Alleged sexual assault by MIS students

They are equally shit in my opinion.

So we are back to this again? People are capable of doing bad things. End of story.

ER, Sarabyrd. If all men are potential rapists then all women are potential false accusers. Enough said I think! "Get" that?

Yeah, that works for me. And as I said, I don't think the potential to rape applies to men alone. Equipment can be acquired.

I think a little perspective might help here, you seem to be taking this quite personally. Do we not teach our children not to get into cars with strangers because any stranger could be a potential kidnapper? Obviously this doesn't mean that every or even most strangers are kidnappers only that they could potentially be so we take the necessary precaution.

Back to the topic title...

Very sad, no excuses when something like this happens. Sounds like 3 young lives ruined to me.

If I had kids at MIS, I would be glad that the school reacted quickly and did not try to cover anything up. Something like this, even if it occured away from the school's direct control, is going to reflect on them to some extent.

Of course, one also suspects that the press will milk the MIS angle for all that it is worth as it makes the story sell copy.

Either way, we'll have to let the German Authorities do the police bit, the press will do the inflation/exaggeration bit and we just have to hope that there is room between them to get justice done.

I dig it, man. I am also laying lots of responsibility on the women's shoulders.

Please do explain your concept of bullshit oh wise-ass one.

Describe your concept of 'rape' - it will roughly coincide with my concept of bullshit.

Please only post to this topic if you have something insightful to say. Off-topic bickering is likely to be removed without warning.

Further news articles relating to this incident:

• Süddeutsche Zeitung: Elite-Schüler unter Missbrauchs-Verdacht
• Münchner Merkur: Missbrauchs-Verdacht gegen Elite-Schüler

The reports say that the police have confiscated the mobile phones concerned. It's not clear whether the videos were shared between phones before confiscation. If so then it's possible that some enterprising student might anonymously upload them to YouTube or some other public video-sharing website. Of course doing so would be utterly irresponsible and I wouldn't encourage it in the slightest.

I am just saddened that this happen (at a privat school or not), that the boys who did the assumed assult thought is was fun enough to let their friends take photos of it. My heart goes out to the poor girl (drunk or not- 14 is too young to consent IMO). What is happening to our teenagers? Am I that old school that I think at 14 its far too young to be thinking about sex? Not being prudish, but what about the whole dating thing? Holding hands, that first kiss, all those wonderful things about being a teenager.

which is basically true. Potentially can cover pretty much everyone (inc. women depending on your definition of rape) as long as they have a pulse

I think I recall a comment from Jimbo that legally (at least under UK law) a woman cannot rape a man. Jimbo I'm sure will correct me if I'm mistaken here. this is of course an interesting point since it means that rape itself is a gender specific crime and not solely focussed on consent.

Correct. A woman can under no circumstances rape a man under English law. A view, IMO, which is essentially correct. It does not, of course, preclude sexual assault and the like. Rape, however, can only be committed by a man.

true parny - I think we had a similar debate before and Jimbo mentioned that.

Ooops just saw Bob's comment about bickering. I'll keep quiet

I'm not so sure, AFAIK the average age of girls losing their virginity these days is 14. It was 15 back when I was a teenager and does seem to be getting steadily younger due to several contributing factors.

Apparently that's already happened.

For you Wiki minded peeps: Rape by gender - Wikipedia


Who here actually knows what happened at the party where the alleged happenings took place?

eurovol - thank goodness you don't have a daughter.

I suspect the truthful answer to that is: 'nobody'.

Though I'd be interested to hear from somewhere/someone other than wiki if that article is correct - in the U.S. it IS possible to be raped by a woman?

If the law doesn't consider it possible it certainly should. I agree that it may be a lot more prevalent with men but by no means should a woman not be able to be charged with rape (yes foreign objects would have to be used). If a man uses a foreign object to rape is that not still considered rape?

It is up to the individual states to define rape law.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/arti...rape-a-man.html

Drunk male + sober woman = sex / who cares about the guy + drunk woman = rape.

And judging from some of the comments here, allowing a jury to decide this kind of thing would be a disaster in the making.

@ER - no, it's deemed to be a form of assault, not rape. It's still a serious old crime mind you. No idea how many cases have been brought before the Courts where the defendant is a woman, and the victim a man. Very few would be my guess.

@Euro - Hmmm, careful with that Daily Mail story - it's a wanton mis-interpretation of the law as it currently stands, and how it would be redrafted. Painting laws like this as black and white is nearly always a tabloid headline grabbing tactic rather than a realistic representation of what's going in with the legislature.

Regardless of the hype, think about what the ramifications would be if a drunk girl has sex and then is allowed to later claim rape because "she could not legally be held reponsible for her actions" based on having tipped back a few. Now that same person shoots someone else after having tipped back a few and claims the same thing. Legally she would have a case would she not?
Would the rest of you be saying "oh, its not her fault, she was drunk and can't be held responsible for her own actions"?

That's my point though Euro - that has already been the law for ages. They were, as I understood it, simply trying to clarify the situation more - currently the decision is down to the Judge and Jury (as to whether or not consent was validly given). The new law sought to introduce standards, rather than just the traditional 'man on the Clapham omnibus' tests.
Getting drunk is no excuse for harming somebody. It is still considered a crime if you take advantage of somebody so inebriated though.

how does that work when the instrument of rape is not a penis but some inanimate object. I had always understood that such events were considered rape and surely that would be as possible for a woman as a man.

