Dude, seriously, I think you're missing something.
She didn't have sex with the guy and then accuse him of rape when she found out he wasn't Jewish. She accused him of rape, as in, violent, forcible, "I didn't want to have sex with him, but he held me down and raped me" rape. He was arrested for forcible rape, not rape by deception. Rape by deception only came into the case later as the charge to which the alleged violent rapist pleaded, because of concerns about putting the alleged victim of the VIOLENT RAPE on the witness stand. The whole story about the rape by deception was basically made up by the prosecution because they needed to have some sort of narrative of the crime to put into the plea that would fit the charge to which the alleged VIOLENT RAPIST was pleading, in this case rape by deception.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Dude, seriously, I think you're missing something.
She didn't have sex with the guy and then accuse him of rape when she found out he wasn't Jewish. She accused him of rape, as in, violent, forcible, "I didn't want to have sex with him, but he held me down and raped me" rape. He was arrested for forcible rape, not rape by deception. Rape by deception only came into the case later as the charge to which the alleged violent rapist pleaded, because of concerns about putting the alleged victim of the VIOLENT RAPE on the witness stand. The whole story about the rape by deception was basically made up by the prosecution because they needed to have some sort of narrative of the crime to put into the plea that would fit the charge to which the alleged VIOLENT RAPIST was pleading, in this case rape by deception.
dude ... everything is speculative ... you want to believe the victim who apparently always seems to find herself in this position ... how many true rape victims have continually found themselves to be victims multiple times (by a different person) each time? ... and in each time going to the police?
i wonder who you would believe if the woman was palestinian and the accused israeli?
... but I don't think it is illogical to extend the definition of rape beyond obtaining sex by force. The underlying idea is to protect the woman's right to freely choose her partner, as well as her right to refuse, and I don't think a choice is really made freely if it is made as a result of fraud.
Have you ever experienced a one-night stand originating at a bar? Almost everyone is misrepresenting themselves (men AND women) in those situations in order to get the other person in bed. "I love you"... "I'm rich"... and apparently "I'm a jew"... By your definition of "rape" almost everytime a single young man had sex he would be guilty.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
i wonder who you would believe if the woman was palestinian and the accused israeli?
That's funny I wonder the same thing about others here as well.
the thing is ... most people here are arguing the nature of the law ... whether rape by deception is right or not ... i have said a couple of times now ... it's subjective ... but dude makes it appear that she is definitely right when he has no evidence ...
If the same thing happened but the woman was Palestinian and the man Israeli I would still believe the woman. Yes, this woman has reported multiple cases of sexual assault in the past, but that probably has to do with the fact that she finds herself/puts herself in bad situations a lot. Many of the previous cases were when she was repeatedly abused by her own father, and then there's the fact that she has worked as a prostitute. So sure, she has clearly made many bad decisions (in this case also, following a complete stranger into a strange building in the middle of the night is not a great idea), but that hardly makes her responsible for getting raped (and to even suggest that it does is shameful). It is a fact that the police found this woman naked, bruised, and bleeding, lying in shock in the stairwell of a random building. The hospital and the prosecutors documented her injuries. Is it certain that she was really the victim of a violent rape. No. But in such circumstances I am inclined towards believing the woman. Ethnicity has nothing to do with it.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
If the same thing happened but the woman was Palestinian and the man Israeli I would still believe the woman. Yes, this woman has reported multiple cases of sexual assault in the past, but that probably has to do with the fact that she finds herself/puts herself in bad situations a lot. Many of the previous cases were when she was repeatedly abused by her own father, and then there's the fact that she has worked as a prostitute. So sure, she has clearly made many bad decisions (in this case also, following a complete stranger into a strange building in the middle of the night is not a great idea), but that hardly makes her responsible for getting raped (and to even suggest that it does is shameful). It is a fact that the police found this woman naked, bruised, and bleeding, lying in shock in the stairwell of a random building. The hospital and the prosecutors documented her injuries. Is it certain that she was really the victim of a violent rape. No. But in such circumstances I am inclined towards believing the woman. Ethnicity has nothing to do with it.
where are these police reports you speak of!? ... everything you've posted is heresay from the victim ... we are talking about a person with mental health issues here ... and there is no excuse for getting raped and no one here is suggesting she deserved to be rape ... but, to ignore the fact that she is constantly in this position (of which i am not even referring to the abuse her father inflicted on her) is not being very objective ... i appreciate that you want to side with the victim and everyone has their right but this case is not cut and dry as you make it appear to be ... that is all ... there are so many inconsistencies with her testimony ...
