This is a bad verdict

[Quantum Windbag]

Stay home in a burka.

That seems to be the essence of it. I thought we got over the "She was asking for it" defense a long time ago.

QW don't devolve into of those morons in this thread, you know damned well that no one is saying such a thing.

But you are. You claim that she implied consent because she was in the bar dancing, and that GGW often shows girls getting naked. If she did not want to get naked, she should not have been in that bar.

There is no moral or legal difference between that argument and a rapist saying that his victim asked for it by being in the wrong part of town, or wearing the provocative clothing she was wearing when he attacked her. If you don't like the company you are in then you should think about moving, don't expect me to sugarcoat it because you are offended. Your attitude offends me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From my understanding, this was a civil case and not a criminal one. Also, the consent was not just her dancing for the cameras or being at the bar, the GGW brand actually advertises at college campuses and rents the bar for a few days to film. Before going into the establishment, you are briefed on what is going on, what is expected of you and you give your verbal consent to be filmed or you won't be admitted. If she really had a problem with her boobs being flashed, then she should have gone after the person that lifted her shirt. The cameramen are not allowed to touch anyone at the establishment for obvious legal reasons so it had to be another patron that lifted her shirt.

How do you know she didn't?

The point of this case was that GGW essentially filmed a sexual assault, and made money off the girl who was victimized. Now you are saying that she consented to the baring of her breasts despite the fact that she is on video clearly saying no when asked, and immediately covering up her breasts after it occurred. Even if she gave prior verbal and written consent to having her breasts exposed, which is not the case, she is entitled to change her mind. GGW might have a case against her for breach of contract, if they paid her in advance. That would still not entitle them to profit off a crime.

Did she charge that person with sexual assault then or now?

I don't know. Perhaps she tried and the idiot prosecutor thought she was asking for it because she was in the bar dancing.

The point is that even if she did not, it does not mean she consented to what happened. Nor does it make GGW right for making money from her clearly saying no, and filming it.

 

[Immanuel]

So, the fact that she actually said no to the request, and reacted negatively after the event, and that this is all on tape, proves she consented.

Wow, I hope your ADA never works in sex crimes because a lot of people will walk free. Apparently implied consent of being dressed provocatively, dancing, or being in the wrong place, makes sexual assault justifiable. I will be sure to reference that opinion if I ever decide to rape someone.

I guess those people who think you want to roll laws back to the 50s are right.

Actually, my wife does handle rape cases, although they are VERY rare around here. And, although that is slightly different because of statute of limitations and such. She says that yes, if a victim came forward years after the "rape" and the incident was on tape with her saying "oh no oh no" but she knew who did it but made no attempt to complain to anyone for an extended period of time she would have a VERY hard decision about whether to prosecute or not, although really it would be her bosses call with her input, and that she would not call it a baf verdict if it came back not guilty.

Did this girl know that she was on the tape before she saw it, or did she assume that because she said no she wasn't on the tape? Personally, I would think that if someone was filming something, and they asked my consent to show me in the film, and I clearly said no, on tape, they would not use my image. Maybe I am just old fashioned.

Believe it or not, courts actually allow people to argue that they did not know about something before they start running a clock on how long they have to respond to it. You just assume that she knew she was on tape, with no evidence to the contrary. I don't think that even GGW tried to run that one through the court, because I am sure that they film hundreds of hours of video for every disc they sell.

In fact, I know they do, because the sleazeball that runs GGW didn't even know he had someone in his archives from a few years back, and offered her a few thousand to make a video.

My thoughts exactly. Did she know they included the film of her assault? I would guess she believed that her protestation afterwords would have been enough to cause them to edit it out. Then several years later she finds out they did not do so? I would hope and think she could make a case of that.

Immie

 

[syrenn]

How do you know she didn't?

The point of this case was that GGW essentially filmed a sexual assault, and made money off the girl who was victimized. Now you are saying that she consented to the baring of her breasts despite the fact that she is on video clearly saying no when asked, and immediately covering up her breasts after it occurred. Even if she gave prior verbal and written consent to having her breasts exposed, which is not the case, she is entitled to change her mind. GGW might have a case against her for breach of contract, if they paid her in advance. That would still not entitle them to profit off a crime.

Did she charge that person with sexual assault then or now?

I don't know. Perhaps she tried and the idiot prosecutor thought she was asking for it because she was in the bar dancing.

The point is that even if she did not, it does not mean she consented to what happened. Nor does it make GGW right for making money from her clearly saying no, and filming it.

