Two illegal Latinos rape 14-year-old girl in Maryland high school
- Thread starter CaptainS
- Start date
- Status
Tucker was a history major. The other guy has a law degree.DarkTriad said:
Tucker asked something out of line with regards to fees between attorneys and clients, and then the lawyer respectfully and truthfully answered why the question was inappropriate.
The lawyer did fine. The attorney was never an ass to Tucker in any manner.
DarkTriad said:
If rape was about power, then legalized prostitution would not reduce rape.
But the truth is that it was already tested out in some states for a few years - Rhode Island.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tis-decreased-sharply/?utm_term=.473d959325b9
[img=640x480]https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-a...014/07/Prostitution-and-rape.png&w=1484[/img]
One reason why Germany still has a lower rape rate than Sweden despite having an impressive amount of enrichers there now is that Germany is a country where you can fuck passable women for 30-50$ at one of the many brothels. In contrast in Sweden the johns get punished severely, even shamed by being sent coloured mail that everyone knows what it is. Not only are brothels banned, but mainly high-class or lowest class illegal prostitutes at inflated prices remain.
Of course in the case of minors it would not help much, but legalized prostitution proves that rape is not about power at all. That is frankly more a feminist fantasy since being raped is one of their sexual fetishes.
I have always been on the other side of the court room from Merenguero's point, but I understand that he's not my enemy because he's a defense attorney. When some defense attorney is grilling a cop on the stand and the cop is sweating, I'm always thinking, "This attorney is pretty good. And why the fuck is this cop sweating so much right now if he's just testifying?"DarkTriad said:
I have never one time in my life been on the side of the defense in any case, yet I was never angry with them. I've even had a defense counsel try to impeach me in a PERSONAL way on the stand. And then he called me on my cell afterwards and said, "It wasn't really personal at all, man. I just didn't have anything else to go on." And I was perfectly fine with it and told him so. It was just his job to do that shit and there were no hard feelings. And the federal magistrate shut his ass down when he attacked me, so I thought it was funny anyhow.
Merenguero said:
Nah, nothing you said will sway a jury. Lack of wounds is there because she was restrained by two men. The doctors report should show signs of trauma. The witnesses who heard screams can be recorded on cell phones now by the parents or cops.
Whatever legal technicalities may help the rapists, it won't matter. The prosecutors will pack the jury with White moms and these guys are done.
There was so much media sensation over this case there will be no impartial jury in Maryland. It's a small state and news like this is explosive. Even if the guys are in fact innocent and this girl was a skank, I still expect both of these guys to get convicted. The girl is crying rape and tons of evidence shows a rape happened beyond reasonable doubt.
I mean if someone wants to have sex who does it with their friend in the boys bathroom? It's completely ridiculous, no jury will buy it. I know how American people feel. I predicted Trump's victory 1.5 years in advance. I know the law doesn't matter in this case and I know how the jury will vote, as long as the prosecutors pack the jury with White Moms (Dads will work too).
Zelcorpion said:
Either way this is a lose-lose situation for the Left.
If it turns out she's lying, this is going to be yet *another* false rape accusation that has gained national attention.
If it turns out to be true (most likely), it's shined the spotlight on the inherent dangers of having an open-borders policy and who the potential victims could be (your own kids).
Generally people are pretty protective of their children.
My guess is at least some liberals in MoCo are having what I've heard alcoholics refer to as "a moment of clarity" when it comes to their delusional ideas about the wonders of diversity and multiculturalism.
Looking through Maryland's jury selection process we find that it's one of the most biased in the country:
http://thedailyrecord.com/2009/11/30/jury-selection-in-md-needs-improvement/
This case could blow up huge. The entire case will be based around whether the jury is White or Latino. There could be 10 Whites saying Guilty with 2 Latinos saying Not Guilty, resulting in mistrials for years!
http://thedailyrecord.com/2009/11/30/jury-selection-in-md-needs-improvement/
This case could blow up huge. The entire case will be based around whether the jury is White or Latino. There could be 10 Whites saying Guilty with 2 Latinos saying Not Guilty, resulting in mistrials for years!
Samseau said:
I'm trying to tell you guys and I have more than a little bit of experience with this. Also, I don't really agree with that article that Samseau posted. The way it really works is the state and the defense are given a list of potential jurors with their names, occupations, education level, ages, cities, and zip codes. It always seems like there is a ton of retired people, many of whom were teachers or police officers, for some reason. You generally know what race the people are by looking at them and reading their names. Sometimes you can't tell, like when you have a very light skinned Hispanic women who is married to a white guy or black guy and took his last name. Both the state and the defense submit a list of proposed voir dire questions to the judge. These questions include things like "Have you ever been a victim of a crime"? "Do you have any problem with the constitutional provision that the Defendant need not prove anything"? "Would you be able to be fair and impartial knowing that the Defendant is a native of Guatemala and is not a United States citizen"?, etc. If a person answers affirmatively, you can then ask the potential jurors specific questions as to their affirmative response. This is done at the bench. The judge will generally excuse jurors who for one reason or another say that they cannot be fair and impartial, then both the defense and the state are given a number of strikes to have certain potential jurors excused. If one side has multiple persons of a certain race stricken in a row, the other side can make what is called a "Batson" challenge, meaning the the side which is being challenged must give a racially neutral explanation for striking repeated prospective jurors of the same race.