The way I understand from his explanation is that an act can only be considered rape if the object used to penetrate is a real penis. Oder?

Still sounds completely illogical to me though.

Correct. S.1 defines 'Rape' as being penetration by a penis. Nothing else will do. S2 goes on to define 'assault', which can be against a man or woman, and can be committed by a man or woman, as penetration must only be 'with an object' and intended 'sexually'. Google "Sexual Offences Act 2003 HMSO" or something to have a look at the legislation if you don't believe me/don't understand.

However, perhaps I'm being too pedantic - the punishment for s.1 and s.2 are both life. Having said that I bet there aren't many prosecutions under s.2.

No I definitely believe you, I was just expressing that I found the narrow definition illogical. At least one is no less punishable than the other, so it's really nothing more than an terminology issue. For our purposes anyway.

Here's the full legislation if you're feeling particularly anal today:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2003/30042--b.htm#1

EDIT: Check out s.70. Nice.

I know at least two people who were plaintiffs in what you describe as S2 cases (one was a bloke who was raped by a man who followed him off a bus and beat him up fopr 'being a poof' before raping him), the other was a drug user who was raped with a broken bottle by a moneylender. However these occured in Scotland so I guess the law might be different.

Probably different - in your first example he beat him up and then raped him? With an object, or his penis? If it was his penis that's S.1 rape. Penetration is of ANY part of the body (practically mouth, anus, vagina - I can't imagine nose or ear, but hey, who knows...).

For Germany it falls under "§ 177 Sexuelle Nötigung; Vergewaltigung" and is not gender biased -Wer eine andere Person...

I still want to know how one drunk 14yo girl (assuming she is not passed out and is actively participating) and 2 drunk, 15yo and 16yo, boys having sex and filming it is taken to automatically mean that the boys raped the girl?

The thread title was changed a couple hours ago to sexual assault. Or is that still too judgmental?

Why do you make this assumption? From what's been said so far on the thread she seems to have been insensible due to alcohol. Could be wrong though...

When a woman or teenager says no its rape.

Some questions:

Jimbo: What if I'm a gal on a mutilation spree, cut someone's willy off, and use it as an instrument in the sexual assault of someone? (leave the stiffness technicalities for now, until we get some consultation from a chemist)? And, perhaps more realistically: what if I hold a gun to some blokes head and force him to have sex with someone else without that someone else's consent?

Mik Dickinson: Have you read the thread? Nobody is claiming that when a woman or teenager says no it's not rape. It's the timing that's the problem, plus the physio-psychological state of the victim when the act ensued. The problem here lies in the following questions: When a woman does not say no, is it still rape? When a woman says yes, can that still be rape? When a woman says no, but the alleged rapist is already long gone and can't hear anymore, is it still rape?

Genie - I'm not aware of a precedent concerning severed penises, but I'd hazard a guess at that being assault. As for forcing a couple to have sex at gunpoint, that's a specific crime as per the legislation I quoted earlier...sorry, can't remember which section.

Probably get you on a tampering with evidence and leaving the scene of an accident as well.

if she was 14, does that not make it statutory rape even if she consented?

i understand if a person is a minor technically even if they consent it can be rape, but i'm not sure if i agree with it. if two minors have sex or if one is a minor and the other a year older and it's consentual i don't think it should be considered possible rape. (assuming they are both alive, healthy, coherent and able to make their own decisions).

i know this is not related to the MIS subject, but just commenting on what BTC said.

According to Kza (and the website he quotes), 14 is the age of consent in Germany, so no, it wouldn't be statutory rape.

I thought statutory rape depends on the ages of both sides, oder?

yup, agree mere. Always seemed a misuse of 'statutory rape' to use it against entirely consenting teenagers. However, it would have been a useful resolution of a grey are in this case where the action of the MIS students was clearly abusive and consent cannot be proved.

BTC: How do you know he was clearly abusive?

I would call recording and distributing a vid of you having sex with an unconscious 14 yo pretty abusive wouldn't you?

I would too, I guess, I'm just never sure about these things until I hear the results of a thorough investigation (i.e. not by the Bild).

A woman who forces a man to have sex can be prosecuted for rape under section 3 of the 2003 Act. A woman assisting a man commit a rape can be prosecuted for the crime as an accessory. A woman can also be prosecuted for causing a man to engage in sexual activity without his consent under section 4 of the 2003 Act, a crime which also carries a maximum life sentence if it involves penetration of the mouth, anus or vagina. Section 2 of the 2003 Act introduces a new sexual offence, "assault by penetration", with the same punishment as rape. It is committed when someone sexually penetrates the anus or vagina with a part of his or her body, or with an object, without that person's consent. The policy of the 2003 Act is to make offences gender neutral.

It is committed when someone sexually penetrates the anus or vagina with a part of his or her body, or with an object, without that person's consent. The policy of the 2003 Act is to make offences gender neutral.

So a B.J.does not class as rape ???

Since we seem to be covering every possible legal angle of this type of crime I will chime in with another.

There was a movie based on a true story that became a landmark case in the US where a lady was raped in a bar by two or three men and many other guys were there cheering the men on. The landmark decision was that the onlookers were also found guilty of contributing in some way to the crime. The men therefore went to prison for their inaction in stopping it and for cheering the men on, which helped facilitate the possibility of the rape and severity of it.

Can't remember the movie or the actors involved.