Then i would suggest you find out. As far as i am concerned if she DID NOT at the time charge that person with assault.....regardless if it was prosecuted or not, she didnt think she was assaulted.

He actions suggest to me that all she wanted was money from GGW.

 

[ConHog]

Did this girl know that she was on the tape before she saw it, or did she assume that because she said no she wasn't on the tape? Personally, I would think that if someone was filming something, and they asked my consent to show me in the film, and I clearly said no, on tape, they would not use my image. Maybe I am just old fashioned.

Believe it or not, courts actually allow people to argue that they did not know about something before they start running a clock on how long they have to respond to it. You just assume that she knew she was on tape, with no evidence to the contrary. I don't think that even GGW tried to run that one through the court, because I am sure that they film hundreds of hours of video for every disc they sell.

In fact, I know they do, because the sleazeball that runs GGW didn't even know he had someone in his archives from a few years back, and offered her a few thousand to make a video.

As was pointed out, the girl was aware that she might end up on video by being in that establishment while cameras were rolling. She willfully went in anyway. That is implied consent, or at the very least acknowledging that you know it is possible that you might end up on the video. If she didn't know then that they wanted her boobs on camera, then who was she saying no to? Oh that's right, the cameraman so once she realized someone lifted her top in front of the camera, why didn't she go to the producer right away and say she didn't consent to that? There's no doubt she knew then that it was videod. So that argument is OUT.

Bullshit.

Implied consent does not trump a clear no, when she said no to the request, and then reacted negatively afterward, that settles it in my mind. If she was trying to argue that she did not want to be in the video at all, your argument might make sense, but she did not argue that, she argued that she did not give permission for the nudity.

Do you want to try and twist the fact that she is on tape saying no to that specific request and say that means she actually wanted it? If so, you just negated every rape conviction in history.

No. I'm saying that her saying no to being topless on camera was nullified when she didn't object immediately, or at least within a short amount of time. She only objected later , much later, when her husband confronted her about it. Unless you can prove she wasn't aware the cameras are there, you can't prove she didn't know they were rolling at the time it happened. It's called reasonable doubt and is why she lost the case. PERIOD.

 

[Charles_Main]

I don't buy the jury's logic. It is like saying if some woman goes with me to a restaurant and a movie, she is consenting to rape afterwards.

She was consenting to being filmed dancing clothed. Not being filmed topless. Even the guys doing the filming agree she was not willing to have her top removed. They did it by force.

OH bull shit, what ever happened to personal Responsibility. She agrees to be filmed dancing with cloths on, then takes her top of an continues to dance, and thinks she can complain they kept filming? Get real. Grow the hell up and do not take your top of chick.

 

[ConHog]

How do you know she didn't?

The point of this case was that GGW essentially filmed a sexual assault, and made money off the girl who was victimized. Now you are saying that she consented to the baring of her breasts despite the fact that she is on video clearly saying no when asked, and immediately covering up her breasts after it occurred. Even if she gave prior verbal and written consent to having her breasts exposed, which is not the case, she is entitled to change her mind. GGW might have a case against her for breach of contract, if they paid her in advance. That would still not entitle them to profit off a crime.

Did she charge that person with sexual assault then or now?

I don't know. Perhaps she tried and the idiot prosecutor thought she was asking for it because she was in the bar dancing.

The point is that even if she did not, it does not mean she consented to what happened. Nor does it make GGW right for making money from her clearly saying no, and filming it.

Stop comparing this to rape, you are insulting millions of legitimate rape victims. This wasn't even assault. Did you watch the video? She gave a token no and then kept dancing after her boobs were exposed. She then made no effort to prevent the filming.

Further, as has been stated , when GGW films in a locale, they hang signs and then warn people as they enter the vicinity that if you don't want to be filmed you shouldn't come in. Her entering anyway is a verbal consent to being filmed. IF she is claiming the person who exposed her is guilty of a crime then THAT person and that person alone is liable for that alleged crime, not GGW.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Did she charge that person with sexual assault then or now?

I don't know. Perhaps she tried and the idiot prosecutor thought she was asking for it because she was in the bar dancing.

The point is that even if she did not, it does not mean she consented to what happened. Nor does it make GGW right for making money from her clearly saying no, and filming it.

Then i would suggest you find out. As far as i am concerned if she DID NOT at the time charge that person with assault.....regardless if it was prosecuted or not, she didnt think she was assaulted.

