"...Gindraw refused to pay her, held a gun to her head and forced her to have sex with several men, according to a transcript of an Oct. 4 court hearing."
Rape. No question about it. As soon as the other person refuses to have sex or is in no position to refuse, having sex with that person is rape.
[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]"...Gindraw refused to pay her, held a gun to her head and forced her to have sex with several men, according to a transcript of an Oct. 4 court hearing." Rape. No question about it. Rape when she had sex with the other men, but not when she sex with Gindraw.... As I understood it.
[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]"...Gindraw refused to pay her, held a gun to her head and forced her to have sex with several men, according to a transcript of an Oct. 4 court hearing." Rape. No question about it.horgen123
Rape when she had sex with the other men, but not when she sex with Gindraw.... As I understood it.
Shouldn't the other men be charged with proceeds of crime or recieving stolen property?
[QUOTE="horgen123"][QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]"...Gindraw refused to pay her, held a gun to her head and forced her to have sex with several men, according to a transcript of an Oct. 4 court hearing." Rape. No question about it. Rape when she had sex with the other men, but not when she sex with Gindraw.... As I understood it. Gindraw is accused of forcing her to have sex with him as well.
[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"] Gindraw is accused of forcing her to have sex with him as well. Ah that changes it(wait not really... It's accused) ... I took it as they had sex first, but then when he wouldn't pay, he drew the gun...
Anyway, even if Gindraw shouldn't be prosecuted for rape, he should still be punished for forcing her to have sex with other people. It's still sexual assault, regardless of whether he's one of the direct perpetrators.
Anyway, even if Gindraw shouldn't be prosecuted for rape, he should still be punished for forcing her to have sex with other people. It's still sexual assault, regardless of whether he's one of the direct perpetrators.
[QUOTE="horgen123"][QUOTE="ghoklebutter"] Gindraw is accused of forcing her to have sex with him as well. Ah that changes it(wait not really... It's accused) ... I took it as they had sex first, but then when he wouldn't pay, he drew the gun... It sounded like he refused to pay before having sex and pulled his gun. Regardless of the specifics, dude should be in prison and recognized as a sexual predator not just a thief.
Shouldn't the other men be charged with proceeds of crime or receiving stolen property?
horgen123
Help me out here... Former would be rape, latter would be theft? Do I understand it right?
The women is a piece of property like a car or a TV, The first person stole it during armed robbery. They then used the stolen property before passing it on to others. Those other people knowingly took possession of the stolen property making them guilty of receiving stolen property.
Of course this all falls apart when you consider a prostitute a human being and not merely a piece of property.
[QUOTE="darkmoney52"] It sounded like he refused to pay before having sex and pulled his gun. Regardless of the specifics, dude should be in prison and recognized as a sexual predator not just a thief. I understood it as the payment would occur after having sex. Guess I am used to how we deal with services here.
The women is a piece of property like a car or a TV, The first person stole it during armed robbery. They then used the stolen property before passing it on to others. Those other people knowingly took possession of the stolen property making them guilty of receiving stolen property.
Of course this all falls apart when you consider a prostitute a human being and not merely a piece of property.
Its only theft of services if that was a legitamate service to be sold in the area in the first place. I'm pretty sure prostitution isn't legal in Philly, so even if it was it'd be both.
Yes, but only because of his actions following the initial "theft". The guy obviously had no intent of paying her and had the intent to have her raped, so that malice aforethought element would push the intitial actions into rape territory.
In terms of just having sex with a prostitute and not paying, though, as sh*tty as it sounds I don't think you can call it rape: the sex was consentual (if conditional on one party being paid), and I don't think you can drag that into rape territory because the law fails to adequately cover the situation (I'd say it falls more under sexual assault than theft, though).
Either way, shows why prostitution/brothels need to be legalized.
A judge in Philadelphia has come under fire for a controversial ruling in which she reduced charges so that a man accused of raping a prostitute at gunpoint faced only robbery charges for "theft of services." rofl. sounds like the judge consulted thegerg & partners, inc.
Being a prostitute does not waive your right to give consent or not. It was rape.XilePrincess
Yep. Also, this quote pissed me off more than the verdict: "minimizes true rape cases and demeans women who are really raped." Can somebody please cancel this guy? I mean, really.
Yep. Also, this quote pissed me off more than the verdict: "minimizes true rape cases and demeans women who are really raped." Can somebody please cancel this guy? I mean, really. MrPraline
It would also not be rape if Praline was the victim. just sayin.
[QUOTE="MrPraline"]Yep. Also, this quote pissed me off more than the verdict: "minimizes true rape cases and demeans women who are really raped." Can somebody please cancel this guy? I mean, really. airshocker
It would also not be rape if Praline was the victim. just sayin.
I learnt from OT that you cannot give consent with a drink in you, so yeah, definitely always rape bro.
The explanation of the "judge" (smh) shows his true colours regarding his view on prostitutes. Very sad. Hope that judgmental c*nt falls off his high horse. Superman.
The explanation of the "judge" (smh) shows his true colours regarding his view on prostitutes. Very sad. Hope that judgmental c*nt falls off his high horse. Superman.MrPraline
[QUOTE="MrPraline"]The explanation of the "judge" (smh) shows his true colours regarding his view on prostitutes. Very sad. Hope that judgmental c*nt falls off his high horse. Superman.mrmusicman247
judge was a chickLOL, shows how well I read the article. To be fair it mostly said the last name. But that's disgusting. Smh.
If she consented to sex and they didn't pay, it seems like robbery. If they hold a gun to her head and force her to have sex, its rape regardless of who she is or what she does for a living.
I'm personally amazed that so far 22%, or approximately one person out of every four, thinks that holding a gun to someone's head and forcing them to have sex with multiple different people doesn't qualify as rape just because the woman was a prostitute.
If she consented to sex and they didn't pay, it seems like robbery. If they hold a gun to her head and force her to have sex, its rape regardless of who she is or what she does for a living.
SPYDER0416
Consent is a bit more abstract than a blood oath though, she clearly took it back.
Can't we argue that legally, If prostitution in Philadelphia is legal, then sex with a prostitute becomes a service in which case the judge may be right. In a moral/social scale, it IS rape. But seeing how the legal system is all about definitions and loopholes, could the judge be right?
Log in to comment