What is Digg?246 Comments
- nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -32/+222Girls might lie about being raped?! Impossible! Girls are sweet, kind, honest, virtuous saints. At least juries are no longer buying the "this guy is a rapist, therefore, he must have committed this rape" line. Maybe some good will come from the Duke lacrosse fiasco. When 40% of all rape accusations are false, we have a serious problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics - t4k3n, on 10/12/2007, -7/+141To escape the dungeon you have to use the skeleton key..
- Dreww40, on 10/12/2007, -4/+136It wasn't a rape dungeon, it was an underground place beneath his shed where he packaged marijuana. supposedly the girls snuck in to steal some and made up the rape story because they were caught or were afraid he would come get them and it was already public knowledge that he was already a convicted sex offender.
- fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -14/+1371) Just because he committed a past rape, *doesn't* mean he he committed THESE alleged rapes.
2) Teen girls are notorious for lying to get/stay out of trouble. Would they lie about a sexual assault to avoid jail time for drug possession? Yes they would, and if you think otherwise, you may want to leave your basement and interact with a real female.
3) Their stories kept changing.These changes were the sort you make when you make something up, NOT when you are trying to forget a traumatic incident. When the only two victims/witnesses can't be trusted, you've got a problem.
4) This guy wasn't found innocent. He was found *not guilty*. It's not the same thing. Innocent = he DIDN'T do the crime. Not guilty just means there wasn't enough evidence to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the evidence establishes actual innocence, judges will issue a finding of factual innocence. - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -12/+121"i can only blame the absurd laxness of a system that bends over backwards to protect the rights of sex offenders"
'cause you only have rights until you've been accused of a crime, right? Innocent until proven guilty. I know, it seems like a waste to give people the benefit of the doubt... til you or someone you love has been accused of something. - Intrexed, on 10/12/2007, -51/+130Personally I would think two witnesses and finding an underground rape chamber in his backyard would be sufficient enough evidence.
- venom8599, on 10/12/2007, -2/+68@ariastar
Nope, not statutory since they were 17. The age of consent in SC is 16.
This whole thing is what trials are for. He was found "Not Guilty" so apparently there was insufficient evidence to convict him. That's the way the justice system works. It's not perfect, but it's better than being guilty until proven innocent. - cheez, on 10/12/2007, -25/+79@intrexed: "Personally I would think two witnesses and finding an underground rape chamber in his backyard would be sufficient enough evidence."
I agree with the second part, but victims can not legally be considered witnesses. so, there were none. - venom8599, on 10/12/2007, -1/+54@rm999
Dude, you RTFA. He was accused of raping two girls this time. Now just because someone has been convicted of rape before, does not automatically make him guilty of these two counts of rape. Sure, he's a scumbag from the first one, but even scumbags are entitled to fair and just treatment under the law.
He served his time, he paid the price for his crime. It does not mean that he's guilty until proven innocent. Jeez. It's amazing how many people will throw the justice out of the justice system on a whim. - ijustfloat, on 10/12/2007, -12/+59Yup.
They just wanted the man's weed.
Poor guy. I heard about this on the news and I was appalled. But now, I'm just kinda pissed. - Khojigybarra, on 10/12/2007, -4/+41Yeah, but unless you were there and heard the entire story and testimony, the media portrayed view of the guy may be biased. He's a sex offender, and an easy person to smack with the "GUILTY" stamp, but that means he may just be an easy mark.
- stevealford, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33NOT RELATED TO THIS SPECIFIC STORY:
Statutory rape is the biggest ***** law on the books. Let's say I was 19 and my girlfriend was 17. Say we decide to celebrate her 18th birthday with sex and we're primed and ready for midnight. Just as the clock turns over to 12:00, we start to have sex... then her parents come in... and we find out that her clock was ten minutes fast. How many of you would agree with the statutory rape law if this happened to you? Technically, you've broken the law, even though you didn't intend to. Now you have a very good chance of being convicted and going to prison. You're guilty of statutory rape, caught red-handed, and in most states will be sent to prison for at least five years.