He actions suggest to me that all she wanted was money from GGW.

Why the hell should I find out? It makes no difference to me if she did or did not. If you think it matters maybe you should find out. Just because she did not report it does not mean that it did not happen.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As was pointed out, the girl was aware that she might end up on video by being in that establishment while cameras were rolling. She willfully went in anyway. That is implied consent, or at the very least acknowledging that you know it is possible that you might end up on the video. If she didn't know then that they wanted her boobs on camera, then who was she saying no to? Oh that's right, the cameraman so once she realized someone lifted her top in front of the camera, why didn't she go to the producer right away and say she didn't consent to that? There's no doubt she knew then that it was videod. So that argument is OUT.

Bullshit.

Implied consent does not trump a clear no, when she said no to the request, and then reacted negatively afterward, that settles it in my mind. If she was trying to argue that she did not want to be in the video at all, your argument might make sense, but she did not argue that, she argued that she did not give permission for the nudity.

Do you want to try and twist the fact that she is on tape saying no to that specific request and say that means she actually wanted it? If so, you just negated every rape conviction in history.

No. I'm saying that her saying no to being topless on camera was nullified when she didn't object immediately, or at least within a short amount of time. She only objected later , much later, when her husband confronted her about it. Unless you can prove she wasn't aware the cameras are there, you can't prove she didn't know they were rolling at the time it happened. It's called reasonable doubt and is why she lost the case. PERIOD.

She objected before, during, and after. What more does she have to do to avoid being assaulted, and having the film of that assault available for anyone and everyone?

 

[ConHog]

Bullshit.

Implied consent does not trump a clear no, when she said no to the request, and then reacted negatively afterward, that settles it in my mind. If she was trying to argue that she did not want to be in the video at all, your argument might make sense, but she did not argue that, she argued that she did not give permission for the nudity.

Do you want to try and twist the fact that she is on tape saying no to that specific request and say that means she actually wanted it? If so, you just negated every rape conviction in history.

No. I'm saying that her saying no to being topless on camera was nullified when she didn't object immediately, or at least within a short amount of time. She only objected later , much later, when her husband confronted her about it. Unless you can prove she wasn't aware the cameras are there, you can't prove she didn't know they were rolling at the time it happened. It's called reasonable doubt and is why she lost the case. PERIOD.

She objected before, during, and after. What more does she have to do to avoid being assaulted, and having the film of that assault available for anyone and everyone?

Ok, let's say I punch you in the nose and George films it. Who are you going to go after for assault? Use your head here QW. The woman isn't complaining about her top being removed or she would be suing the person who did so. So forget the claims of assault, b/c she herself isn't even making that claim.

 

[syrenn]

I don't know. Perhaps she tried and the idiot prosecutor thought she was asking for it because she was in the bar dancing.

The point is that even if she did not, it does not mean she consented to what happened. Nor does it make GGW right for making money from her clearly saying no, and filming it.

Then i would suggest you find out. As far as i am concerned if she DID NOT at the time charge that person with assault.....regardless if it was prosecuted or not, she didnt think she was assaulted.

He actions suggest to me that all she wanted was money from GGW.

Why the hell should I find out? It makes no difference to me if she did or did not. If you think it matters maybe you should find out. Just because she did not report it does not mean that it did not happen.

Because you are the one claiming that she was assaulted and that this was a bad verdict. She didn't think she was assaulted at the time. Did she call the police and demand that the person who took her top off be arrested for assult? Did she leave or keep dancing (ive not seen the video so i dont know) If she stayed then she wasn't very upset about it.

I am not saying it didn't happen. What i am saying is she wasn't THAT upset about what happened at the time. If she felt it was an assault then she should have reported it and pressed charges. What she is upset about NOW is that she was recognized and wants a cut of the money from GGW.

What she sued GGW for was because she feels her reputation is now damaged because she appears on a GGW episode. In my opinion this is her "out" so she can stay a good girl.

 

[syrenn]

Bullshit.

Implied consent does not trump a clear no, when she said no to the request, and then reacted negatively afterward, that settles it in my mind. If she was trying to argue that she did not want to be in the video at all, your argument might make sense, but she did not argue that, she argued that she did not give permission for the nudity.

Do you want to try and twist the fact that she is on tape saying no to that specific request and say that means she actually wanted it? If so, you just negated every rape conviction in history.

