Genarlow Wilson -- Georgia is insane

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously the fact that he's black is why this happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

That can't be right. I've been informed hundreds of times by posters here that government *prevents* racism and *punishes* racists.

[/ QUOTE ]
Excuse me...government encourages racism unless it behooves the power of the state to punish it.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm so happy to see this kid released, good guy. Shook his hand right before he walked outside to the main gate.

Here's what happened four years ago. Genarlow and friends were in a hotel room having a New Years party, several young ladies were in and out throughout the evening. The girl he "raped" was moaning "Oh God Yes" and at one point during the "rape" had an orgasm.

Later on, the fifteen year old juvenile comes in, starts giving oral sex to everyone in the room. On the tape, you clearly see her go up to Wilson and say "You want some head, baby?" to which he responds "LDO" (I'm paraphrasing).

The next morning, the drunk 17 year old wakes up in the hotel room, believes she's been raped, and calls 911. Three Douglas County deputy sheriffs arrive, followed soon afterwords by an SVU detective, who then radios for assistance from a CAC (Crimes Against Children) investigator. FTR, Douglas county is the county I grew up in.

The Deputies take the videocamera and the tapes in to be used as evidence. They are analyzed, first by the CAC and SVU detectives, then by DA David McDade.

Warrants for Genarlow and several of his friends are issued, and patrol deputies and detectives begin serving them the following days afterword.

Genarlow and his friends are offered "deals" all of which involve registering as a sex offender, and furthermore, registering as a sex offender under the hidious description of "Child Molester".

Genarlow stuck to his guns, and I'm very proud of him for it. Had I been DA McDade here, he probably would've received some probation time for his troubles, and a slap on the wrist.

A protest is being planned at the Douglas County courthouse sometime soon, calling for the resignation of DA McDade, and I can assure you, I will be in attendance. I would encourage anyone in the Atlanta area to join me.

-J

[/ QUOTE ]

Question: If the videos clearly show that the first girl, the "Oh God Yes" girl was consensual, then why isn't the detective in jail for unlawfully putting an innocent man in prison?

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm so happy to see this kid released, good guy. Shook his hand right before he walked outside to the main gate.

Here's what happened four years ago. Genarlow and friends were in a hotel room having a New Years party, several young ladies were in and out throughout the evening. The girl he "raped" was moaning "Oh God Yes" and at one point during the "rape" had an orgasm.

Later on, the fifteen year old juvenile comes in, starts giving oral sex to everyone in the room. On the tape, you clearly see her go up to Wilson and say "You want some head, baby?" to which he responds "LDO" (I'm paraphrasing).

The next morning, the drunk 17 year old wakes up in the hotel room, believes she's been raped, and calls 911. Three Douglas County deputy sheriffs arrive, followed soon afterwords by an SVU detective, who then radios for assistance from a CAC (Crimes Against Children) investigator. FTR, Douglas county is the county I grew up in.

The Deputies take the videocamera and the tapes in to be used as evidence. They are analyzed, first by the CAC and SVU detectives, then by DA David McDade.

Warrants for Genarlow and several of his friends are issued, and patrol deputies and detectives begin serving them the following days afterword.

Genarlow and his friends are offered "deals" all of which involve registering as a sex offender, and furthermore, registering as a sex offender under the hidious description of "Child Molester".

Genarlow stuck to his guns, and I'm very proud of him for it. Had I been DA McDade here, he probably would've received some probation time for his troubles, and a slap on the wrist.

A protest is being planned at the Douglas County courthouse sometime soon, calling for the resignation of DA McDade, and I can assure you, I will be in attendance. I would encourage anyone in the Atlanta area to join me.

-J

[/ QUOTE ]

Question: If the videos clearly show that the first girl, the "Oh God Yes" girl was consensual, then why isn't the detective in jail for unlawfully putting an innocent man in prison?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because #1, that's not how law enforcement actually works, the detective (or possibly deputy, I'm unsure as to who actually arrested whom) made the apprehension on the orders of the DA with the warrant issued from the judge, not on his own free will.

