Man chokes out woman and sexually assaults her -- zero jail time

[Hopkins Medicine]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...e-pass-wont-go-prison/?utm_term=.2bc9ab8cda92

This is unbelievable. I think some of the social justice warriors exaggerate a lot but when you have outrageous decisions like this I can't argue with them. There's zero chance this clown would have gotten zero jail time if the victim was male instead of female.

The prosecutor and the judge need to be thrown out ASAP.

And I don't want to hear about how the judge had no choice but to accept whatever BS plea deal the prosecutor agreed to. The comments from both the judge and the prosecutor show that they gave zero weight to the impact on the victim.

This judge and prosecutor need to have the same fate that happened to Judge Aaron Persky in the Brock Turner/Stanford rapist case.

 

[Fijimn]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...e-pass-wont-go-prison/?utm_term=.2bc9ab8cda92

This is unbelievable. I think some of the social justice warriors exaggerate a lot but when you have outrageous decisions like this I can't argue with them. There's zero chance this clown would have gotten zero jail time if the victim was male instead of female.

The prosecutor and the judge need to be thrown out ASAP.

And I don't want to hear about how the judge had no choice but to accept whatever BS plea deal the prosecutor agreed to. The comments from both the judge and the prosecutor show that they gave zero weight to the impact on the victim.

This judge and prosecutor need to have the same fate that happened to Judge Aaron Persky in the Brock Turner/Stanford rapist case.

Judges don't have to accept plea deals.

 

[SeaPA]

The article says that they couldn't prove kidnapping because the lady got in his car willingly, and that under Alaska state law choking your chicken over someone isn't defined as a sex crime. The only crime they could prove was the assault, when he strangled her.
Sounds like a reasonable outcome.

 

[Lurker1999]

In our culture, sexual assault victims usually get blamed and attacked. This isn't really surprising to me.

 

[cfbfan23]

If he had done this to a moose, it would be an entirely different outcome.

 

[KitingHigh]

The article says that they couldn't prove kidnapping because the lady got in his car willingly, and that under Alaska state law choking your chicken over someone isn't defined as a sex crime. The only crime they could prove was the assault, when he strangled her.
Sounds like a reasonable outcome.

Also he did serve a year of house arrest and will continue to wear an ankle monitor and go to sex offender treatment, which could only be required if he agreed to it as part of a deal.

 

[More Kirk Less Spock]

The prosecutor is in the wrong job and the judge should have refused to accept it.

 

[BelemNole]

http://www.espn.com/sports/news/story?id=1794781

 

[KitingHigh]

http://www.espn.com/sports/news/story?id=1794781

Georgia has some weird age of consent laws. You can have sex with a 16 year old no matter how old you are, but if you are 15 and have sex with your 15 year old lover, you go to jail.

 

[OrlandNole]

“I would just like to, um, emphasize how grateful I am for this process,” Schneider said in court. “It has given me a year to really work on myself and become a better person and a better husband and a better father. And I’m very eager to continue that journey.”

Look guys, it made him a better person. What's a little spooge between friends?

 

[kc78]

And you wonder why women don't report assaults. They have to go through a terribly invading process for the medical exam, then they're often treated like they're lying by police, and then if it becomes public they're dragged through the mud and maligned. Finally when they get to trial, nothing happens. Yeah, we've given women a real reason to come forward.

 

[Hopkins Medicine]

The prosecutor and the judge are both clowns in this scenario. The prosecutor made comments such as "we couldnt prove kidnapping" and "ejaculating on someone isn't a crime"

Comments like that show you he has no clue what he is doing. If I walked up to a random person on the street and just choked them to the point of unconsciousness I should get prison time, period. Doesn't matter if I didn't kidnap them. Doesn't matter if I didn't sexually assault them. Even if the "only" thing I did to them was choke them out I should be in prison.

Why doesn't the idiot prosecutor understand this?

He should have thrown the book at the guy and let the judge/jury decide to give him a pass on this.

 

[KitingHigh]

The prosecutor and the judge are both clowns in this scenario. The prosecutor made comments such as "we couldnt prove kidnapping" and "ejaculating on someone isn't a crime"

Comments like that show you he has no clue what he is doing. If I walked up to a random person on the street and just choked them to the point of unconsciousness I should get prison time, period. Doesn't matter if I didn't kidnap them. Doesn't matter if I didn't sexually assault them. Even if the "only" thing I did to them was choke them out I should be in prison.

Why doesn't the idiot prosecutor understand this?

