Bloomberg: Crime Stat Manipulations are "Tiny"
Palin: "Absurd" Not To Consider 2012 Run
Wall Street Throwing More Money at Republicans
School Already Canceled Tomorrow for Snowpocalypse!
More Bald Eagles Spotted In Harlem!
An 18-year-old student at Sacred Heart University claims that three lacrosse players at the Connecticut school — one of them a Long Island native — sexually assaulted her in a dorm room last weekend. The victim was having consensual sex with 19-year-old freshman Timothy Sanders, when the suspect allegedly held her down and shouted for his two teammates, freshmen Nicholas Travers and Zachari Triner, to join in, according to police. The two men then purportedly ran naked into the dorm room and touched the woman inappropriately. After she screamed and struggled, Travers and Triner fled.
But Sanders' lawyer claims the incident was an alcohol-fueled joke, not a criminal matter. "This young woman was unfairly humiliated by some college boy prank. This is not a sexual assault," said attorney Wayne Keeney, who claims that the lacrosse players have been negatively stereotyped: "I guess lacrosse is the new preppy version of al Qaeda." According to Keeney, the two other students "certainly never touched the girl. And they left the room immediately." The attorney also stated that the bed was lofted 5 feet off the floor, raising questions about the woman's description of events, and he claims that Travers — the Smithtown native — wasn't involved in any way.
Neighbors from Travers' hometown compared the allegations to the false rape charges against the Duke University lacrosse team and those leveled against several students at Hofstra University. "Untrue," said Angela Amoroso. "That is not what happened at all. Those kids are respectable kids, all of them, that whole family." But Sacred Heart student Danielle Palmaccio had this to say: "I think she'd be telling the truth. Why wouldn't she? I know sometimes information gets skewed but I don't think she would lie about it." The suspects have been charged with conspiracy to commit sexual assault and have been suspended from school and the lacrosse team.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
"I think she'd be telling the truth. Why wouldn't she? I know sometimes information gets skewed but I don't think she would lie about it.'"
This guy is clearly not a member of the Sacred Heart debate team.
not to worry, it's just The Rodeo.
After hearing the story, I think its natural for some to be wary of the girls claims. However, these boys claiming it was a prank is a attempt to just get people to think of it as just that. I woudlnt find it funny to be having sex with my gf and then have two people I dont know just run in. If they ran into the room, her room, they were trespassing and then they touched her sexually. Sounds like a crime to me.
It sounds to me as though it was really stupid and immature, they probably thought that it was a "prank". That doesn't mean that it isn't a crime. It's still a crime.
I think if the two boys actually touched her, it was assult. But if they just entered the room, I consider it to be a mean prank. What assholes though, either way.
a touch is harassment, not assault. assault is obviously a lot more aggressive and has more intent.
i don't know specifically about connecticut law, but in many states, ANY UNWANTED TOUCHING can be assault, particularly in a sexual situation. without bruises, it is obviously more difficult to prove, but this would not be simply harassment (assuming that the accusations are accurate).
that you think otherwise in this particular situation is disgusting.
you're wrong, but i'm tired of reitterating it over and over to the non-legals here.
"Unwanted touching" does not meet the legal definition of assault in either New York or Connecticut.
In either state assault charges can only be brought if there is physical injury AND either intent to injure, recklessness, or criminal negligence with use of a weapon.
CT Penal Law Sec. 53a-61. Assault in the third degree: Class A misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of assault in the third degree when: (1) With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person; or (2) he recklessly causes serious physical injury to another person; or (3) with criminal negligence, he causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon, a dangerous instrument or an electronic defense weapon.
Uh, we're not talking about just plain "assault" here? Sexual assault is a bit different.
Connecticut law:
"Sec. 53a-72a. Sexual assault in the third degree: Class D or C felony. (a) A person is guilty of sexual assault in the third degree when such person (1) compels another person to submit to sexual contact (A) by the use of force against such other person or a third person"
They sound pretty guilty to me, especially what with the whole "Oh, we know we burst into her room and touched her sexually while our friend held her down, but it was a joke!" business. That's not a defense, guys, that just outs you as even bigger entitled assholes.