No. I'm saying that her saying no to being topless on camera was nullified when she didn't object immediately, or at least within a short amount of time. She only objected later , much later, when her husband confronted her about it. Unless you can prove she wasn't aware the cameras are there, you can't prove she didn't know they were rolling at the time it happened. It's called reasonable doubt and is why she lost the case. PERIOD.

She objected before, during, and after. What more does she have to do to avoid being assaulted, and having the film of that assault available for anyone and everyone?

Lets see, how about call the police and have all tapes that the GGW team had confiscated as evidence at the time of the incident. How better to prove she was assaulted, she was more then likely have the perp on tape.

 

[Ravi]

She was assaulted twice...once by whoever pulled up her shirt and once by GGW.

It was a bad verdict and somewhat chilling.

 

[ConHog]

She was assaulted twice...once by whoever pulled up her shirt and once by GGW.

It was a bad verdict and somewhat chilling.

you don't agree with the verdict =/= bad verdict. of course you're a liar and a fool, so I don't expect you to except that truth.

QW on the other hand I have more faith in. She got her day in court, and lost. That does NOT mean bad verdict.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No. I'm saying that her saying no to being topless on camera was nullified when she didn't object immediately, or at least within a short amount of time. She only objected later , much later, when her husband confronted her about it. Unless you can prove she wasn't aware the cameras are there, you can't prove she didn't know they were rolling at the time it happened. It's called reasonable doubt and is why she lost the case. PERIOD.

She objected before, during, and after. What more does she have to do to avoid being assaulted, and having the film of that assault available for anyone and everyone?

Ok, let's say I punch you in the nose and George films it. Who are you going to go after for assault? Use your head here QW. The woman isn't complaining about her top being removed or she would be suing the person who did so. So forget the claims of assault, b/c she herself isn't even making that claim.

I never said she was making that claim.

I am saying she clearly indicated, before, during, and after the actual taping, that she had no wish to appear topless in the video. Yet somehow, because it suits your warped, misogynistic,l since of justice, she did not do enough to protest the event, and was further obligated to do something else, even though she had no idea they had actually used the video at all.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then i would suggest you find out. As far as i am concerned if she DID NOT at the time charge that person with assault.....regardless if it was prosecuted or not, she didnt think she was assaulted.

He actions suggest to me that all she wanted was money from GGW.

Why the hell should I find out? It makes no difference to me if she did or did not. If you think it matters maybe you should find out. Just because she did not report it does not mean that it did not happen.

Because you are the one claiming that she was assaulted and that this was a bad verdict. She didn't think she was assaulted at the time. Did she call the police and demand that the person who took her top off be arrested for assult? Did she leave or keep dancing (ive not seen the video so i dont know) If she stayed then she wasn't very upset about it.

I am not saying it didn't happen. What i am saying is she wasn't THAT upset about what happened at the time. If she felt it was an assault then she should have reported it and pressed charges. What she is upset about NOW is that she was recognized and wants a cut of the money from GGW.

What she sued GGW for was because she feels her reputation is now damaged because she appears on a GGW episode. In my opinion this is her "out" so she can stay a good girl.

Her top was pulled down without her permission. Both sides of the case stipulated to that occurring, so I guess your only problem is that you don't like me calling it an assualt. Could you please explain how grabbing someone and stripping them against their will is not an assault. Does her decision not to make an issue of it at the time make it not an assault?

The assault occurred, that is a given, and she is only objecting to the fact, as she did at the time, and on the video, that GGW showed her topless image without her permission. The jury decided that she gave permission because she was in the bar in the first place, and that this implied consent for GGW to film her topless, despite the fact that she clearly denied them that permission.

This is a bad verdict because it goes against decades of law, and the idea that women have the right to control their body themselves. This decision took her right to control her body and gave it to the producers of GGW and the guy who assaulted her.

She went after GGW because they are the ones who made money off of her image after she said no. Did the guy who did it make money off his action?

Please explain to me again how this is a good verdict.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No. I'm saying that her saying no to being topless on camera was nullified when she didn't object immediately, or at least within a short amount of time. She only objected later , much later, when her husband confronted her about it. Unless you can prove she wasn't aware the cameras are there, you can't prove she didn't know they were rolling at the time it happened. It's called reasonable doubt and is why she lost the case. PERIOD.

She objected before, during, and after. What more does she have to do to avoid being assaulted, and having the film of that assault available for anyone and everyone?