He should have thrown the book at the guy and let the judge/jury decide to give him a pass on this.

That was the one thing he could prosecute.

Sounds like the legislature has some work to do.

 

[Hopkins Medicine]

Another problem I have with this case is that apparently house arrest is counted the same as prison time. The defendant got a year of credit for house arrest.

That's complete BS IMO. House arrest should not be allowed to count as prison time. Otherwise if I was a rapist convict I'd volunteer to serve 50 years of house arrest rather than 5 years in prison.

 

[seminole97]

The prosecutor made comments such as "we couldnt prove kidnapping" and "ejaculating on someone isn't a crime".

I thought merely spitting on someone was a crime.
Glad to know there are options.

 

[fsu1jreed]

I thought merely spitting on someone was a crime.
Glad to know there are options.

So wrong, but I laughed out loud.

 

[Wendy79]

And you wonder why women don't report assaults. They have to go through a terribly invading process for the medical exam, then they're often treated like they're lying by police, and then if it becomes public they're dragged through the mud and maligned. Finally when they get to trial, nothing happens. Yeah, we've given women a real reason to come forward.

I wonder how many people realize what all is involved in the medical exam. It's not just a few swabs, that's for sure.

 

[More Kirk Less Spock]

Georgia has some weird age of consent laws. You can have sex with a 16 year old no matter how old you are, but if you are 15 and have sex with your 15 year old lover, you go to jail.

 

[kc78]

I wonder how many people realize what all is involved in the medical exam. It's not just a few swabs, that's for sure.

We essentially rape and traumatize women all over again. They're not only swabbed, but measured for bruising, have all of their genetalia photographed and documented, etc... and then we don't even test the damned rape kits.

Our justice system doesn't give a damn about people of color or women... It's infuriating and I'll let it go at that.

 

[ReliableOstrich]

We essentially rape and traumatize women all over again. They're not only swabbed, but measured for bruising, have all of their genetalia photographed and documented, etc... and then we don't even test the damned rape kits.

Our justice system doesn't give a damn about people of color or women... It's infuriating and I'll let it go at that.

Yep.

There are a few permutations of race and gender in this case that would def result in significant jail time.

 

[MIKE_G]

In all fairness, offering to give a woman a ride and then choking her out before shooting a load on her just seems like a white guy thing to do.

 

[nynole1]

And you wonder why women don't report assaults. They have to go through a terribly invading process for the medical exam, then they're often treated like they're lying by police, and then if it becomes public they're dragged through the mud and maligned. Finally when they get to trial, nothing happens. Yeah, we've given women a real reason to come forward.

What do you suggest to remedy this problem?

 

[kc78]

What do you suggest to remedy this problem?

I don't know. I think bringing constant awareness to the injustice of our justice department and shining as bright a light as possible is a start.

I'd like to see pressure put to remove judges and prosecutors who make these kinds of decisions as well.

For juries, we could start by considering a jury of your peers one that is racially and gender diverse and which includes a portion of the jurors that match the race and gender of both the victim and the defendant possibly?

When you manage to easily disqualify all people of color from a jury for a person of color, or have a rape trial where the jury is predominantly men, it just seems unjust.

 

[Wendy79]

I don't know. I think bringing constant awareness to the injustice of our justice department and shining as bright a light as possible is a start.

I'd like to see pressure put to remove judges and prosecutors who make these kinds of decisions as well.

For juries, we could start by considering a jury of your peers one that is racially and gender diverse and which includes a portion of the jurors that match the race and gender of both the victim and the defendant possibly?

When you manage to easily disqualify all people of color from a jury for a person of color, or have a rape trial where the jury is predominantly men, it just seems unjust.

All-encompassing sex ed programs...not just this is a penis, this is a vagina type program, but one that includes various birth control options for males and females, bodily autonomy (which should start when kids are way young anyway), emotional/mental/physical risks of early sexual activity, healthy relationships, and - surprise - consent. I imagine a large number of people think consent is just a lack of a 'no.'

You can also delve into objectification, the incel movement, anger management, etc.

 

[seminole97]

but one that includes various birth control options for males

Isn’t that what he was accused of?

 

[Wendy79]

Isn’t that what he was accused of?

What?

 

[nynole1]

I don't know. I think bringing constant awareness to the injustice of our justice department and shining as bright a light as possible is a start.

I'd like to see pressure put to remove judges and prosecutors who make these kinds of decisions as well.