#2, The detective just did his job, which was investigate the crime. We should never forget, a crime did occur here, statutory rape, as well as several minor consumption of alcohol charges and just as many narcotics charges. That is often blown off. Genarlow did deserve to be punished, but ten years plus sex offender status is gross overkill.

In a perfect world, none of these things would be illegal, but they are, and as a detective, you are paid to investigate these things.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]

Because #1, that's not how law enforcement actually works, the detective (or possibly deputy, I'm unsure as to who actually arrested whom) made the apprehension on the orders of the DA with the warrant issued from the judge, not on his own free will.

#2, The detective just did his job, which was investigate the crime. We should never forget, a crime did occur here, statutory rape, as well as several minor consumption of alcohol charges and just as many narcotics charges. That is often blown off. Genarlow did deserve to be punished, but ten years plus sex offender status is gross overkill.

In a perfect world, none of these things would be illegal, but they are, and as a detective, you are paid to investigate these things.

[/ QUOTE ]

I may have misunderstood. I thought that the charge with the first girl was for "forcible rape." Further, I thought the second one (the BJ) was the statutory charge.

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Because #1, that's not how law enforcement actually works, the detective (or possibly deputy, I'm unsure as to who actually arrested whom) made the apprehension on the orders of the DA with the warrant issued from the judge, not on his own free will.

#2, The detective just did his job, which was investigate the crime. We should never forget, a crime did occur here, statutory rape, as well as several minor consumption of alcohol charges and just as many narcotics charges. That is often blown off. Genarlow did deserve to be punished, but ten years plus sex offender status is gross overkill.

In a perfect world, none of these things would be illegal, but they are, and as a detective, you are paid to investigate these things.

[/ QUOTE ]

I may have misunderstood. I thought that the charge with the first girl was for "forcible rape." Further, I thought the second one (the BJ) was the statutory charge.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct, however, a police officer cannot actually charge anyone with anything, at least not to bring in front of a judge.

When you are arrested, and you say to the officer "What am I being charged with?" and he answers you, what he's actually telling you is what he's going to suggest to the DA you be charged with, not what you're actually charged with.

I'm not saying the detectives are totally innocent here, because I don't personally know them. The only Douglas County deputies I know on a level personal enough to extract real information out of are rookies, most of whom have only been on the street for 18-24 months, so they were either still in school or working in the county lock-up when the case went down. The detectives may've done wrong, and if so, they need to be reprimanded, however, the only way this detective could be locked up concerning this case is if it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he altered evidence, withheld evidence, or lied.

You can scratch off lying, since rape is unfortunately largely an opinion.

From GA Code 16-6-1

TITLE 16. CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 6. SEXUAL OFFENSES

O.C.G.A. § 16-6-1 (2007)

§ 16-6-1. Rape


(a) A person commits the offense of rape when he has carnal knowledge of:

(1) A female forcibly and against her will; or

(2) A female who is less than ten years of age.

Carnal knowledge in rape occurs when there is any penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ. The fact that the person allegedly raped is the wife of the defendant shall not be a defense to a charge of rape.

(b) A person convicted of the offense of rape shall be punished by death, by imprisonment for life without parole, by imprisonment for life, or by a split sentence that is a term of imprisonment for not less than 25 years and not exceeding life imprisonment, followed by probation for life. Any person convicted under this Code section shall, in addition, be subject to the sentencing and punishment provisions of Code Sections 17-10-6.1 and 17-10-7.

(c) When evidence relating to an allegation of rape is collected in the course of a medical examination of the person who is the victim of the alleged crime, the law enforcement agency investigating the alleged crime shall be responsible for the cost of the medical examination to the extent that expense is incurred for the limited purpose of collecting evidence.


The phrase "forcibly and against her will" becomes very muddled, as sex crimes detectives are taught that "just because a woman seems to be enjoying it, doesn't mean it's not rape".

