You are viewing ginmar

Previous Entry | Next Entry

drac emu
Frank Campbell, the prosecutor, refused to prosecute the rape of a seventeen-year-old girl but did show the pictures of the assault to the families of the perpetrators and the witnesses. His excuse? There was alcohol involved.

For years, Phil Kline was the State AG and he used his position to relentlessly harass and hound Dr. George Tiller, using underage rape victims as an excuse for his panty-sniffing. Now we have this guy.

The girl and her family are suing. Seriously I'm just aghast. The perps took pictures of the rape in progress, which should have made prosecuting the rape a slam dunk, but instead the prosecutor re-violated the victim for God only knows what reason. He got six months punishment for something or other, but he should be disbarred and criminally prosecuted.

The girl and her family are suing. I hope they bankrupt the shitheel and somehow he goes to jail.

I really don't understand why women don't just rise up one day and revolt.

For further shits and giggles, once again the issue of "But what aobut the men?!" has arise on Jezebel, with the usual whining about what if men didn't want to have kids and did use BC? Pretty big what ifs, and they're always there, giving men the benefit of a doubt they haven't earned. The standard form of this debate always takes the form of people assuming the poor guy is innocent, the women is careless, and ignores reality, in which men lie, change their minds, lie some more, want biology to change to their benefit, and want to re-assert the ability to abandon women and kids like so many used condoms.

MTV has a show on about teenage mothers that illustrates this. Older men prey on younger girls, then abandon them. Teenage fathers beg girls to have babies, then change their mind too late. In real life, this is waht men do. Men want to turn every situation to their benefit, and whine that it's unfair when they don't get their way. Fact is, shit happens. Deal with it or be responsible. I've seen plenty of proof that men lie, sabotage BC, change their minds, lie some, and abandon women. Being responsible does not mean---as so many assholes have tried to twist it---that men can't have sex. In fact, they can't have plenty of sex, as long as they avoid PIV sex, or use BC all the time, or talk to their partners, or have a vasectomy, or exclusively date sterile women. Even so, there's always the risk of pregnancy. Sucks, but it's part of being a grownup. Guys want to have it all their way; condom-free PIV sex, no conversations about what if, and then being able to dump everytihng on women because OMG they didn't want to be a father. Try oral or anal sex, dudes. Hell, you might even consider being on the receiving end of some anal yourselves. Instead it's all about the vaginal penetration and condom-free ejaculation. If a guy walks drives a rattletrap car without seat belts after drinking and he runs a red light and gets smashed, it's really unfair for him to blame the woman who was abiding by the laws (of nature) and had the misfortune to run into him.

Men want to act recklessly and then skip off and once again leave women cleaning up their messes. Nope. This is just an argument for re-instating the good old days--if you were a man, that is---when men could skip off and leave women and children in poverty. I've heard cases where men lined up all their work buddies to testify that the wife they were divorcing was a whore, leaving her with nothing. What I want to know, is why do we never consider that men lie? It's always the assumption that women do all the lying. At the very least, the reality is that men have way more to gain by it, and are given the benefit of the doubt way too often. Let them prove their case. I bet most of them can't.

And no thanks, I'm not interested in yet another round of 'my best friend's nephew's girlfriend oopsed him.' Yeah, I'm sure the girl admitted it. Uh huh. When guys have every reason to lie, and society believes them, they have to prove it to me. Until then, tit for tat. They wanted equality? Let's let them walk a few miles in womens' high heels for a change.

Comments

( 30 comments — Leave a comment )
thelastmehina
Jul. 16th, 2009 10:13 pm (UTC)
Christ, the guy admitted in a letter that the photos depicted unlawful behavior? But still refused to prosecute? I'd try and have this guy disbarred.

And the thing that gets me is that I know the state of sex ed in this country is woefully poor, but it still shouldn't come as any surprise that sex = babies. If you don't want to have babies, take steps to make sure you don't have babies. And if a baby happens, do the right thing and the compassionate thing and take responsibility for the human being you created.
etf
Jul. 16th, 2009 10:34 pm (UTC)
Unfortunately, I believe the numbnut meant the underage drinking
not the rape. This is horrible. I hope the young lady takes him for every penny and he gets disbarred.
thelastmehina
Jul. 16th, 2009 10:39 pm (UTC)
Re: Unfortunately, I believe the numbnut meant the underage drinking
.... that's rather horrific. I'm sure there are some pictures somewhere depicting underage drinking without including sexual assault.

Because we all know, a sixteen year old with a beer he's not supposed to have is a far greater crime than putting his dick where it's not wanted!
lexica510
Jul. 16th, 2009 11:15 pm (UTC)
Re: Unfortunately, I believe the numbnut meant the underage drinking
Unfortunately, I would bet money that as far as this prosecutor is concerned, the real problem is "a sixteen year old with a beer she's not supposed to have".