For juries, we could start by considering a jury of your peers one that is racially and gender diverse and which includes a portion of the jurors that match the race and gender of both the victim and the defendant possibly?

When you manage to easily disqualify all people of color from a jury for a person of color, or have a rape trial where the jury is predominantly men, it just seems unjust.

Dont both the prosecution and defense have the same abilities when it comes to selecting jurors?

 

[kc78]

Dont both the prosecution and defense have the same abilities when it comes to selecting jurors?

Sure, but if your jury pool is primarily white it's not that hard for the prosecution to weed all the people of color out, or for a defense attorney for a male to try to remove as many women as possible from the jury.

 

[FreeFlyNole]

In all fairness, offering to give a woman a ride and then choking her out before shooting a load on her just seems like a white guy thing to do.

I don’t understand how people get away with. Saying racist things like this all day.

 

[MIKE_G]

I don’t understand how people get away with. Saying racist things like this all day.

Pshhht. I bet you've done the same thing. Then calmly drove to your air traffic controller job and home to your wife Mitsy and your two kids, Chip and Buffy, like nothing happened. You guys are all the same.

 

[nynole1]

Sure, but if your jury pool is primarily white it's not that hard for the prosecution to weed all the people of color out, or for a defense attorney for a male to try to remove as many women as possible from the jury.

I would think the jury pool is representative of both the population and of people who actually respond when called for duty.

 

[Fijimn]

Dont both the prosecution and defense have the same abilities when it comes to selecting jurors?

Both the government and the defendant receive the same amount of preemptive jury strikes, which allow the lawyer to strike a potential jury member without providing the court a reason. There are also strikes for cause that are used on people not qualified (can't read, not a citizen, too biased where can't make a fair decision) and those strikes require a court ruling. Generally, juries are primarily made up of white working men and women -- the nature of demographics and those that respond to a jury summons. So, if you have a panel (venire) of 40 people, you usually find 10-15 African-Americans. If your jury is 12 people, usually the first 23 people in the group of 40 are at risk of getting on the jury - so you are looking at an average of 4-6 African-American. Prosecutors got smart and started suing all the preemptive strikes to get ride of the African-Americans on the jury. In 1986, SCOTUS decided that you could not use race as a basis to exercise a preemptive strike and developed the Batson challenge/objection if you believe your opponent was striking jurors because of their race.

Obviously, determining if a lawyer is using race as a basis to strike a juror is a subjective test. All the lawyer has to do is come up wit a race-neutral reason (she's a engineer and I don't want engineers or he's a school teacher and may be empathetic to the minor defendant) and the challenge stands. Houston was notorious for striking AA and even had a code word set up -- called it getting ride of all the cowboys on the jury.

The Batson challenge is not race dependent. You can challenge if the lawyer was striking all the whites on the jury as well.

 

[ReliableOstrich]

I don't know. I think bringing constant awareness to the injustice of our justice department and shining as bright a light as possible is a start.

I'd like to see pressure put to remove judges and prosecutors who make these kinds of decisions as well.

For juries, we could start by considering a jury of your peers one that is racially and gender diverse and which includes a portion of the jurors that match the race and gender of both the victim and the defendant possibly?

When you manage to easily disqualify all people of color from a jury for a person of color, or have a rape trial where the jury is predominantly men, it just seems unjust.

I might add to this a federal requirement for how police departments respond to rape / sexual assault allegations. Perhaps with a specialized unit, trained in both investigation of such charges and 'bedside manner' and also a requirement on the timeliness and methodology of rape kit administration and testing.

Seen too many stories where the victim mentions a cop basically saying "you sure you want to do this, it's going to be rough on you and there isn't sufficient evidence," and so the victim, already emotionally beaten down shies away from moving forward due to police intimidation. That can't happen. In fact it should be just the opposite, "we'll protect you, if you want to move forward, we've got your back and we'll investigate the heck out of this." You know "protect and serve" and all that.

 

[kc78]

I might add to this a federal requirement for how police departments respond to rape / sexual assault allegations. Perhaps with a specialized unit, trained in both investigation of such charges and 'bedside manner' and also a requirement on the timeliness and methodology of rape kid administration and testing.

Seen too many stories where the victim mentions a cop basically saying "you sure you want to do this, it's going to be rough on you and there isn't sufficient evidence," and so the victim, already emotionally beaten down shies away from moving forward due to police intimidation. That can't happen. In fact it should be just the opposite, "we'll protect you, if you want to move forward, we've got your back and we'll investigate the heck out of this." You know "protect and serve" and all that.