The article in Haaretz details the state she was in when the police found her. I'm assuming that the reporters for a highly respected newspaper weren't just making shit up.
But look, even if there are questions as to whether she was really the victim of a violent rape, what is clear is that Kashur, the alleged rapist, is NOT the victim of a rape charge arising from racism, since the entire issue of rape by deception only entered the case because the prosecution was in need of a charge that carried a lesser sentence, and rape by deception fit the bill.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
The article in Haaretz details the state she was in when the police found her. I'm assuming that the reporters for a highly respected newspaper weren't just making shit up.
But look, even if there are questions as to whether she was really the victim of a violent rape, what is clear is that Kashur, the alleged rapist, is NOT the victim of a rape charge arising from racism, since the entire issue of rape by deception only entered the case because the prosecution was in need of a charge that carried a lesser sentence, and rape by deception fit the bill.
what article in haaretz? ... i just went thru all 5 pages and see no link to any article in haaretz ... did i miss it? ...
ultimately, the question is whether or not she was raped ...
Dude, seriously, I think you're missing something.
She didn't have sex with the guy and then accuse him of rape when she found out he wasn't Jewish. She accused him of rape, as in, violent, forcible, "I didn't want to have sex with him, but he held me down and raped me" rape. He was arrested for forcible rape, not rape by deception. Rape by deception only came into the case later as the charge to which the alleged violent rapist pleaded, because of concerns about putting the alleged victim of the VIOLENT RAPE on the witness stand. The whole story about the rape by deception was basically made up by the prosecution because they needed to have some sort of narrative of the crime to put into the plea that would fit the charge to which the alleged VIOLENT RAPIST was pleading, in this case rape by deception.
the problem with your claim is in the judge's comments:
"Handing down the verdict, Tzvi Segal, one of three judges on the case, acknowledged that sex had been consensual but said that although not "a classical rape by force," the woman would not have consented if she had not believed Kashur was Jewish.
The sex therefore was obtained under false pretences, the judges said. "If she hadn't thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have cooperated," they added.
The court ruled that Kashur should receive a jail term and rejected the option of a six-month community service order. He was said to be seeking to appeal."
why do you automatically believe the victim's rape by force claim when one of the presiding judges claims otherwise?
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
fine, I went back and found it "already addressed". I missed it.
but I don't find this was adequately addressed. Since when does a judge make comments based on a plea bargain, making up details of the crime that didn't actually happen? that's ludicrous.
for instance: a guy is charged with second degree murder. the defence makes a deal for manslaughter. would a judge say "I acknowledge you didn't actually intend to kill the victim". Judges don't generally make assumptions only for the fact that the prosecution can't prove the highest charge.
A judge has to work with what is given to him. The judge at the sentencing, which is where the media picked up the story, was given the plea bargain and then had to hand down a sentence based on it. His comments at sentencing pertained to the facts of the case established in the plea, NOT the facts of the initial investigation and charge.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Paul, the judge's comments, as I understand them, were made in the context of handing down a sentence for the charge to which the defendant pled guilty. His comments therefore addressed the facts of the case as established in the plea. In this case the plea was rape by deception, so the judge was simply addressing the "deception" described in the plea. To point to the judge's comments after the fact as proof of what actually happened ignores the entire chronology of events, i.e. that the original charge was forcible rape, and that the only reason "deception" became an issue was because the prosecution was looking for a lesser charge for a plea bargain to which the defendant might agree.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
You know...after everything else I read here, I have to ask...how the hell is my comment the one that you find distasteful?
because you are insinuating that people who defend Palestinians basic human rights and are critical of the Israeli government with good reason for the most part, are unable to look at anything objectively.
....because the prosecution was looking for a lesser charge for a plea bargain to which the defendant might agree.
And why would the prosecution try to find a lesser charge for the prosecuted if they were so dead cert of their client? If 'forcible rape' was that cut and dry, prosecutors would have gone for that, sparing their client or not.