Samseau said:
No. They won't. In 2014, Montgomery County was 47% white, non hispanic and it has become less white since then. Let's call it 45% white, tops. There likely hasn't been an all white jury here in several decades. Out of twelve jurors in criminal cases, I would estimate that on average six or seven jurors are white. Maybe eight, but I doubt it. Any attempt by the state to strike every non white person will obviously be met with a Batson challenge. They are way too smart and experienced to try that here.
Two things. If they get away with the rape with no deportation or punishment:
1. The libs will suffer even more at the ballot box in places outside of Maryland. If Latino jurors simply vote for their race, you can also expect to see even more White hostility towards this community around the country.
I am guessing the victim was White based on the fact that the town-hall of angry parents were mostly White, which is why I am guessing things will come down to jury's racial composition.
2. Highly probable a vigilante goes after the accused or the judge with lethal intent.
Either way - this case has way too many eyeballs for some form of justice not to be delivered. It's actually not uncommon for vigilante justice to occur on rape cases, and that's without million+ views on the internet.
Conversely, if the men are convicted and proven fair and square it will do a lot to resolve tensions.
1. The libs will suffer even more at the ballot box in places outside of Maryland. If Latino jurors simply vote for their race, you can also expect to see even more White hostility towards this community around the country.
I am guessing the victim was White based on the fact that the town-hall of angry parents were mostly White, which is why I am guessing things will come down to jury's racial composition.
2. Highly probable a vigilante goes after the accused or the judge with lethal intent.
Either way - this case has way too many eyeballs for some form of justice not to be delivered. It's actually not uncommon for vigilante justice to occur on rape cases, and that's without million+ views on the internet.
Conversely, if the men are convicted and proven fair and square it will do a lot to resolve tensions.
Samseau said:
That school is 64% minority, but it's entirely possible that the victim was white. I don't at this time know what her race was. It's also possible that she was not white.
If it goes to a jury trial, the judge is obviously not the ultimate finder of guilt or innocence, unless the judge grants a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal before the case goes to a jury. I realize that it won't matter and if one or both of these guys get off, some person may, for some reason, blame the judge and go after him. I'm pretty sure that the defense attorneys involved in this case have already received their share of threats.
Merenguero said:
I would expect real fireworks and violence if the victim was black.
BrewDog said:
I'm sick of hearing about how these illegal pieces of shit are entitled to the same rights as the citizens who reside in the US legally.
Does anyone really doubt these two fucking punks are not the lowest form of human being?
Merenguero, I'm guessing you are trying to exercise your attorney muscles right now, but how can you honestly expect a 14 year old girl to fight back against two 17 and 18 year old men?
A 14 year old boy wouldn't have a chance, let alone a little 14 year old girl fighting two people.
3 and 4 years make and enormous difference in high school.
ONE YEAR makes a huge difference and is why kids get held back a year so they'll be better in sports and are more likely to get scholarships.
I can't believe what I'm reading sometimes.
And honestly, talking about witnesses moving or not showing up?
Get real.
That isn't going to be an issue at all.
We ALL know how women don't want to be called sluts, especially 14 year old girls at high school.
You think she was just having such a nice time and wanted everyone to know what a whore she is and oh yeah, not to mention getting in trouble for fucking in the bathroom?
Merenguero said:
It's men that convict. Not women.
BrewDog said:
Awww well look who's decided to cherry pick one comment and chime in with his pearls of wisdom.
As much as you'd like to make my feelings the point of discussion my greater point is that these pieces of shit will be convicted and you can suck on that.
Fisto said:
In sex offense cases, it's the women who are the most skeptical in my experience.
I'll give you guys an example. Hispanic Defendant. A young, but still an adult, black female alleged victim. Sex offense, but not a rape. Only fact witness was the alleged victim. There was a police officer witness who just took the statement of both the Defendant and the alleged victim. The jury was (this is just a rough estimate) nine women and three men. One of the women was black, another was neither black, nor white, probably either middle eastern or Hispanic. All the rest of the women were white. All of the men were white. The alleged victim testified, as did the officer and the Defendant. The alleged victim did not do horrible on the stand, but there were at least two or three differences between the statement she made to the officer and her testimony in court. The officer's testimony therefore greatly helped the Defendant's case. After two and a half hours of deliberating, they came back with a not guilty verdict. In retrospect, if the state had not called the officer, there would have been a much higher chance of a conviction, but the defense attorney, some guy who doesn't give one flying fuck about English, grammar, and/or E.S.L., asked the officer to stick around in case the state didn't call him as a witness. I do think that in jury trials, Defendants who testify in their own defense generally do much better than those who do not. The obvious risk is that low intelligence Defendants run the risk of saying something incredibly stupid on the stand and hanging themselves.
BrewDog said:
Go reread what I wrote and deliberate about it all you want.
- Status