Althouse: "Rape Case Unfolds on Web and Splits City."

December 17, 2012

"Rape Case Unfolds on Web and Splits City."

Steubenville, Ohio.

57 comments:

Shouting Thomas said...: Started to read this in good faith, then I realized how differently the NYT covered the Jena Six case in Texas. The Times tried to make a civil rights case out of six black kids who were football players beating a white kid for no reason.

The NYT has a burr up its ass about football, except when the evildoers are black, as in the Jena case. Football's supposed to be the place where all those white hetero boys learn to bully the gays. And, of course, the NYT has a long standing feminist agenda about rape that makes it completely untrustworthy.

And, of course, this incident allegedly took place in flyover country, with redneck whites implicated. That's probably why the story appealed to the Times in the first place.

Can't think of a worse source for this story than the NYT. I'll try to find a reliable source to read.; 12/17/12, 9:58 AM
Sydney said...: Can't think of a worse source for this story than the NYT. I'll try to find a reliable source to read.

My thought, too. Especially when I read the description of Steubenville as an industrial city in Appalachia. Would you describe Pittsburgh that way? Because it is so close to Pittsburgh the people in Steubenville go there to shop.; 12/17/12, 10:01 AM
FullMoon said...: Similar situations in San Francisco Bay Area recently. Richmond and Cupertino. Alcohol and youth common denominators.; 12/17/12, 10:18 AM
rhhardin said...: It's unreadable.

It starts like a creative writing class.

If they can't get to the point, let somebody else read it.; 12/17/12, 10:18 AM
McTriumph said...: I love how pinhead pencil neck NYT journalists are so jealous of us star football players for being so entitled. They should be jealous, unlike them, we don't need to get a girl drunk to do us favors.; 12/17/12, 10:21 AM
Patrick said...: I didn't play high school football, but I knew the coach pretty well. He tried to teach his players to be men. That means when you see someone defenseless being abused, you didn't cheer on the abuser, you didn't take videos (which wasn't happening back then anyway), you intervened, and stopped it.

The coach in Steubenville's statement "They didn't think they were doing anything wrong. Because of that, he said, he had no basis for benching those players."

That's a sorry ass excuse for a high school coach.; 12/17/12, 10:24 AM
Tim said...: Roshomon.; 12/17/12, 10:25 AM
edutcher said...: Or "Sergeant Rutledge".

But Shout's right, get a source other than the gray Lady.; 12/17/12, 10:32 AM
Larry J said...: Saccoccia, pronounced SOCK-otch, told the principal and school superintendent that the players who posted online photographs and comments about the girl the night of the parties said they did not think they had done anything wrong. Because of that, he said, he had no basis for benching those players.

That's an interesting standard; if you don't believe what you did was wrong then it wasn't wrong. I'm sure a lot of criminals would like that to be the legal standard.; 12/17/12, 10:40 AM
MadisonMan said...: tl;dr

It goes on for how many webclicks? 6? 7? 8?

Do Editors no longer work at the Times. Longer is not better.; 12/17/12, 10:43 AM
rcocean said...: "It's unreadable."

I agree. Could someone give us the Cliff notes version?; 12/17/12, 10:43 AM
sakredkow said...: That's a sorry ass excuse for a high school coach.

Did you read the part where he threatened the reporter? "You're gonna get yours. If not you someone close to you."; 12/17/12, 10:51 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Yikes - this warrants a seven page story!?; 12/17/12, 10:51 AM
pdug said...: Does that article ever name the "crime blogger"

Why wouldn't it?; 12/17/12, 10:51 AM
Patrick said...: Did you read the part where he threatened the reporter? "You're gonna get yours. If not you someone close to you."

Yeah. The Principal ought to be embarrassed that this guy is still the coach. I suppose a case could be made that the NYT and others come down too hard on football because it is football and all of that, but sometimes these fools don't need any help.; 12/17/12, 11:01 AM
Patrick said...: tl;dr

It goes on for how many webclicks? 6? 7? 8?

Do Editors no longer work at the Times. Longer is not better.

Funny, that. It's a compelling story, written in a non-compelling way.; 12/17/12, 11:02 AM
leslyn said...: McTriumph said,

"us football stars...don't need to get a girl drunk to do us favors" unlike NYT journalists.

I thought this had to be sarcasm until I just read it as is, and whatever it is, it's rotten. I can't escape the conclusion that you're glorifying this incident by stupidly contrasting it with some other group.

Did you even pay attention?; 12/17/12, 11:05 AM
leslyn said...: If this girl had had a gun, she wouldn't be raped today.; 12/17/12, 11:06 AM
leslyn said...: Patrick said,

"I suppose a case could be made that the NYT and others come down too hard on football because it is football."

'Scuse me? Football players get to do whatever they want, because it's football?; 12/17/12, 11:08 AM
Known Unknown said...: 'Scuse me? Football players get to do whatever they want, because it's football?

