Online outrage over Ohio rape case prompts city website

[happyslug]

60. So what is the Felony that the other teens SAW? And how do you prove "Knowing".

This is Common Law Misprision, which requires people to report FELONIES, but not Misdemeanors or summary offenses. To be guilty of Misprision you must KNOW what is being done is a felony, it is a defense you did NOT know it was a felony.

Remember, in this case the victim was allegedly unconscious. It that was do to a "Rape Drug" that would be a felony, but what if the other teens did not KNOW that the drug was being used? What if they thought the victim was just being taken some place safe to sleep off the alcohol? Remember, in this type of crime, the other teens must KNOW that the victim is being taken someplace to be raped. The last time I checked when people haul people out of parties, it is to someplace to sleep off the alcohol NOT to be raped. If the other teems assumed that to be the case, no knowledge of the rape existed and no knowledge is the same as not Knowing.

Remember, all the facts of the case against the other teens (other then the rapists) as to KNOWING what was going to happen to the Victim, has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Just seeing the victim being hauled away and making comments about her, does NOT show that they KNEW a rape was to occur. People can be cruel, but that is NOT illegal if it is all verbal (Remember of Freedom Speech, people have the right to say someone is a whore, slut, "should be raped" etc Such use of language is NOT a crime by itself).

The Prosecutor in a Criminal Case of Misprision of a Felony, MUST not only prove a Felony was going to take place, but that the Defendant KNEW that a rape was going to take place and did NOT report the rape. Notice the requirement that it can be shown someone KNEW the victim was going to be raped, merely using derogatory language and that the victim was in the proper condition to be raped, is NOT knowledge that a Rape was going to take place. Men (and women) make such comments all the time, but that does NOT lead to rape.

Now, if it can be shown that the victim was slandered or libeled on the tape (and that seems to be the case, I have NOT reviewed the tape) then the victim can sue for defamation.

Furthermore, people do NOT have a duty under the common law to help someone else. If you see someone drowning, you have no legal duty to save that person UNLESS you put that person in that position OR had some duty to that person (i.e. a babysitting watching a child, but only as long as the child is on her care). The law took this position, for it also adopted a strict liability rule to such assistance, if you harm that person in your attempts to save him or her, and is can be show that others could have saved that person without doing the harm, the person who did the harm (and saved someone life) is liable for the injury. You can NOT have that rule AND a rule that requires people to assist people in trouble. Whenever is has been proposed to change that rule, the police departments all lobby against it, for they see themselves being held liable in such cases, and thus do NOT want to be held to a duty to rescues people, they are willing to rescues people, but are unwilling to be legally required to do so.