JJ Charged With Rape

[AllWeatherFan]

Gee, do you think Paoli might argue that the local prosecutor, under intense pressure from the U.S. Department of Justice, is only now bringing a case before the jury that he was reluctant to bring up to this point?

This trial will be a three-ring circus. Yes, we all hope justice is ultimately served. But how in the world can anybody pretend that there are no outside influences at work here?

Would that necessarily be a bad thing? If the city has truly been handling rape accusations inappropriately, maybe it's a good thing that outside influences are at work.

Sure, maybe the cops have handled some cases inappropriately, and if so, they ned to be taken to task. But in this case, you have a prosecutor who is under the spotlight, and I think it would be a little hard to be objective if you're in his shoes. Not that it necessarily matters, but you can bet Paoli will make it an issue assuming the case goes to trial.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

These cases are fact-specific. Please don't make authoritative pronouncements unless you know the facts, or at least have heard both sides of the story.

well what fun would that be?!

True, why stop now, LOL.

 

[tnt]

TIME OUT

Most people are taught to avoid passive voice when writing (at the U, you are likley to get a paper thrown back at you if you don't, unless its creative writing) It always sounds authoritative and theh cause of much disparity on internet forums.

TIME IN

BTW, I doubt the amount of time to file formal charges is much of a defense for rape. ""gosh, if you had only filed in instead of July, he could have been guilty, but because you didn't he must be innocent" Couple that with, "not tonight" doesn't mean no. JJ is likley to get the death penalty. Paoli is a MUCH better attorney than that.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

TIME OUT

Most people are taught to avoid passive voice when writing (at the U, you are likley to get a paper thrown back at you if you don't, unless its creative writing) It always sounds authoritative and theh cause of much disparity on internet forums.

TIME IN

Yes. "Most people are taught..." would be changed to "English professors teach people...".

 

[grizpsych]

TIME OUT

Most people are taught to avoid passive voice when writing (at the U, you are likley to get a paper thrown back at you if you don't, unless its creative writing) It always sounds authoritative and theh cause of much disparity on internet forums.

TIME IN

HOLD ON, WE ARE NOT DONE.

Sometimes, I make the same mistake that you did here. If you're going to be a grammar Nazi, please use correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation.

OKAY, NOW TIME IN.

 

[tnt]

Who's criticizing anyone's grammar or punctuation ESPECIALLY on a forum?? I just said those who correctly avoid use of passive voice get into more trouble by sounding too "definitive". If anything correct grammar is NOT the way to go.......

 

[Grizbacker1]

Based solely on the charging documents that have been made public, I don't see anyway that there would be a conviction. The County will spend hundreds of thousands of tax dollars and cost JJ's family the same and only serve as a storyline for the media.

Baloney, I wouldn't want to be sitting in front of a Missoula County jury with that evidence. People have been convicted with less than that on rape charges. It will depend on how credible the witnesses are.

so you know from experience?

 

[Growler1]

Baloney, I wouldn't want to be sitting in front of a Missoula County jury with that evidence. People have been convicted with less than that on rape charges. It will depend on how credible the witnesses are.

This girl is going to get destroyed in court.

In all probability the girl will be destroyed in court. In the documents she claims she said, "not tonight", which does imply an ongoing sexual relationship. So what really does "not tonight" mean and think about where a defense attorney can go with that.

"Not tonight" means no. It doesn't matter if she had said earlier that she wanted to, or if they had been involved sexually before. The minute a girl says "no" or "stop", you stop.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with you that going ahead with sex after a girl says "not tonight" is grounds for rape. Hell, my wife has said that many times over the years, and I go for it anyway! There are violent rapes, and the stuff that JJ is being charged for. Why didn't the girl cry out to her roommate sitting in the other room if she was being raped?? Give me a break. This chick is gonna ruin a kids life. I got a real problem with that, and you know that I am not easy on criminals. I just know that many of us guys have proceeded to push for sex after a girl says no. Are we all rapists then? If so, they will have to built 500% more prisons to house us all!

 

[grizpsych]

This girl is going to get destroyed in court.

In all probability the girl will be destroyed in court. In the documents she claims she said, "not tonight", which does imply an ongoing sexual relationship. So what really does "not tonight" mean and think about where a defense attorney can go with that.