Did you read the rest of his comment?; 12/17/12, 11:13 AM
Tim said...: leslyn said...

"If this girl had had a gun, she wouldn't be raped today."

Did you even pay attention?; 12/17/12, 11:19 AM
garage mahal said...: Some residents and others on social media blamed the girl, saying she put the football team in a bad light and put herself in a position to be violated. Others supported the girl, saying she was a victim of what they believed was a hero-worshiping culture built around football players who think they can do no wrong.

These two groups can be distinguished rather easily: human, and subhuman.; 12/17/12, 11:26 AM
leslyn said...: EMD said...
'Scuse me? Football players get to do whatever they want, because it's football?

Did you read the rest of his comment?

Yes, and it didn't back off.; 12/17/12, 11:26 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: These two groups can be distinguished rather easily: human, and subhuman.

Assumes you know the facts, which you don't.; 12/17/12, 11:27 AM
Known Unknown said...: He said:

"but sometimes these fools don't need any help."

He's not absolving the football players of crime.

He's saying that the NYT often treats football in flyover country as a strange, alien world — which they have in the past.; 12/17/12, 11:28 AM
aronamos said...: FYI, Jena is in Louisiana.

Small towns worship high school athletes. And so yes, they do tend to get away with bad, sometimes really bad, behavior. Just because the NYT points something out doesn't make it untrue.

That coach apparently is a real piece of work, too. He suspended the boys who testified against his stars.; 12/17/12, 11:29 AM
leslyn said...: Tim said...
leslyn said...

"If this girl had had a gun, she wouldn't be raped today."

Did you even pay attention?

Yeah, and she didn't have a gun. The story described her in a couple of ways: perhaps passed out, and too drunk to resist. They're different.

If she was conscious, even if she couldn't push a gangbang off, she could have fired a trigger.

I wasn't be sarcastic, ironic, or joking.

I'd put a gun in the hand of every woman being raped.; 12/17/12, 11:30 AM
Known Unknown said...: Football can and does empower corruption and criminal activity.

Shit, Penn State shouldn't be fielding a football team until 2020 at the earliest.

My sympathies tend towards the girl, because, not only was she most likely assaulted, but she has crummy parents to boot, and apparently no friends courageous enough to come to her aid that evening.

And who the hell tweets "Some people deserve to be peed on?"; 12/17/12, 11:32 AM
William said...: I read the entire article so I can't claim the article was undreadable. Nonetheless, I get the sense that the delicate sensibility of the Times reporter caused him to ignore a lot of salient facts and background information.....In any event, this coach and his football players are low lifes.; 12/17/12, 11:33 AM
Tank said...: leslyn and I find an area of agreement. The fact is that a firearm evens the odds against the "bad guys" regardless of the crime. Sometimes it helps, others not. The evening off is needed more by women than men, in general. Of course, if you drink yourself to unconciousness, well you're not going to be able to use any kind of defense.; 12/17/12, 11:35 AM
Chip Ahoy said...: Eight pages for the whole story of Steubenville that can fit on one page. Do writers even bother asking themselves, is this story really so click click click click click click click click worthy? Can it hold interest that long? The answer is no.; 12/17/12, 11:36 AM
Larry J said...: rcocean said...
"It's unreadable."

I agree. Could someone give us the Cliff notes version?

Here you go: "Small town football players are bad and so are their coaches."; 12/17/12, 11:36 AM
sakredkow said...: Here you go: "Small town football players are bad and so are their coaches."

I'll bet you were better in Shop class then.; 12/17/12, 11:38 AM
Titus said...: I think Althouse like to link anything from the NYTimes just to get the freaks here all worked up.

Stick to the Washington Examiner and Mooney times-safety!!!; 12/17/12, 11:42 AM
leslyn said...: EMD said

"she has crummy parents to boot, and apparently no friends courageous enough to come to her aid that evening."

Two things wrong with this.

1. Because she was raped, she had crummy parents? Logically, the implication is that the rapists' parents are not crummy. And if you're saying they were crummy parents because she went to a party, or got drunk, then all the parents of all the teens who did that are crummy.

Why aren't you saying that the rapits' have crummy parents?

2. She was from across the river--so, not "local" in the sense of being "part of" and having lots of friends there. Was she supposed to bring a posse with her to make sure this didn't happen? And because no one stood for her--it's the fault of the nonactors?

#2 Only make sense legally if you are a person who already has a duty toward a person in your custody.

I doubt your "sympathy" means much to the girl.; 12/17/12, 11:42 AM
Known Unknown said...: 1. Because she was raped, she had crummy parents? Logically, the implication is that the rapists' parents are not crummy. And if you're saying they were crummy parents because she went to a party, or got drunk, then all the parents of all the teens who did that are crummy.