I know that's not how it usually goes and my example is an extreme one. Nevertheless, if someone DECIDES to have sex, they should be allowed to... whether she's 16 or 60. If it was against her will, it's rape regardless of age... so if we can charge minors as adults if they steal, kill, or break another law... then why are they adults in the eyes of the law sometimes, but not when they WANT to be? It's a ***** law leftover from pioneer days when virginity was cherished and the attitude was that anyone who ***** your daughter was a rapist because she was raised a good christian and only an evil rapist would convince a sweet 17 year old girl to have sex.
It's total ***** that as a society we pretend to care so much about them up until the eve of their 18th birthday... then want them to star in our next Girls Gone Wild tape, get drunk and naked for us, or just give us a good blowjob the very next day. Consensual sex should be legal because, quite frankly, people will find a way to ***** if they really want to. Lock your teenage daughter in her room, but if she sneaks out and ***** a college guy, don't throw HIM in jail... that's a ***** travesty. - goldfenix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25I do not recall where I heard it from, but I seem to remember a friend mentioning that they found certain things lacking in evidence. Stuff like that the girls claimed to have been duct taped, but no traces of the glue-like substance that is on duct tape was found on the girls.
Just saying... try not to go ballistic when you hear the word "rape." Even an evil man deserves proper justice, not this preemptive skewering by the media just to sell newspapers. - phaed, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28@AdmiralAdama (#6315635)
Well. What if i get a couple of friends to say you raped them. Wouldn't that be funny. Why bend over backwards to protect the rights of a sex offender. Right? - Sterango, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24You're pretty naieve if you think 17 year olds are that brainless that they don't know what's going on and are so easily taken advantage of. Either that or you think it's OK for them to choose who they want to ***** but then come around and pull the rape card. I don;t know who's more deranged, you or these skanks that concocted this ***** story. Bottom line is these hobags made a plot to put this dude away forever to sell off his pot for some quick money.
- everfalling, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22@fatdog789
can you be found innocent? i always thought it was either guilty or not guilty. - kidd3ckz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22lol ur daughters are gonna suck ***** eventually.
- mrmcphee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21Picture of the guy
http://www.crimesceneblog.com/?p=214 - nsummy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22Wow this title sure doesn't use loaded words to get diggs. Obviously the girls were of consenting age (17). The only thing this man (and these girls) are guilty of are poor judgement. From what I've read also, it sounds to me like this "dungeon" was created more for his marijuana growing operations than to be used as a torture chamber
- gid13, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19@phoephus: his claim appears to be that he had marijuana. That would be at least a plausible reason to build an underground room. I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm just saying that it might be inappropriate to assume there's enough evidence to convict him.
- goodoldharris, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19cheez:
"victims can not legally be considered witnesses."
That's complete bogus. I can't believe people are digging you up for it. - ErrorS, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Isn't that nice.. why dont you people start a lynch mob and go after him?
You have to remember, 12 jurors, after hearing the evidence, found him "Not Guilty". 12 normal people like you and me, 12 people that know MUCH more about the situation than any of us.
But really, I love how people respect the law in this country. Even though he was found Not Guilty he is going to have to live the rest of his life knowing people judge him regardless.. You're all pieces of *****.
and haven't you all seen "Nightmare on Elm Street" ? Let it go - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -13/+30@intrexed
Underground rape chamber ?
You idiot it's where he hung and dryed his weed, that ***** stinks when it's drying. I got me one out back i call it the root celler. Underneath the barn.
Sure i partied under there and have a TV and mini bad, Hell even got head there on occasion. But it's not a Rape chamber !! It's for drying, re-planting pots, and hiding my weed when in season in time for picking. Good thing he never had a tree house you morons would be calling it the Rape Shack !! - Enceladus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16"Crappy prosecutor perhaps? Maybe the jury wasn't allowed access to vital evidence for some technical reason. Something is fishy about this whole thing."
I think that something fishy is called reasonable doubt. - ffejrey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17"finding an underground rape chamber in his backyard would be sufficient enough evidence."