"Not tonight" means no. It doesn't matter if she had said earlier that she wanted to, or if they had been involved sexually before. The minute a girl says "no" or "stop", you stop.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with you that going ahead with sex after a girl says "not tonight" is grounds for rape. Hell, my wife has said that many times over the years, and I go for it anyway! There are violent rapes, and the stuff that JJ is being charged for. Why didn't the girl cry out to her roommate sitting in the other room if she was being raped?? Give me a break. This chick is gonna ruin a kids life. I got a real problem with that, and you know that I am not easy on criminals. I just know that many of us guys have proceeded to push for sex after a girl says no. Are we all rapists then? If so, they will have to built 500% more prisons to house us all!

Figures

 

[grizfromhel]

tnt you again display your ignorance of the criminal justice system when you say that there will be a probable cause hearing on the charge. There won't be one. The county attorney has chosen to charge with an information---- you can see the caption on the complaint--- and an information charges by reciting facts in an affidavit which, if proven and not rebutted, would constitute proof of the offense charged. The district court found the affidavit sufficient and endorsed the information, so the charge is complete and there is no reason for a probable cause hearing.

Couple of comments while I'm writing. Not really a surprise that the C.A.went through with the charge with the Feds breathing down his neck. Still believe that the Fed presence is highly inappropriate and basically unprecedented interference in local law enforcement. I'm also guessing that the time delay had something to do with some intense negotiations which could range all the way from a plea to the felony or perhaps a lesser charge to leaving the University of Montana voluntarily. Obviously the negotiations were not successful and the clock ran out with fall practice scheduled to start on Monday.

 

[grizpsych]

Who's criticizing anyone's grammar or punctuation ESPECIALLY on a forum?? I just said those who correctly avoid use of passive voice get into more trouble by sounding too "definitive". If anything correct grammar is NOT the way to go.......

Then I apologize and was (and still) am not able to follow your message. Perhaps your true message would be more clear if you used the quote button to post a reply to someone else.

 

[jagur1]

In all probability the girl will be destroyed in court. In the documents she claims she said, "not tonight", which does imply an ongoing sexual relationship. So what really does "not tonight" mean and think about where a defense attorney can go with that.

"Not tonight" means no. It doesn't matter if she had said earlier that she wanted to, or if they had been involved sexually before. The minute a girl says "no" or "stop", you stop.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with you that going ahead with sex after a girl says "not tonight" is grounds for rape. Hell, my wife has said that many times over the years, and I go for it anyway! There are violent rapes, and the stuff that JJ is being charged for. Why didn't the girl cry out to her roommate sitting in the other room if she was being raped?? Give me a break. This chick is gonna ruin a kids life. I got a real problem with that, and you know that I am not easy on criminals. I just know that many of us guys have proceeded to push for sex after a girl says no. Are we all rapists then? If so, they will have to built 500% more prisons to house us all!

Figures

I'm figuring Growler has heard, "not tonight," a lot in his life.

 

[poorgriz]

Baloney, I wouldn't want to be sitting in front of a Missoula County jury with that evidence. People have been convicted with less than that on rape charges. It will depend on how credible the witnesses are.

This girl is going to get destroyed in court.

In all probability the girl will be destroyed in court. In the documents she claims she said, "not tonight", which does imply an ongoing sexual relationship. So what really does "not tonight" mean and think about where a defense attorney can go with that.

"Not tonight" means no. It doesn't matter if she had said earlier that she wanted to, or if they had been involved sexually before. The minute a girl says "no" or "stop", you stop.

I don't agree with that as a blanket statement. Let's just forget about this specific case because pretty much only two people in the world know exactly what really went on. But back to that statement, what if a girl tells you "Not Tonight", and you say "OK", and go back to watching the movie. Then after awhile she says... "I changed my mind... let's go for it." Wouldn't that be OK... or would I have to tell her, "Sorry... but you said 'not tonight' earlier, so we're going to have to wait until tomorrow'."

 

[BDizzle]

Or what if she said not tonight at 11:50 pm and this occurred at 12:30 am? Technically (courts like technically) it wasn't tonight as it was in a new day. Maybe she should've said "not this morning."

 

[indian-outlaw]

Based solely on the charging documents that have been made public, I don't see anyway that there would be a conviction. The County will spend hundreds of thousands of tax dollars and cost JJ's family the same and only serve as a storyline for the media.

Baloney, I wouldn't want to be sitting in front of a Missoula County jury with that evidence. People have been convicted with less than that on rape charges. It will depend on how credible the witnesses are.

so you know from experience?

