Group exploits rape victim to smear Buck

Something the Dog Said wrote: What is there about that case that a competent prosecutor could not win? The rapist confessed to the police that the victim said no, rolled away from him and passed out. He assaulted her, felt bad about it and tried to wake her up to apologize, and could not wake her up. Then the police recorded a telephone call between the victim and the rapist where he confessed that his actions were rape. And yes, the recorded telephone call is admissible in the state of Colorado.

Buck said he would not prosecute the rapist because in his opinion the victim had consented to the act despite her saying no because they had sexual relations a year prior to the rape, and she had invited him to her apartment and he had heard gossip that she had an abortion. What a Neanderthal bozo!

That's an interesting, if inaccurate, accounting of what actually occurred according to the transcripts of the conversation that the police recorded between the two of them.

Yes, the woman rolled away, but it was not conclusive from the transcript that it occurred before the alleged rape. The woman told investigators at the time of the incident that she wasn't sure that she had actually verbalized her no. She referred to the man as her "bedfellow" to investigators. It was not apparent from any of the material released when the last time the two of them engaged in consensual sex, though the miscarriage of the child that the two of them conceived had indeed occurred about a year ago. The conversation of the recording contained information that the woman had rolled over after the accused had laid down next to her and put her arms around him, touched him in an intimate manner, all while being naked from the waist up, and "things went from there".

True, the taped conversation between the woman and her bedfellow indicated that the fellow was very apologetic and recognized that he had hurt her. Not at that time, but after the incident when he became aware that she hadn't really wanted to have sex with him that night. And true, he did admit that if she hadn't wanted to have sex with him and that the sex had occurred under those circumstances that it would be rape. She also says at various points in that conversation that all she remembers is going to sleep and waking up to what was happening and also that she knows that she didn't touch him at all because she "specifically remember like not doing that." Now, I don't know about you folks, but I would think that either she specifically remembered what happened prior to the alleged rape or that she was asleep at that point and unable to remember, but I would think it difficult to be both at the same time. Is it possible that she was so drunk she doesn't really remember what happened? After all, she couldn't say for certain that she had actually verbalized her no, only that she knew she didn't want to be having sex with the guy. She is less clear, at the time, whether she actually spoke of those sentiments with him.

Are you defending this guy? He had sex with her while she was unconscious, which is rape no matter what the other circumstances are.

That's not what the transcript of the call tells us Scruffy. Maybe you need to look at the transcript instead of taking at face value what the scorched earth progressives are tossing out because they know Bennet can't hope to win the election standing on his record.

outdoor338 wrote: I read your posts and am amused with the negativity you type, and believe me your one of the most negative people I have seen posting.

Wow, I feel the same way about you, Outdoor, with your daily barrage of negative topics.

But, at least we voted for the same two candidates (Tancredo and Buck). How does that make you feel?

I'm personally amazed that you voted for Tancredo and Buck but I am impressed that you have apparently seen the light. Your vote shows that you are actually more logical that had previously appeared in your posts. Good job Pineguy.

If you voted that way, Nmysys and I will take you to dinner :thumbsup:

I am surprised anyone is surprised. Don't you guys read each others posts? Wayne's position on illegal immigration is pretty much in line with most of the country, except the political class.

I said a long time ago I vote for the candidate and not the party but I was marginalized anyway. I also explained a long time ago that I didn't like Bennet. I voted for Tancredo only because of his stance on immigration, as I have made my views known on here some time ago. I support Arizona's immigration law, as does Tancredo. I still lean center left and Libertarian, as the two political quizzes I posted showed.

Neptune:

I don't think there was surprise at the vote for Tancredo, it was for the vote for Buck. Hope to see you Sunday at the breakfast.

It was more a vote against Bennet than for Buck. Bennet hasn't done anything and has never been elected to anything. If a Republican had been in his place with the same background of never having been elected, I would have voted against them, as well.