FTA "He said they made up the story so they would be able to take drugs from the underground room, which he used to store marijuana."
I'm more likely to believe that he spent two years making this for marijuana then to use it solely for an underground "rape chamber". - Chingmiester, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Or maybe they tricked him into thinking they were down with some fantasy-football, then stole all of his weed and sat in his sex-dungeon smoking it for 6 days, while he was bound with duct tape.
- crossmr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Its not statutory rape in that state. Get your head out of your ass.
- stevealford, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Then maybe you should try to learn the FACTS OF THE CASE instead of making snap judgements based on headlines and your own preconceived prejudices.
I suppose if you'd gotten a speeding ticket before, you'd want a judge to automatically assume you were guilty and suspend your license with the maximum fine as well if you got a ticket... before you even got to present your case. Is that what you're saying? - atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -24/+38Is it about the same man? http://digg.com/offbeat_news/DNA_exonerates_man_who_served_25_years_for_rape
- stephant, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13@cheez
Although I understand your point and it's all really just a semantic quibble, you are unfortunately wrong. In the United States there are basically two types of law. There is criminal law that determines the rights between an individual and the State. Then there is civil law that determines the rights between two individuals or legal entities (corporations and the like) or any combination of those two. Since these two girls were testifying in a criminal trial they were not parties to the action at all. The action was "State v. X" or whatever. They were witnesses to a crime against the state, they were not a party to the action. If, however, they decide to file a lawsuit against the guy to recover damages then it would be "Girls v. X". In that case you might argue they could not be "witnesses" since they are a party to the action but that wouldn't be accurate either. Anyone that can testify to something they actually witnessed is a witness in a court of law. What you seem to have issue with is that they might be biased since they were victims and they wouldn't be credible witnesses but that is a separate issue entirely. They were witnesses without any doubt. - rocket000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11AdmiralAdama, he said the girls made that part up. He didn't say they stayed in the dungeon by their own free will. I think if was stashing pot in the underground room, then it would make sense. It would also explain why the girls knew about the room and what made them think of including it in the story in the first place.
- Sterango, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17Here's my take on this.
I don't believe the girls.
I am not sure what the average Digg user's experience is with girls today in a social scene but lets just say there's some scandalous girls out there.
This guy served 11 years already for raping a girl. Considering he's not outright dumb, I'd think you'd NOT want to do the same thing again and go back for that sort of thing knowing what time you face behind bars.
Basically what i think it boils down to is this, the girls were skanks to begin with (having sex with someone who is that old in relation to their own age, I mean he's not the most ugly of people but no prince charming either). and he felt comfortable enough letting them in on his pot growing secrets, if that wasn't even the reason they were banging him in the first place.
The girls see the old useless guy as nothing but a fleshy obstacle in their way to selling off this pot as their own and making some big dough.
The whorebags make up the story, case closed. - venom8599, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14@rm999
He wasn't accused in two different cases. It was all tied together. They claimed it overlapped--that he got them one at a time, but other than that they were held together, etc.. Again, that's what we have trials for, and apparently, the evidence just wasn't there so he was found not guilty. You need more than just the victim's word to convict someone of rape or any other crime like this. - Sterango, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13WHY are ***** digging you down? You're correct. ***** retards.
- bluesdealer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13"Yopu know, history will look back in the mid 2000s and deterine that right below Britney Spears and Paris Hilton on hte intelligence ladder are people who quote Wiki-*****-pedia for ANYTHING."
You're correct in saying that Wikipedia is a non-credible source by academic standards (even according the site's creator admits this is inherent to Wikipedia's open nature), but it is a huge gateway to useful information. If the information posted on Wikipedia is backed up by credible sources (the footnote links), then those can be used. Wikipedia is nothing short of revolutionary. Deal with it. - stevealford, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Well Doug, I understand that you think he should still be in jail for his prior conviction, but he's not. You should not be disgusted that people support him on THIS CASE because all the details that we've seen indicate to a rational mind that he's innocent of THESE charges. The fact that 12 jurors agreed that the charges weren't true should be enough, especially considering that there should have been at least a few parents on that jury and they would have known more about his prior conviction than any of us... prosecutors love to air defendants' dirty laundry if it has any relevance to the charges. Given all that, do you think it's fair for you to say that you're sickened that a man gets support from us AFTER being found not guilty?