Thurston buddy, I am afraid I do. I've read about several cases that have convicted with less. In fact with rape their is generally no more evidence than what is presented so far. It just takes a courageous woman to go through all the crap to get the rapist convicted. I always think it's funny how everyone thinks defense attorneys are scum until they need one.

 

[Grizzoola]

I just know that many of us guys have proceeded to push for sex after a girl says no. Are we all rapists then? If so, they will have to built 500% more prisons to house us all!

:lol: I laugh in recognition. This is true. This is why, if I were a juror in this case, I'd be very attentive to the young woman's conduct before & after the incident. I'd say 99.9% of UM female students are pretty wise to this stuff, and avoid it. The prosecution, were i on the jury, would have to do a good job of showing that JJ really raped the young woman. If they do that, then I'd vote for JJ's guilt. But, until then, and after hearing JJ's defense, I'd think carefully about voting to convict JJ. This is not an open/shut case for me.

 

[PTGrizzly]

This girl is going to get destroyed in court.

In all probability the girl will be destroyed in court. In the documents she claims she said, "not tonight", which does imply an ongoing sexual relationship. So what really does "not tonight" mean and think about where a defense attorney can go with that.

"Not tonight" means no. It doesn't matter if she had said earlier that she wanted to, or if they had been involved sexually before. The minute a girl says "no" or "stop", you stop.

I don't agree with that as a blanket statement. Let's just forget about this specific case because pretty much only two people in the world know exactly what really went on. But back to that statement, what if a girl tells you "Not Tonight", and you say "OK", and go back to watching the movie. Then after awhile she says... "I changed my mind... let's go for it." Wouldn't that be OK... or would I have to tell her, "Sorry... but you said 'not tonight' earlier, so we're going to have to wait until tomorrow'."

Well yes, I agree with you. I mean, based on your example she says "Not tonight" and you don't do anything, so that's fine. If you still went for it after she said "Not tonight", that's where you get into trouble IMO. I don't think your example is indicative of what happened in this specific event though.

 

[PTGrizzly]

Or what if she said not tonight at 11:50 pm and this occurred at 12:30 am? Technically (courts like technically) it wasn't tonight as it was in a new day. Maybe she should've said "not this morning."

Posts like this remind me of why I like you.

 

[bisonboone11]

This girl is going to get destroyed in court.

In all probability the girl will be destroyed in court. In the documents she claims she said, "not tonight", which does imply an ongoing sexual relationship. So what really does "not tonight" mean and think about where a defense attorney can go with that.

"Not tonight" means no. It doesn't matter if she had said earlier that she wanted to, or if they had been involved sexually before. The minute a girl says "no" or "stop", you stop.

I don't agree with that as a blanket statement. Let's just forget about this specific case because pretty much only two people in the world know exactly what really went on. But back to that statement, what if a girl tells you "Not Tonight", and you say "OK", and go back to watching the movie. Then after awhile she says... "I changed my mind... let's go for it." Wouldn't that be OK... or would I have to tell her, "Sorry... but you said 'not tonight' earlier, so we're going to have to wait until tomorrow'."

I can see your point with this, and it can't be applied to every situation. However, if she says "no, not tonight", and you continue to push the issue, you are putting yourself in a very dangerous situation. Obviously, if she was to change her mind later, then let her make the move, and it shouldn't be considered rape.

As far as this case, in the context of what occurred (according to her), "not tonight" would've obviously meant no. If the woman is putting her knees up and trying to push you away, that's a pretty good indication that she means no. I'm not saying that is necessarily what happened, but that is what she claims happened. If that is what truly happened, then it is absolutely rape. Also, if she is continually saying "no, not tonight" as it is happening, that could easily be considered rape.

 

[Grizbacker1]

"Not tonight" means no. It doesn't matter if she had said earlier that she wanted to, or if they had been involved sexually before. The minute a girl says "no" or "stop", you stop.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with you that going ahead with sex after a girl says "not tonight" is grounds for rape. Hell, my wife has said that many times over the years, and I go for it anyway! There are violent rapes, and the stuff that JJ is being charged for. Why didn't the girl cry out to her roommate sitting in the other room if she was being raped?? Give me a break. This chick is gonna ruin a kids life. I got a real problem with that, and you know that I am not easy on criminals. I just know that many of us guys have proceeded to push for sex after a girl says no. Are we all rapists then? If so, they will have to built 500% more prisons to house us all!

Figures

I'm figuring Growler has heard, "not tonight," a lot in his life.

usually he hears "stand up", followed by, "oh, I guess you are", and a roomful of laughter at his shortness