Absolutely. We don't even test the damned rape kits. There should be an absolute law that if a woman goes through the process of getting the examination that we have to test the kit. That it just sits there, after putting her through that trauma is a travesty.

 

[nynole1]

Both the government and the defendant receive the same amount of preemptive jury strikes, which allow the lawyer to strike a potential jury member without providing the court a reason. There are also strikes for cause that are used on people not qualified (can't read, not a citizen, too biased where can't make a fair decision) and those strikes require a court ruling. Generally, juries are primarily made up of white working men and women -- the nature of demographics and those that respond to a jury summons. So, if you have a panel (venire) of 40 people, you usually find 10-15 African-Americans. If your jury is 12 people, usually the first 23 people in the group of 40 are at risk of getting on the jury - so you are looking at an average of 4-6 African-American. Prosecutors got smart and started suing all the preemptive strikes to get ride of the African-Americans on the jury. In 1986, SCOTUS decided that you could not use race as a basis to exercise a preemptive strike and developed the Batson challenge/objection if you believe your opponent was striking jurors because of their race.

Obviously, determining if a lawyer is using race as a basis to strike a juror is a subjective test. All the lawyer has to do is come up wit a race-neutral reason (she's a engineer and I don't want engineers or he's a school teacher and may be empathetic to the minor defendant) and the challenge stands. Houston was notorious for striking AA and even had a code word set up -- called it getting ride of all the cowboys on the jury.

The Batson challenge is not race dependent. You can challenge if the lawyer was striking all the whites on the jury as well.

I said the same thing later in the thread, makes sense.

 

[Fijimn]

I said the same thing later in the thread, makes sense.

We have a huge problem with hourly wage earners not showing up to jury duty The reason given is they can't afford to miss work. Obviously, there is a certain element of complacency and simply "I don't want to do it." But loss of income is a serious concern for a majority of the working class. I get very frustrated speaking with small businesses and corporations that employ hourly workers -- most of which do not pay their employees for missing work due to jury duty (either make them take PTO (if they have that program) or go without pay). They are usually out there with gung-ho pro-USA positions And they are usually the first ones with there hand out for corporate welfare/tax benefits, etc. But when it comes to to paying Billy a weeks pay at $10.00 for going to jury duty -- they are always: "nah, we can't really afford that."

 

[nynole1]

We have a huge problem with hourly wage earners not showing up to jury duty The reason given is they can't afford to miss work. Obviously, there is a certain element of complacency and simply "I don't want to do it." But loss of income is a serious concern for a majority of the working class. I get very frustrated speaking with small businesses and corporations that employ hourly workers -- most of which do not pay their employees for missing work due to jury duty (either make them take PTO (if they have that program) or go without pay). They are usually out there with gung-ho pro-USA positions And they are usually the first ones with there hand out for corporate welfare/tax benefits, etc. But when it comes to to paying Billy a weeks pay at $10.00 for going to jury duty -- they are always: "nah, we can't really afford that."

Most people I know aren't hourly, but dread getting a letter about jury duty. Feels like there is no pride and honor anymore in giving back to this country. That also explains all these crappy politicians.

 

[Fijimn]

Most people I know aren't hourly, but dread getting a letter about jury duty. Feels like there is no pride and honor anymore in giving back to this country. That also explains all these crappy politicians.

I think that work, the need to work, the compulsive need to be immediately responsive to work has overtaken a lot of our lives. Ironically, it would be a huge issue for me to have to serve on a multi-week jury.

 

[kc78]

Most people I know aren't hourly, but dread getting a letter about jury duty. Feels like there is no pride and honor anymore in giving back to this country. That also explains all these crappy politicians.

Honestly, they should be required to pay you an actual wage for jury duty. And I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of creating professional jury pools, although I'm sure there could be some issues with that.

But it's ridiculous to expect small businesses who are just barely getting by to pay for someone's jury duty as well. The state should be required to pay an hourly wage for bringing people in, at least if they're selected. I can understand maybe not doing it for the entire pool, but definitely for those actually selected.

 

[ReliableOstrich]

We've basically got a criminal justice system engineered for the social norms of the early 1800s that hasn't been modernized and at this point appears draconian, cruel, ineffective, wasteful, and highly incapable of being unbiased.

Not sure how you go about fixing that other than some serious federal soul-searching (read: studies, scientific analysis, etc...) and subsequent funding mandates or constitutional amendments to force the same at the local and state levels.

We aren't hurting anyone but ourselves with the system as it stands now.