There are in fact many facts in the paper, to include that the girl was 15 and wanted to get away from a man who had helped her become incredibly drunk, and insisted she have sex with him. She, a 15 year old, did not want to have sex with him, an adult man engaging in criminal behavior *as an adult*. He was wrong, not her. She had the right to defend herself, though you can’t believe we dare say the obvious. You can’t believe we “justify” her actions–what, in defending herself? Are you high? Her action requires no justification. She stabbed a man to get away.
A woman-and victim-friendly, in fact a plain old human-rights friendly interpretation of these facts will say that people and certainly teenagers have the right to defend their own person.
And to the person disturbed she covered his body–well she certainly made a huge ruckus afterward by smashing her fist through a window to escape and then knocking on the neighbor’s door. And the blood throughout the house was the result of one stab wound. Yes, a stabbing can be bloody. Ultimately self defense is a right everyone from nuns to teen prostitutes should have.

And please don’t defend Dan Satterberg. He and his former boss, Norm Maleng, conspired to tank a prosecution of a UW Huskie football player for rape. The case was a slam dunk; those two and the UW Regents did everything they could to smear the victim and destroy her case against the athlete.

but the facts in this case, they are to poingant to be dismissed

1. the girl was 15.5 years old (age of consent is 16?)
2. The man was 49 years old (33.5 years older than the girl)
3. The 49 year old took her to his home (child prostitute)
4. The 49 year old man served her alcohol (legal age of drinking?)
5. The 49 year old man hold her in his house against his will (kidnapping)
6. The 49 year old man holds her hostage – have sex and leave, or stay until you have sex with me and leave than (rape – no consent, but he is polite and lets her choose)
7. Girl decides to get the hell outta there, and looses it big time.

Looking at this, one with a vivid mind would call this kidnapping, drugging, conditioning (locked up in house), to have sex with a non consenting child. (Training of a sex slave – and yes sadly it does exist. )

If we know about this girl and her sad tale because she got out, run like hell, and survived.

How any court could send this girl to prison, is just beyond me. There is absolutely no reason for adding insult to injury. This girl should have been send to a safe and nice place, should be getting help, mentally, physically and spiritual. Above all, she should be receiving help in finding trust again.

To go to prison, because you dared to defend your self, from being imprisont and forced to have sex in exchange of your freedom.

Travesty.

I have relatively limited understanding of what you actually mean in your last paragraph. I think this is because you put words in our mouths, and as such, this is your specific viewpoint and not a representation of ours.

Why don’t I try to cut to the quick. It is english common law that a person, with presumptive normativity, has a legal right to claim self-defense to protect his person or his belongings. Most white men will not be charged under these circumstances. Depending on the status of the woman and her victim, most white women will not be charged under those circumstances either. If it’s a minority, then…

That’s what the news article is about, and the fuss in the blog. In no way are we talking about how the state prosecutes child molestation or rape, and in this forum, I’m reasonably sure that Cara, others, as well as me would take offense at the notion that we want to suspend civil rights for certain classes of people. I believe, profoundly, in the presumption of innocence, and I utterly abhore prosecutorial misconduct, which was the viewpoint expressed here, that the prosecutor was behaving abusively towards the defendant. In no way do I, nor anyone else here, support vigilante justice, by prosecutor or Superman.

I have, of course, expressed no remorse for the man’s death, because in the end, he was convicted by the circumstance of his own choosing and hung by his own petard.

Well, if you have something to share that wouldn’t violate someone’s privelege or professional ethics, by all means, enlighten us.

If you don’t…um…what was your point? That nobody knows all the facts based on newspaper articles? I think we already know that. It would be pointless to read the paper if your assumption was that every article was bullshit, but one generally assumes that stories are at least fact BASED. If there’s more to know, I’m all ears.

If the story is completely false or inaccurate, shouldn’t you be slinging your contempt at the papers printing the articles, not their readers?

However, I take offense at the notion that a “paid” lawyer would somehow act differently than a lawyer paid by the state in this type of situation. That is true in some communities but untrue in MANY communities.

The fact is that prosecutors have a lot of power to pressure defendants into taking deals. And our system is set up in such a way that certain rational, innocent people will plead guilty to crimes they did not committ in order to avoid the terrible terrible consequences of being wrongly convicted after trial.

My point was that I suspect that there are commenters on this thread, who rail agains the prosecutor and defense attorney in this case, but who, in other situations, fully support prosecutors using all of the coercive powers of their position to force defendants (perhaps those accused of rape or crimes against children) to plead guilty rather than insist on a trial. And you can’t have a separate system for people you personally sympathize with. The system we have punishes people for going to trial. Especially when they’re innocent.