Lets see, how about call the police and have all tapes that the GGW team had confiscated as evidence at the time of the incident. How better to prove she was assaulted, she was more then likely have the perp on tape.

Police do not have a right to confiscate film, it has to be subpenaed. Which means that the DA would have to do it, which he would not have if he thought that she had given implied consent to the whole thing by being there.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

She was assaulted twice...once by whoever pulled up her shirt and once by GGW.

It was a bad verdict and somewhat chilling.

you don't agree with the verdict =/= bad verdict. of course you're a liar and a fool, so I don't expect you to except that truth.

QW on the other hand I have more faith in. She got her day in court, and lost. That does NOT mean bad verdict.

Think about it some more, and add in the fact that GGW doesn't care if they film minors for their videos.

 

[syrenn]

Why the hell should I find out? It makes no difference to me if she did or did not. If you think it matters maybe you should find out. Just because she did not report it does not mean that it did not happen.

Because you are the one claiming that she was assaulted and that this was a bad verdict. She didn't think she was assaulted at the time. Did she call the police and demand that the person who took her top off be arrested for assault? Did she leave or keep dancing (ive not seen the video so i dont know) If she stayed then she wasn't very upset about it.

I am not saying it didn't happen. What i am saying is she wasn't THAT upset about what happened at the time. If she felt it was an assault then she should have reported it and pressed charges. What she is upset about NOW is that she was recognized and wants a cut of the money from GGW.

What she sued GGW for was because she feels her reputation is now damaged because she appears on a GGW episode. In my opinion this is her "out" so she can stay a good girl.

Her top was pulled down without her permission. Both sides of the case stipulated to that occurring, so I guess your only problem is that you don't like me calling it an assualt. Could you please explain how grabbing someone and stripping them against their will is not an assault. Does her decision not to make an issue of it at the time make it not an assault?

The assault occurred, that is a given, and she is only objecting to the fact, as she did at the time, and on the video, that GGW showed her topless image without her permission. The jury decided that she gave permission because she was in the bar in the first place, and that this implied consent for GGW to film her topless, despite the fact that she clearly denied them that permission.

This is a bad verdict because it goes against decades of law, and the idea that women have the right to control their body themselves. This decision took her right to control her body and gave it to the producers of GGW and the guy who assaulted her.

She went after GGW because they are the ones who made money off of her image after she said no. Did the guy who did it make money off his action?

Please explain to me again how this is a good verdict.

Some verdicts are neither good or bad, but for or against. This is not a criminal case it is a civil case asking damages in the form of money. She lost. Remember we are only seeing and reading what is "reported" and not all what was presented in court.

The OP quote calls this a bad verdict because it was an assault. You call it an assault. If that is the case then why is this in civil court and not in criminal court with the tapes used as evidence of the assault and the person who did the deed standing trial.

The problem i have is that she is not seeking criminal actions against the assailant but damages for her reputation being harmed. Could it be that she gave up the rights to her reputation when she entered a bar where GGW was being filmed?

I agree with the jury. Her wanting to preform in a GGW event and allowing herself to be filmed is consent. If she had a problem with her image being shown boobs out she should have called the cops, yelled her bloody lungs out, had the guy arrested, and had the tapes confiscated and destroyed.

 

[jgbkab]

From my understanding, this was a civil case and not a criminal one. Also, the consent was not just her dancing for the cameras or being at the bar, the GGW brand actually advertises at college campuses and rents the bar for a few days to film. Before going into the establishment, you are briefed on what is going on, what is expected of you and you give your verbal consent to be filmed or you won't be admitted. If she really had a problem with her boobs being flashed, then she should have gone after the person that lifted her shirt. The cameramen are not allowed to touch anyone at the establishment for obvious legal reasons so it had to be another patron that lifted her shirt.

How do you know she didn't?

The point of this case was that GGW essentially filmed a sexual assault, and made money off the girl who was victimized. Now you are saying that she consented to the baring of her breasts despite the fact that she is on video clearly saying no when asked, and immediately covering up her breasts after it occurred. Even if she gave prior verbal and written consent to having her breasts exposed, which is not the case, she is entitled to change her mind. GGW might have a case against her for breach of contract, if they paid her in advance. That would still not entitle them to profit off a crime.

When has it become against the law to film a crime in progress?

Think about it some more, and add in the fact that GGW doesn't care if they film minors for their videos.

You can not like the GGW concept, but that is a flat out lie. You cannot stop an underage person from doing anything that they want legal or not (Tracy Lords).