I would love to lose such a bet...
thelastmehina
Jul. 16th, 2009 11:43 pm (UTC)
Re: Unfortunately, I believe the numbnut meant the underage drinking
Damn! I totally forgot that an underage girl drinking a beer means she's up for any sort of sex anyone feels like having with her.

Silly me!

I seriously hope they disbar this guy. Its too bad that he already sent a message, loud and clear, to the rapists.
berry_k
Jul. 16th, 2009 10:36 pm (UTC)
Shit like this makes me ashamed to have a Y chromosome.
ginmar
Jul. 16th, 2009 10:43 pm (UTC)
It's what you do with it that can be the problem. How about you write a letter to the Kansas AG or US Attorney or the State Bar Association?
baron_elric
Jul. 16th, 2009 11:11 pm (UTC)
Mr. Campbell needs to be disbarred, removed from office, tried for prosecutorial misconduct (plus conspiracy/aiding and abetting after the fact to felony rape? would love to get that piece of fecal matter for conspiracy), and sent somewhere where he won't have to interact with women for the next 10-25 years. Preferably at hard labor.
chaoticgoodnik
Jul. 16th, 2009 11:22 pm (UTC)
I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if this would apply. But I'd love to see him nailed on child pornography charges.
baron_elric
Jul. 16th, 2009 11:49 pm (UTC)
You're absolutely correct. If charges are being filed against teens for "sexting" then what this guy was doing sure ought to count as distributing pornography. Depending on jurisdiction I don't know whether 17 would be called "child," but Campbell deserves to be slapped with the biggest sledge hammer available.

Then a prosecutor who hasn't been practicing cranio-anal insertion needs to get the perps in front of a jury.
amblinwiseass
Jul. 17th, 2009 09:45 am (UTC)
21-3516. Sexual exploitation of a child.
(a) Sexual exploitation of a child is:
(1) Employing, using, persuading, inducing, enticing or coercing a child under 18 years of age to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of promoting any performance;
(2) possessing any film, photograph, negative, slide, book, magazine or other printed or visual medium or any audio tape recording or any photocopy, video tape, video laser disk, computer hardware, software, floppy disk or any other computer related equipment or computer generated image that contains or incorporates in any manner any film, photograph, negative, photocopy, video tape or video laser disk in which a visual depiction of a child under 18 years of age is shown or heard engaging in sexually explicit conduct with intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires or appeal to the prurient interest of the offender, the child or another; [...]


According to this website that makes me want to wash my brain out with soap, age of consent in Kansas is sixteen, but, unlike most of the state's laws on the subject, the above-quoted statute cites an age limit of eighteen -- which means that, depending on how you look at it, Frank Campbell is flagrantly guilty of a "severity level 5, person felony", whatever that is.

The problem is that there's a requirement to demonstrate prurient interest, and Campbell already has got his arguments lined up for how he's perfectly justified in showing people pictures of a seventeen-year-old girl being raped for reasons that of course have nothing to do with prurience at all, so I don't expect he'll ever see the inside of a cell for what he has done. But it's going in my letter to the Kansas AG (address here), for whatever good it might do; I don't think there's a hope in hell that anyone will ever prosecute him for what he's done -- I mean, where's the political benefit in it? -- but maybe I'll be lucky enough to communicate with someone who not only can bring Campbell to heel, but happens to be enough of a human being to see the necessity of doing so.
witch_wolf
Jul. 17th, 2009 01:34 am (UTC)
Six months! WTF -- Disbarment --


I was watching CNN today and they kept flashing a report across the screen that stated -- Childless man inpressioned for child support! Read the story and find out that he was dating a woman who got pregnant, and he believed that he was the father and agreed to child support - In 2002 the court ordered a DNA test and in that test he found out that he wasn't the bio father, but the court determined that he still owed 16,000 in back child support because he signed an agreement that he would pay it.

He went to jail for non payment because he lost his job and didn't call the court to make arrangements -- The judge let him out this time and I guess they cleared him from paying the child support.

---

I remember working for a company. A man was in the process of divorce and he negotiated with the company that it would look like he took a 50% pay cut and they would send the rest of the money to his parents checking account in FLA -- And he sold his car, and bought one and put it in his parents name -- It worked because he won-- The little girl was a lovely little girl - I always wondered where she came from because she was just adorable. I guess it wasn't her fault that her father was an asshole -
keori
Jul. 17th, 2009 02:11 am (UTC)
There are times when, despite the societal problems and legal non-existence and bashings and everything else, I am SO grateful to identify as a lesbian, because I don't have to be with a man to have a romantic partner.

