOME responsibility in the outcome, from drinking way too fucking much, to allegedly stripping for the boys, to, oh I don't fucking know, committing a fucking federal offense, she deserves to bear a little bit of the weight. I'm sorry if you disagree (not really, idgaf), but that's reality. Don't do the time if you don't have the time. Don't commit a federal offense if you aren't willing to cope with the ramifications of it.

8 hours later 3679775 Anonymous
>>3679751 >I say sexual things because the article states that's what happened, and then pics were taken you retard. With no evidence. The only evidence is that they took an upskirt picture whilst she was passed out drunk. Until you can provide evidence, you're just making up shit in your head and assuming, so it's ironic that you call anyone a retard. >So if I'm buying something and the cashier opens the cash register, I can take as much money as I can and walk out because they created the situation? That's exactly what you're implying. If the cashier leaves it unattended after opening it? Yes. Doesn't mean it's not against the law, you'll still be charged, but they're responsible just as much as you are. And that is what she did. By getting so drunk you pass out, she left her entire body unattended. >If I groped you and took a picture would we all laugh about it later? Well maybe, you guys are into freaky shit No evidence that any such thing happened. So far as the evidence stands, it's no more than a prank. What next, taking pictures of someone drunk and half passed out whilst they're pissing is sexual assault too? That happens all the time as well and everyone with a brain agrees its a prank to embarrass the person.

8 hours later 3679776 Anonymous
>>3679769 Don't do the crime if you don't have the time. Pardon my drunkeness.

9 hours later 3680129 Anonymous
If you're stupid enough to be underage and get blackout drunk at a party with other retards then you deserve whatever the fuck happens to you.

5.094 0.654