I don't know what may have happened behind closed doors here, either. At times, these detectives and DA's will have very vocal disagreements concerning charges, and this detective may very well have fought McDade to the very end, then again, he may not have.

In any event, he didn't do anything legally wrong. Morally, that's a completely different argument.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]


You are correct, however, a police officer cannot actually charge anyone with anything, at least not to bring in front of a judge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Granted. I reacted a little overzealously to the actions of the arresting officer who at least had the duty to arrest under the grounds of the statutory provision (no matter how stupid I think the provision is).

[ QUOTE ]



From GA Code 16-6-1

TITLE 16. CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 6. SEXUAL OFFENSES

O.C.G.A. § 16-6-1 (2007)

§ 16-6-1. Rape


(a) A person commits the offense of rape when he has carnal knowledge of:

(1) A female forcibly and against her will; or

(2) A female who is less than ten years of age.



[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, with regards to female #1, neither of these two criteria are met, so I'd take issue with the DA's decision to prosecute on #1.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

The phrase "forcibly and against her will" becomes very muddled, as sex crimes detectives are taught that "just because a woman seems to be enjoying it, doesn't mean it's not rape".

[/ QUOTE ]

This may be true if a woman is attacked and she "plays along" because she fears getting killed or maimed physically. As I understand it, this was not the case here so this "teaching" should probably come with the disclaimer I just added. Common sense must apply.



[ QUOTE ]
At times, these detectives and DA's will have very vocal disagreements concerning charges, and this detective may very well have fought McDade to the very end, then again, he may not have.

[/ QUOTE ]

In any case, the blame lies with McDade unless the detective was not up front about the evidence. If a DA knowlingly "overprosecutes", then we have a problem. As a check on power, this should be an offense, if proven in a court of law, requiring mandatory imprisonment proportional to the extent of the "overprosecution."


[ QUOTE ]

In any event, he didn't do anything legally wrong. Morally, that's a completely different argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there really nothing legally wrong with a DA prosecuting "forcible rape" when he knew it was consensual? This seems to be a gross perversian of our justice system and an issue with our system of "checks and balances."

From what I know (and, granted, I haven't heard all of the evidence), the DA in Durham, NC should have been imprisoned over the Duke lacrosse "rape."

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]

I think the 10-year sentence was the judge's version of a "make right" for the jury's inability to convict on the rape charge.



[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. Sentence was the mandatory minimum for the "crime". Judge had no discretion. The new law still makes it a crime, but as a misdemeanor with a much lighter sentence and no "sex offender" status.

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In any event, he didn't do anything legally wrong. Morally, that's a completely different argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there really nothing legally wrong with a DA prosecuting "forcible rape" when he knew it was consensual? This seems to be a gross perversian of our justice system and an issue with our system of "checks and balances."

From what I know (and, granted, I haven't heard all of the evidence), the DA in Durham, NC should have been imprisoned over the Duke lacrosse "rape."

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring specifically to the detective when I made that statement. My training comes from a law enforcement background, so I'm really not competent enough to comment from a legal standpoint on whether DA McDade can be prosecuted or not.

As for the Duke case, I also can't comment on the DA, but it is my firm belief that the "victim" in that case should be charged.

In this case, the "victim" was a scared girl, who, after a drunken night, felt she may have been raped.

In the Duke case, the victim knew damned well she wasn't raped, and was out looking for attention and money.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, I see it as something petty that hardly deserves a sorry. It's a 17-year-old having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old on New Years Eve. What exactly do you call that??? An atrocity?

If you have some information about him forcibly raping some girl while he videotaped it, then by all means, post it and allow it to factor into my analysis.

I haven't a clue what you're ranting about this time, but yes, please, stay out. This is a pretty serious and interesting topic and could do without your nonsense bogging it down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Serious question. Have you seen the video?

[ALawPoker]

No. I haven't watched much of the Iraq War either, but I still sort of get what's going on.