Why aren't you saying that the rapits' have crummy parents?

2. She was from across the river--so, not "local" in the sense of being "part of" and having lots of friends there. Was she supposed to bring a posse with her to make sure this didn't happen? And because no one stood for her--it's the fault of the nonactors?

She has crummy parents because they apparently have no clue what the hell she does when she leaves the house.

Getting that drunk means a whole host of other bad outcomes could have befallen her.

Yes, it's the fault of the non actors, too. How hard is it to stand up for what's right?

But no where in what I have said do I absolve those directly responsible for an alleged assault of their wrongdoings.

You'd really like my point to be counter to yours, when it's probably not.; 12/17/12, 11:47 AM
Tim said...: "I'd put a gun in the hand of every woman being raped."

O.k.

On that, I agree.

My comment was to the point that she was so drunk, slipping in an out of consciousness, that a gun would have been completely useless to her. And, given her state (she didn't realize what happened to her until she read about it the next day), having a gun she could not control wouldn't have been safe or smart either. Carrying a weapon requires full command of one's faculties. She clearly lost control of hers, and having a weapon could have compounded the problem.

What she really needed was a friend who went to the party with her. How any girl or young woman can go to a party without a friend is bewildering. That's not to say all girls or young women should anticipate being unsafe by themselves at a party, but prudential precaution says "never go alone." As a father of young women, I always made sure my girls never went out at night alone - ever.; 12/17/12, 11:52 AM
Larry J said...: phx said...
Here you go: "Small town football players are bad and so are their coaches."

I'll bet you were better in Shop class then.

What does that have to do with my providing a requested Cliff Notes version of an 8 page New York Times article? It does seem to summarize the article's underlying theme into a single sentence. Can you do better?

And yes, I did enjoy shop class where I learned how to build things. I wish I'd taken more of those classes. Skills like that can be very marketable.; 12/17/12, 11:55 AM
sakredkow said...: @LarryJ Sorry, I shouldn't have said that.

I did think the article was very interesting and pretty well written myself. And I think the NYTimes often gets a bad rap for everything they do based on their editorial page politics.

I was a bad boy though and shouldn't have been that insulting.; 12/17/12, 12:02 PM
leslyn said...: EMD,

Do you know what teens get up to--regardless of whether they have "crummy" parents or great parents? There were probably a lot of boys at these parties who got themselves drunk into unconsciousness too. And they have great parents. They just weren't raped.

The type of parents a teen has often has nothing to do with the choices a teen makes at a drunken party, or even whether they go to such a party.

That's what they do. They make stupid choices. You'd have to call all the parents of all the teens at these parties "crummy" in ordeer to be consistent.

How about placing blame on the actors, and not on the non-actors and victim (or the victim's parents).

If you're going to blame the non-actors, then to be consistent you have to blame everyone who knew about it, stood by, or waited their turn--and didn't stop it.; 12/17/12, 12:06 PM
leslyn said...: Can't think of a worse source for this story than the NYT. I'll try to find a reliable source to read.

Shouldn't be hard. This story is not new. I read about it some time ago. You should be able to find some network coverage too.; 12/17/12, 12:08 PM
MadisonMan said...: These two groups can be distinguished rather easily: human, and subhuman.

I appreciate that assigning the attributes to the correct group is an exercise left to the reader.

Nicely done.; 12/17/12, 12:56 PM
Known Unknown said...: If you're going to blame the non-actors, then to be consistent you have to blame everyone who knew about it, stood by, or waited their turn--and didn't stop it.

Where am I NOT doing this?; 12/17/12, 1:08 PM
leslyn said...: @EMD: You know it's impossible to prove a null, right? That if you didn't say something, it's impossible for me to say that you thought it.

But this is the closest you come:

"no friends courageous enough to come to her aid that evening."

and,

But no where in what I have said do I absolve those directly responsible for an alleged assault of their wrongdoings. (Emphasis added.)

You'd really like my point to be counter to yours, when it's probably not.

Pretty weak, IMO.; 12/17/12, 1:28 PM
Known Unknown said...: @EMD: You know it's impossible to prove a null, right? That if you didn't say something, it's impossible for me to say that you thought it.

Seriously? This the fucking argument you want to have?

Semantics?; 12/17/12, 1:49 PM
McTriumph said...: leslyn said..
I thought this had to be sarcasm until I just read it as is, and whatever it is, it's rotten. I can't escape the conclusion that you're glorifying this incident by stupidly contrasting it with some other group.

I glorified it how? I would suggest I was making fun of the NYT and the loser football players. What does bother me is that somehow we are to believe that only "entitled" football players do this kind of thing. It's wishful thinking to believe it doesn't happen at band camp, senior trips, spring break, debate trips, etc.. Anywhere you combine alcohol or drugs and young people this shit can happen, it has nothing to do with playing football.

