BillStime Posted March 19 Author Posted March 19 In New York State, the legal definition of rape encompasses a broader range of sexual acts beyond just penile-vaginal penetration. According to New York Penal Law § 130.00, sexual intercourse includes any penetration of the ***** or anus, however slight, by a body part (such as a finger) or by an object. So, in New York, penetration by a finger can constitute rape under certain circumstances.
The Frankish Reich Posted March 19 Posted March 19 (edited) 58 minutes ago, BillStime said: In New York State, the legal definition of rape encompasses a broader range of sexual acts beyond just penile-vaginal penetration. According to New York Penal Law § 130.00, sexual intercourse includes any penetration of the ***** or anus, however slight, by a body part (such as a finger) or by an object. So, in New York, penetration by a finger can constitute rape under certain circumstances. I think the issue here is that NY law at the time of the alleged assault used something like the "penetration by penis" common law definition. So he didn't commit "rape" under that definition, but it sure counts as "rape" under (I think) all modern state definitions. But George Conway is right: the "I'm just a (thankfully) short-fingered vulgarian" defense doesn't sound like a winner. Edited March 19 by The Frankish Reich 1 1
The Frankish Reich Posted March 19 Posted March 19 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: Dude was found not liable for rape, twice. Not liable for rape-by-penis (remember, it was pre-Viagra). Liable for finger banging without consent. Tommy, you may want to join his appeal team. Your "he was really just an old softie" approach may just be the winning ticket! Edited March 19 by The Frankish Reich 1
Tommy Callahan Posted March 19 Posted March 19 29 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Not liable for rape-by-penis (remember, it was pre-Viagra). Liable for finger banging without consent. Tommy, you may want to join his appeal team. Your "he was really just an old softie" approach may just be the winning ticket! you are trying to split hairs to make a false statement. He was found not liable for rape, twice. that's just factual.
The Frankish Reich Posted March 19 Posted March 19 6 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: you are trying to split hairs to make a false statement. He was found not liable for rape, twice. that's just factual. You can't hold two different thoughts in your head at the same time? A. He was found not liable for rape as it was defined by NY law in 1996. B. He was found liable for sexual assault of a type that would be considered rape under current NY law. That's just factual. In fact, it was in one of the judge's post-verdict orders. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/
BillStime Posted March 19 Author Posted March 19 1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said: I think the issue here is that NY law at the time of the alleged assault used something like the "penetration by penis" common law definition. So he didn't commit "rape" under that definition, but it sure counts as "rape" under (I think) all modern state definitions. But George Conway is right: the "I'm just a (thankfully) short-fingered vulgarian" defense doesn't sound like a winner. I hear ya but if Trump stuck his finger up your 🍑 I'm sure you wouldn't like it... But if an illegal did it = the cult would start a fresh thread on it...
Doc Posted March 19 Posted March 19 There is no evidence he even finger raped her except her testimony. Which shifted several times. But when you have crooked juries...
The Frankish Reich Posted March 19 Posted March 19 12 minutes ago, BillStime said: I hear ya but if Trump stuck his finger up your 🍑 I'm sure you wouldn't like it... Oh, I'm not so sure about that when it comes to our Trump lovers ... 2
Doc Posted March 19 Posted March 19 2 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Oh, I'm not so sure about that when it comes to our Trump lovers ... It was talking about you...
The Frankish Reich Posted March 19 Posted March 19 4 minutes ago, Doc said: There is no evidence he even finger raped her except her testimony You could say this in nearly all rape cases. Here we had testimony from another witness who said Carroll described the encounter to her shortly after it happened. That's the type of corroborating evidence that is typical in a sexual assault case. I will agree, it wasn't the strongest case (and I have issues with the underlying premise of "you defamed me by denying that you raped me") But in this country we accept jury verdicts as establishing the truth, unless or until they are overturned on appeal.
Biden is Mentally Fit Posted March 19 Posted March 19 12 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: But in this country we accept jury verdicts as establishing the truth, Two words - Orenthal James. 1 1
Unforgiven Posted March 19 Posted March 19 4 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: Two words - Orenthal James. Lol its like lefty dummies love running face first into walls. Some people don't love trump, they just think leftists are morons. 1
The Frankish Reich Posted March 19 Posted March 19 16 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: Two words - Orenthal James. Umm, right. That's why OJ didn't go to jail. And didn't have a judgment against him until a separate civil suit was brought. And why his #32 still hangs from the rafters. Wait a minute, that last one doesn't follow, does it ... 1
BillStime Posted March 19 Author Posted March 19 36 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: You could say this in nearly all rape cases. Here we had testimony from another witness who said Carroll described the encounter to her shortly after it happened. That's the type of corroborating evidence that is typical in a sexual assault case. I will agree, it wasn't the strongest case (and I have issues with the underlying premise of "you defamed me by denying that you raped me") But in this country we accept jury verdicts as establishing the truth, unless or until they are overturned on appeal. And @Doc claims to be a doctor. There is NO chance in hell "it" is a doctor - lmao. (I love it when they play the gender games - they're so cool).
daz28 Posted March 19 Posted March 19 So let me get this straight. The argument is that we don't support a rapist, we support a sexual assaulter? 1
Doc Posted March 19 Posted March 19 3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: You could say this in nearly all rape cases. Here we had testimony from another witness who said Carroll described the encounter to her shortly after it happened. That's the type of corroborating evidence that is typical in a sexual assault case. I will agree, it wasn't the strongest case (and I have issues with the underlying premise of "you defamed me by denying that you raped me") But in this country we accept jury verdicts as establishing the truth, unless or until they are overturned on appeal. True, that's why they're hard to prosecute. Because it's he-said/she-said. But that doesn't mean what she-said is automatically true. There needs to be some evidence something happened because people lie. Just look at the Araiza case. 50 minutes ago, daz28 said: So let me get this straight. The argument is that we don't support a rapist, we support a sexual assaulter? No, we're saying we have no proof either happened. And again, all moral superiority went out the window with Slick back in 1992 and when Hilly used him to campaign for her.
Pokebball Posted March 19 Posted March 19 54 minutes ago, daz28 said: So let me get this straight. The argument is that we don't support a rapist, we support a sexual assaulter? presumption of innocence. We have to start there
daz28 Posted March 19 Posted March 19 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Pokebball said: presumption of innocence. We have to start there As usual, NC was kind enough to bumble his way into providing the proof of the thing he was claiming actually didn't happen. If you go back one page, and look at, ironically, his Election Wizard tweet look right below the part that is circled in red, and it clearly states with an X in the box, "Mr. Trump sexually abused Ms. Carroll". That was decided by "a preponderance of evidence". I'd like to take a second to thank the unwitting again for saving me from having to take the time to do my own research. Edited March 19 by daz28 1
Recommended Posts