Hmm... so what's the over/ under on her changing her story in a few days?
One can only hope this is pleaded out quickly, and then forgotten.
so they probably had no intention of sexually assaulting her, but this is stupid and gross regardless. they should be suspended from school for a semester or something and this thing should disappear
Unwanted touching IS assault.
ok, i forgot, you're the criminal lawyer, not me.
'unwanted touching' is sooooo not assault. if i were to tap you on the shoulder, or even shove you, it's Harassment in the Second Degree in New York- NOT ASSAULT. There is not enough bodily harm and no weapon was used, not to say these are the req's for assault, but let's call a spade a spade and be fair here.
CT penal code, Sec. 53a-73a. Sexual assault in the fourth degree: Class A misdemeanor or class D felony. (a) A person is guilty of sexual assault in the fourth degree when: ... (2) such person subjects another person to sexual contact without such other person's consent...
I am too lazy to look up the definition of "sexual contact" but I don't think it'd take a prosecutor as smart as YOU to make the case that ambushing a naked woman (who is having sex with someone else) and touching her without her consent (on her naked body, mind you. she's naked. and she doesn't consent. do you get it?) fits the bill.
also, you spelled "reiterating" wrong. and you're arguing new york law for a connecticut case. and you kind of sound like a dick. stop making lawyers look bad.
"CT penal code, Sec. 53a-73a. Sexual assault in the fourth degree: Class A misdemeanor or class D felony. (a) A person is guilty of sexual assault in the fourth degree when: ... (2) such person subjects another person to sexual contact without such other person's consent..."
Whoah there!
You can't just simplify the section by leaving out 80% of it and still think you're understanding what the law says.
You've left out a key part of the code with those ellipses. That section after it, beginning with the (2), applies only if the victim is "(E) in custody of law or detained in a hospital or other institution and the actor has supervisory or disciplinary authority over such other person."
It's here if anyone wants to actually bother reading it:
http://law.justia.com/connecticut/codes/title53a/sec53a-73a.html
Doesn't apply to this case as alleged, obviously.
read it again. (1) is for "sexual contact" in circumnstances other than non-consent, including with a minor, and when the person is institutionalized and it's their ward touching them. part (2), which i cited because it's the only applicable one, involves non-consenual sexual contact.
this isn't statutory interpretation, it's just reading from left to right and making sure you notice the "or"s
You're right, my confusion... I was thinking of another section I'd just read. But again not really relevant because it's not what they're charged with.
actually, directly relevant to the above discussion. only "not really relevant" bc you've changed the topic having been caught looking stupes.
also conspiracy requires an underlying crime. what do you think they're alleging that it is? tax evasion?
Conspiracy requires just what I said it does: that they planned a crime, and at least one of them took some action to carry it out. It does not require that the "underlying crime" actually happened.
Anyway, to bring it back to this particular case, they aren't charged with sexual assault, assault, or anything similar. It's a conspiracy charge (except for the one who held her down, who faces an additional charge for that).
Hard to convict on, but the point is that it doesn't have to be proven that they touched her, only that they got together and planned to and then took some action to advance that plan.
Again back to CT Penal Law: "A person is guilty of conspiracy when, with intent that conduct constituting a crime be performed, he agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct, and any one of them commits an overt act in pursuance of such conspiracy."
you're like a summons, cuz you just got served.
btw conspiracy = awesome, massive evidentiary advantages for the prosecutor.
"you're like a summons, cuz you just got served."
wow. just wow.
No means No, Kobe.
I bet they didn't need the girl there for any reason other than to justify being sexual with each other.
Bingo! If she wasn't getting a secret thrill, the other guys were.
How is being touched w/o consent while naked NOT sexual assault?