This post is one of those times.
lillim
Jul. 17th, 2009 04:15 am (UTC)
For further shits and giggles, once again the issue of "But what aobut the men?!" has arise on Jezebel, with the usual whining about what if men didn't want to have kids and did use BC?

I had a massive argument about this topic, and men paying child support if a woman choses to continue a pregnancy, on my LJ a few months back.
The amount of 'but women deliberately get pregnant! I know a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy...' or 'Mens shouldnt be responsible if they say from the start they dont want babies! Or if a woman decides to keep the baby against his wishes!' just astounded me. And these were self-proclaimed liberal feminists or 'feminist allies'. Fact is, all the statistics I've seen support (and I'll dig up the link when I'm not stealth-posting from work) that men are more likely to force a pregnancy on their partner than the other way around, and it's usually within the confines of an abusive relationship.

My view on it is this: Dont want to run the risk of getting someone pregnant? Then dont fuck in such a way that sperm might get near an egg. There's a whole world of other stuff that horny people can get up to, so there's no excuse for dodging responsibility just because things didnt turn out the way you wanted.

ginmar
Jul. 17th, 2009 04:21 am (UTC)
But...but...that's the rightwing argument! Yeah, you'll get that. And yeah, so....men don't lie? Change their minds? Lie again? When a man lies, we believe him; we want it to be the truth. When a woman tells the truth, we call her a liar.
lillim
Jul. 17th, 2009 04:57 am (UTC)
It's because we have those tiny little woman-brains, sent crazy by our great overlord, the uterus. Which we want to stuff full of babies as soon and as frequently as we can, and damn any man who will get in our way!
virago12
Jul. 18th, 2009 04:13 am (UTC)
"My view on it is this: Dont want to run the risk of getting someone pregnant? Then dont fuck in such a way that sperm might get near an egg. There's a whole world of other stuff that horny people can get up to, so there's no excuse for dodging responsibility just because things didnt turn out the way you wanted."

Condom use among men is 20%, and that's because they always whine that the sex isn't as good. Wah! Anyway, these same dipshits that want to blame women for lying about birth control most likely don't wear condoms. Yet, they still have the nerve to want to get out of paying for child support because "it was her fault for lying". I have to laugh because I work in the medical field, and there's this thing called Universal Precautions. If a medical worker doesn't wear gloves and gets HIV, they can't come up with the excuse that they didn't know the patient had HIV, or the patient lied about having HIV. The reason behind this is that medical workers do not know whether a patient is HIV positive or not, and because of this, medical workers have to treat ALL PATIENTS as if they were HIV positive and wear gloves for EVERYONE. To me, a guy not wearing a condom is the same damn thing. He doesn't know what woman is not birth control or not, but he should treat ALL WOMEN as if they were and wear a condom. That way, he has absolutely no excuse to blame a pregnancy on her alone. I really think they should make a law based on this premise to keep guys from blaming wommen just because they didn't want to be responsible. The Universal Precaustion Condom Law sounds good to me.
lillim
Jul. 19th, 2009 01:29 am (UTC)
20%? Bloody hell. What age group is that?

I think that's a brilliant law!

I just cant fathom why people go bareback. Preganancy isnt the only thing you can catch from unprotected sex, and that alone should make you wrap it.
virago12
Jul. 19th, 2009 06:43 am (UTC)
"20%? Bloody hell. What age group is that?"

I'm not sure, but it's the age group that are causing all the pregnancies.

"I just cant fathom why people go bareback. Preganancy isnt the only thing you can catch from unprotected sex, and that alone should make you wrap it."

Yeah, and that's why the universal precautions that keep medical workers from getting HIV makes a lot of sense in condom use as well. OTOH, I've been in a dv situation where my ex refused to wear condoms (I knew he was cheating), and I didn't dare say no to sex a lot. There are many more of those situations than people realize.
lillim
Jul. 20th, 2009 12:47 am (UTC)
Oh, absolutely - Sorry, I should have been clearer. DV completely changes the situation - unprotected sex is another tool in the abuse toolbox.

lillim
Jul. 20th, 2009 01:36 am (UTC)
thanks :)

amethyst_hunter
Jul. 17th, 2009 07:28 am (UTC)
I really don't understand why women don't just rise up one day and revolt.

I volunteer to help cleanse humanity of Teh Stoopid. I think that would be the one thing I'd actually do well at and have a *lot* of fun doing...!