That's based entirely on your own assumptions. And there is a difference between what a prosecutor is certain of and what he can prove in court. They could have been certain that this was a violent rape, but if they felt that their case rested on the testimony of the victim, and that the victim wouldn't be able to hold it together on the stand, then it's understandable that they would try to get whatever they could, even if it wasn't everything they wanted.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
ok ... i read the entire thing and nothing changes for me ...
for one: if you are being assaulted on a stairwell, why would you not ask for help from the lady that came? ... why would you accompany a man up the elevator? ... secondly, if a man violently rapes you - why on earth would he call you back 2 days later to meet again?
there are too many incosistencies to say one way or another in this case
Comments
She didn't have sex with the guy and then accuse him of rape when she found out he wasn't Jewish. She accused him of rape, as in, violent, forcible, "I didn't want to have sex with him, but he held me down and raped me" rape. He was arrested for forcible rape, not rape by deception. Rape by deception only came into the case later as the charge to which the alleged violent rapist pleaded, because of concerns about putting the alleged victim of the VIOLENT RAPE on the witness stand. The whole story about the rape by deception was basically made up by the prosecution because they needed to have some sort of narrative of the crime to put into the plea that would fit the charge to which the alleged VIOLENT RAPIST was pleading, in this case rape by deception.
dude ... everything is speculative ... you want to believe the victim who apparently always seems to find herself in this position ... how many true rape victims have continually found themselves to be victims multiple times (by a different person) each time? ... and in each time going to the police?
i wonder who you would believe if the woman was palestinian and the accused israeli?
Have you ever experienced a one-night stand originating at a bar? Almost everyone is misrepresenting themselves (men AND women) in those situations in order to get the other person in bed. "I love you"... "I'm rich"... and apparently "I'm a jew"... By your definition of "rape" almost everytime a single young man had sex he would be guilty.
That's funny I wonder the same thing about others here as well.
the thing is ... most people here are arguing the nature of the law ... whether rape by deception is right or not ... i have said a couple of times now ... it's subjective ... but dude makes it appear that she is definitely right when he has no evidence ...
where are these police reports you speak of!? ... everything you've posted is heresay from the victim ... we are talking about a person with mental health issues here ... and there is no excuse for getting raped and no one here is suggesting she deserved to be rape ... but, to ignore the fact that she is constantly in this position (of which i am not even referring to the abuse her father inflicted on her) is not being very objective ... i appreciate that you want to side with the victim and everyone has their right but this case is not cut and dry as you make it appear to be ... that is all ... there are so many inconsistencies with her testimony ...
But look, even if there are questions as to whether she was really the victim of a violent rape, what is clear is that Kashur, the alleged rapist, is NOT the victim of a rape charge arising from racism, since the entire issue of rape by deception only entered the case because the prosecution was in need of a charge that carried a lesser sentence, and rape by deception fit the bill.
what article in haaretz? ... i just went thru all 5 pages and see no link to any article in haaretz ... did i miss it? ...
ultimately, the question is whether or not she was raped ...
the problem with your claim is in the judge's comments:
"Handing down the verdict, Tzvi Segal, one of three judges on the case, acknowledged that sex had been consensual but said that although not "a classical rape by force," the woman would not have consented if she had not believed Kashur was Jewish.
The sex therefore was obtained under false pretences, the judges said. "If she hadn't thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have cooperated," they added.
The court ruled that Kashur should receive a jail term and rejected the option of a six-month community service order. He was said to be seeking to appeal."
why do you automatically believe the victim's rape by force claim when one of the presiding judges claims otherwise?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
HEY! ANSWER ME. WHAT THE HELL DO YOU MEAN.
-Yosi.
but I don't find this was adequately addressed. Since when does a judge make comments based on a plea bargain, making up details of the crime that didn't actually happen? that's ludicrous.
for instance: a guy is charged with second degree murder. the defence makes a deal for manslaughter. would a judge say "I acknowledge you didn't actually intend to kill the victim". Judges don't generally make assumptions only for the fact that the prosecution can't prove the highest charge.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Everyone. I wonder what this thread would look like if it was flipped.
You know...after everything else I read here, I have to ask...how the hell is my comment the one that you find distasteful?
What do you mean by 'if it was flipped'?
http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-e ... n-1.314319
And why would the prosecution try to find a lesser charge for the prosecuted if they were so dead cert of their client? If 'forcible rape' was that cut and dry, prosecutors would have gone for that, sparing their client or not.
i disagree that you were able to get away with threatening violence and telling me i'll be gagging on my teeth.
damn right i do.
ok ... i read the entire thing and nothing changes for me ...
for one: if you are being assaulted on a stairwell, why would you not ask for help from the lady that came? ... why would you accompany a man up the elevator? ... secondly, if a man violently rapes you - why on earth would he call you back 2 days later to meet again?
there are too many incosistencies to say one way or another in this case
If it were as Polaris was wondering...if the woman was Palestinian and the accused was Israeli.