- mancat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8you mean to tell me that there was weed in that room? he never told me about any weed.
- stevealford, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@orp2000: Since you don't know me, I find it amusing that you'd say that. I live with my girlfriend and with whom I have a monogomous relationship. She and I are both legal adults. You assume that I just want to go ***** anyone I want, but that's not the case. I'd rather just not have a bad law on the books and ignore it because "it doesn't affect me."
- stevealford, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10You used an 8 year old girl as an example. That's not statutory rape, that's the same as raping a retarded person... they don't actually understand the act that's being done, so they'd be inclined to agree in an attempt to keep everyone smiling. In that case, the person is guilty of rape.
I'm not saying I'm in favor of little girls having sex, mind you... just that if you look at the numbers of teenage girls having sex (just check the teen pregnancy rate or go to the mall and look at all the teeny-whores), you get the feeling that the statutory laws have the same effect that the prohibition laws had on consumption of alcohol. There are a lot of people in jail for ***** a 16 or 17 year old chick and if the sex was consensual, then they shouldn't be.
Meanwhile, a guy a year younger than he is getting her drunk off wine coolers and pounding it scot-free. Do you think a 17 year old guy who ***** a 16 year old girl should be charged as an adult and tried for statutory? Same argument, my friend. No matter which side you choose, you can be made to look like an idiot, *****, or bastard using nothing but logic and evidence. I've chosen the easiest side to be mocked for or called a pervert, but to me it's the one that seems to be the least evil. - goldfenix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Yeah, I'm sure that court reporter had it comin' anyway! Kill 'em all, I say, and let God sort 'em out!
- nullity, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8The headline: "Man Has Sex With Two Girls For Six Days in Dungeon..."
The article: "However, Hinson testified during the six-day trial that the girls had consensual sex with him."
I do not think that means what you think it means... - gethane, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17Oh gee, after seeing the pictures, I'm sure it was consensual. All 17 year old teen girls would want to hit that.
- phaed, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13@intrexed (#6314739)
takes a biased mind like yours to think an underground grow-room a "rape chamber" - Soulhuntre, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8You know, every girl in every BDSM club - every girl trading blowjobs for "X" or coke, every mean bitch who ever lied to the police are all someones daughter. It doesn't make them special.
- Gryffydd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Well now, if it's conceptual sex, it *can't* be rape!
- dkm201, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6INTERNET SUPREME COURT TO THE RESCUE
- Nodaki, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9So your second hand knowledge of this case and a video clip of the "victims'" relatives crying is enough for you to be 100% certain that this guy did what these girls said he did?
Fact: The prosecutorial team did not come up with enough evidence besides what sounds like complete ***** testimony from the "victims" was not enough to convince a jury of 12 of his peers (who were well aware of his prior conviction) to convict him.
Fact: In the Empire of the United States of America citizens are innocent until proven guilty by a jury of their peers.
Fact: Most people in the Empire of the United States of America hate chomos and trailer trash and would love to throw the book at scumbags like this dude.
Fact: You were not on the jury
Fact: You don't know the testimony of the girls or the other details in the case besides headlines and media sensationalism.
Fact: Europeans/Australians are insanely jealous of the great and powerful Empire of the United States and will exploit every opportunity they have "American arseholes" to take cheapshots at the corrupt but still better than everyone else Empire of the United States of America.
Fiction: People who believe that an informed jury who knew both sides of this case better than you are ***** misogynist *****.
- michaelb1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"stereotypes are a real time saver"
- pixelwerx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6What the ***** is wrong with you?
- mrharvey518, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Admiral,
They weren't down there for six days. It was a six day trial. I followed this pretty closely and it appeared that he wasn't guilty. Although, his attorney was excellent. -
Show 51 - 100 of 251 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is