I don't understand why these players shouldn't be playing, till a judge tells them they can't or their in jail.; 12/17/12, 1:55 PM
Known Unknown said...: Leslyn has come to argue with people she doesn't have a disagreement with.

I believe the football players are guilty. It's their fault. I am, however, not a jury of peers in Steubenville, Ohio.

Unfortunately, all the prosecution had was circumstantial evidence to convict them.

The physical evidence has either

1. been washed away
2. been deleted and not recovered or
3. doesn't specify a criminal act

I assumed that much was known (because I read the entire damn article), and thus, I opined on other points about the story.; 12/17/12, 2:01 PM
Patrick said...: Patrick said,

"I suppose a case could be made that the NYT and others come down too hard on football because it is football."

'Scuse me? Football players get to do whatever they want, because it's football?

Sorry that I'm just getting back to this, but that was the stupidest misreading of a quote I've seen in quite some time. All you had to do was actually finish the sentence to see that I was not excusing football players in the least. A simple reading of my previous comments would've made that abundantly clear. Reading only a couple of comments would've made it clear I was responding to someone who made that accusation.; 12/17/12, 2:48 PM
Patrick said...: That's not to say all girls or young women should anticipate being unsafe by themselves at a party, but prudential precaution says "never go alone." As a father of young women, I always made sure my girls never went out at night alone - ever.

Particularly important advice when they are going to be drinking, and even more so when they are relatively new to drinking.; 12/17/12, 2:51 PM
FleetUSA said...: Yep, the NYT can easily get their knickers in a twist over football, flyover country, rednecks, etc. And the article is long winded because of that.

But they don't spend much time on the legalities here. I have (fortunately) never been involved with the prosecution or defense in a rape case. However, short of real evidence it must be one of the most difficult ones to prove. Here though it seems there is plenty of evidence from witnesses and internet postings which can be factually demonstrated to prove the case with good prosecution counsel.; 12/17/12, 2:52 PM
FleetUSA said...: p.s. The chance of an unbiased jury is another question...change the venue!; 12/17/12, 2:53 PM
leslyn said...: @ Patrick: I think you were correct in my misreading, I think you were saying that "football because it's football" is cut too much slack. I didn't get that from the comment, but took your advice and read all your posts together, and that's what I came up with.; 12/17/12, 4:40 PM
leslyn said...: EMD said...
Leslyn has come to argue with people she doesn't have a disagreement with.

Glad to know it. I'm sick and tired of blaming the victim. I heard recently that a judge gave a rapist almost 1/3 of the sentence recommended by the prosecution because a woman's body shuts down in "real" rape. (Apparently he's an Akin fan.) To explain "real" rape, he said that the victim didn't fight (no visible injuries). That's all shit.

For instance, Anyone can say after the fact that any victim shouldn't have:

Been where they'd been (although other people were)

Dressed how they'd dressed (although it was not unusual, and they didn't wear a sign saying "RAPE ME")

Drunk, or used, what they did (although others did, or it was provided to the victim by the perp)

Been with a "bad" person (as if it's the victim's fault that they were bad)

Been raped without incurring even more physical injury, or death.

The idea of a "war on women" has been derided here, but it is still alive and well, as the arrogance and lack of action in this story illustrate.; 12/17/12, 4:52 PM
Known Unknown said...: Leslyn-

If you re-read my comments, I never blamed the victim.

I do think, parents, have a responsibility to their children to often times be the bad guy and not the buddy, and be a little more intrusive into their lives.

And friends and others, have moral obligations to end wrongdoing, as was apparently happening to the girl.

Those 2 things do not absolve the wrongdoing.; 12/17/12, 7:38 PM
Patrick said...: Leslyn,

Perhaps I wasn't clear, which opens me up to misinterpretation. Anyway, my point (like 12 hours after the fact, or something) is that quite apart from whether football is treated unfairly, these players, and that coach were jackasses.; 12/17/12, 8:06 PM
leslyn said...: EMD,

You didn't blame the victim. That's just the part of the rant I had going about perps not being held responsible for being perps, and I probably should have put it in a separate comment. Or something.; 12/17/12, 9:19 PM
kentuckyliz said...: The description of her behavior make it sound like a DFSA (drug facilitated sexual assault). You can order GHB off the internet.

They need SOMEONE with some more IT forensics skills. The posts, tweets, pics, and videos still exist, despite deletion. They just need someone with skills to retrieve them.

The statements in the story, if they hold up in court, are sworn testimony...conviction.

She didn't have motor control, understandable speech, ambulation, consciousness.

It would be like raping someone in a coma.

The buddy who weakly tried to stop it should not have stopped with, no worries dude reassurances. Well, OK then, if you say so.

Another thing we have to train young women (and men) about is keeping custody of their drinks. It is so easy to be slipped an amnesiac.; 12/18/12, 7:08 PM