May Campbell and Kline awake one day to discover half their torsos devoured by flesh-eating ants. Or something.
laughingrat
Jul. 17th, 2009 02:47 pm (UTC)
for God only knows what reason

Oh, we know the reason. *grim*

as long as they avoid PIV sex

Grrl, you know that PIV intercourse is the only real "sex." You talk like you're living in a post-Patriarchy world or something, thinking that anything where a penis isn't inserted in some woman's nether regions could possibly be "sex."

Every time I hear "oops" as a verb it makes me wanna hit something. I'm sure you feel the same.

Ugh, Patriarchy hurts my brain. No wonder I drink so many cocktails these days. And no, I don't know why we don't rise up and revolt either.
sophiaserpentia
Jul. 18th, 2009 03:00 am (UTC)
Unrelated -- in case you didn't see this:

GAO: VA Failing to Serve Women Warriors
ginmar
Jul. 18th, 2009 03:22 am (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that.
slythwolf
Jul. 18th, 2009 04:29 am (UTC)
This is kind of tangent-y, but it's why I'm wary of one of my friends' new boyfriend. He is always going on and on about what a crazy bitch his ex-wife is. When dudes talk like that, usually it's that they were abusive and the woman decided not to put up with it anymore.
ginmar
Jul. 18th, 2009 04:30 am (UTC)
Yeah, pretty much.
irateislander
Jul. 18th, 2009 03:39 pm (UTC)
The treatment of the rape survivor is appalling. I can't imagine how much additional stress and terror he has caused her. He has no business in his profession and I hope she & her family get every penny he has from the civil suit.

As to the issue of men/child support & children, which some attempt to frame as being opposite of abortion rights, I think many times the issues of emotional/ethical responsibilities and rights get conflated with legal responsibilities & rights. Legally, no matter what, since the girls'/women's bodies are the ones being affected by pregnancy and the outcome of the pregnancy (whether it's a birth or abortion), the decision should be the girl's or the woman's. And legally, if she decides to go through with the pregnancy, he is and should be obligated to support the child financially.

If guys don't like it, don't have sex, problem solved! Even when girls and women use birth control faithfully, they are exposed to possible pregnancy and the obligation to make a decision if that happens.

That applies legally no matter what. Emotionally, things can get a bit trickier. And please note that when I talk about the emotional rights & responsibilities, I'm talking about healthy, adult relationships. When a teenage girl is exploited or when either a woman or a girl is being abused by her partner, the emotional rights & responsibilities wouldn't apply as she needs to do whatever she can for her safety & health.

But going back to the context of a healthy, adult relationship, ideally a couple should be talking about the possibility of "what if" before they have sex to make sure they are on the same page. Of course, their views in theory may be different than if they're actually faced with a decision in reality.

If they haven't had that talk before an unplanned pregnancy, they should be having it when they are deciding what to do about it. A friend of mine found out there's a good chance his wife lied to him about having an abortion, never letting him know she was pregnant. He wasn't abusive and she had lied to him about a lot of other important things and refused any attempts he made to improve communication (e.g. wanting to go for marriage counseling). The marriage was already on the rocks and that was the final blow. He initiated divorce proceedings and is now remarried. Legally, she had every right to do what she did and I don't think that should change. Emotionally, I think what she was wrong and detrimental to the trust and loyalty in their relationship. But that shouldn't be legislated by the law. He had options to address that (divorce).

Another interesting thing which comes up in these arguments is that people object to the man/boy merely having to pay for money. I don't know of any cases where a judged mandated the father spend time with the children. So fathers are basically free to walk away from their emotional & physical (caregiving) responsibilities without so much as having to sign adoption papers. Mothers, on the other hand, unless they give their children up via social services or drop them off somewhere under safe haven laws can be charged with abandonment for walking away from the emotional & physical responsibilities to a child. Seems like fathers are off the hook rather cheaply compared to mothers (only having to contribute money, nothing else). Which is another reason why the decision to abort or give birth should be the mother's solely (at least in the legal sense).
miz_evolution
Jul. 19th, 2009 03:24 pm (UTC)
This judge? He ought to be hit with the 2257 baseball bat- which is to say, charged with posession of and diseminating child pornography- which carries a pretty horrible sentence (as well it should). The evidence in this rape was not used as it should be (which is to prove a rape happened), and he is showing around photos of (in his opinion) "drunk sex between underaged parties"...aka...child porn. The dude who took the photos should be charged with MAKING child pornography....

I feel a letter to the bar coming on. Holy shit, I am using my knowledge of porn law Not For Evil....

In fact, I feel a post about this coming on too.

And I so hear you on the lack of responsibility thing. EVERY DAY there are examples of men walking out on women they got pregnant and blaming the women. It's utter bullshit and it makes my infuriated.
( 30 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

October 2014
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner