Author Topic: Viral Photo of HYPOCRITE Arnold Schwarzenegger Grabbing a Woman’s Genitals  (Read 6607 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mirraflake

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,199
  • Gender: Male

In that photo, the woman in question is clearly, unquestionably, voluntarily participating in whatever is going on.  Schwarzenegger is not holding her down against her will, does not have her pressed up against a wall, and there is not a scintilla of evidence that his hand is on her <kitty> without her consent.  What Trump boasted of is ramming his tongue down a woman's throat without her consent, and grabbing her <kitty> without her consent, simply because he can, because he's a star.  Schwarzenegger is not committing a crime, Trump is; it's just that simple.

Trump said the women allowed it..I bet they were smiling just like the woman in this photo..and where did it say he held them up against the wall etc.
@Oceander

Oceander

  • Guest
Trump said the women allowed it..I bet they were smiling just like the woman in this photo..and where did it say he held them up against the wall etc.
@Oceander

Go read his boast idiot.  You're nothing more than an enabler, somebody who perpetuates sexual assault and the abuse of women.  Just like in the days of yore, when rapists were routinely exonerated because "they liked it".

Quote
                      Politics   Trump recorded having extremely lewd conversation about women in 2005                         Watch: Donald Trump recorded having extremely lewd conversation about women in 2005      Play Video3:06  In this video from 2005, Donald Trump prepares for an appearance on "Days of Our Lives" with actress Arianne Zucker. He is accompanied to the set by "Access Hollywood" host Billy Bush. The Post has edited this video for length. (Obtained by The Washington Post)    By David A. Fahrenthold October 8     Donald Trump bragged in vulgar terms about kissing, groping and trying to have sex with women during a 2005 conversation caught on a hot microphone, saying that “when you’re a star, they let you do it,” according to a video obtained by The Washington Post.
The video captures Trump talking with Billy Bush, then of “Access Hollywood,” on a bus with the show’s name written across the side. They were arriving on the set of “Days of Our Lives” to tape a segment about Trump’s cameo on the soap opera.
Late Friday night, following sharp criticism by Republican leaders, Trump issued a short video statement saying, “I said it, I was wrong, and I apologize.” But he also called the revelation “a distraction from the issues we are facing today.” He said that his “foolish” words are much different than the words and actions of Bill Clinton, whom he accused of abusing women, and Hillary Clinton, whom he accused of having “bullied, attacked, shamed and intimidated his victims.”
“I’ve never said I’m a perfect person, nor pretended to be someone that I’m not. I’ve said and done things I regret, and the words released today on this more than a decade-old video are one of them. Anyone who knows me knows these words don’t reflect who I am,” Trump said.
In an apparent response to Republican critics asking him to drop out of the race, he said: “We will discuss this more in the coming days. See you at the debate on Sunday.”     Donald Trump releases statement about vulgar 2005 recording      Play Video1:31  Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump released a video statement saying comments from a 2005 video in which he bragged about groping women emerged "don't reflect" who he is. (Donald J. Trump)   The tape includes audio of Bush and Trump talking inside the bus, as well as audio and video once they emerge from it to begin shooting the segment.
In that audio, Trump discusses a failed attempt to seduce a woman, whose full name is not given in the video.
“I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it,” Trump is heard saying. It was unclear when the events he was describing took place. The tape was recorded several months after he married his third wife, Melania.
“Whoa,” another voice said.
“I did try and f--- her. She was married,” Trump says.
Trump continues: “And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, ‘I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.’”
“I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married,” Trump says. “Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.”
At that point in the audio, Trump and Bush appear to notice Arianne Zucker, the actress who is waiting to escort them into the soap-opera set.
“Your girl’s hot as s---, in the purple,” says Bush, who’s now a co-host of NBC’s “Today” show.
“Whoa!” Trump says. “Whoa!”
“I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her,” Trump says. “You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.”
“And when you’re a star, they let you do it,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”
“Whatever you want,” says another voice, apparently Bush’s.
“Grab them by the p---y,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”


"I just start kissing them.  It’s like a magnet. Just kiss.  I don't even wait."
“Grab them by the p---y,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”
Those statements necessarily connote action taken without regard for whether the target has consented or not.  That is sexual assault.
And that is what Trump did to Jill Harth, as alleged in a lawsuit against Trump, a lawsuit which he settled rather than try to refute the allegations.  Considering how doggedly he pursues people who utter what he believes is libel - untrue statements against him - it flies in the face of reason to think that he would not do everything he could to refute allegations of sexual assault if he believed they were untrue.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2016, 03:13:57 pm by Oceander »

Offline mirraflake

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,199
  • Gender: Male
Go read his boast idiot.  You're nothing more than an enabler, somebody who perpetuates sexual assault and the abuse of women.  Just like in the days of yore, when rapists were routinely exonerated because "they liked it".

I did read and hear it. He said the women allowed it. Women allow rich/wealthy handsome/famous and alpha men to do stuff to them us mere mortal men would never get away with. Go watch the SNL Tom Brady skit..in brief at work a fat ugly man ask his female coworker out on  a date. She says get away from me sicko and calls company security. Later  a very handsome man ask her out and she says ok and he squeezes her tity  as he walks away and she laughs.

Your hatred of Trump is making you make  stuff up- like he had them against the wall. Where was that ever mentioned?

@Oceander
« Last Edit: October 11, 2016, 03:14:16 pm by mirraflake »

Offline Norm Lenhart

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,773
I did read and hear it. He said the women allowed it. Women allow rich/wealthy handsome/famous and alpha men to do stuff to them us mere mortal men would never get away with. Go watch the SNL Tom Brady skit..in brief at work a fat ugly man ask his female coworker out on  a date. She says get away from me sicko and calls company security. Later  a very handsome man ask her out and she says ok and he squeezes her tity  as he walks away and she laughs.

You are the one making stuff up- like he had them against the wall. were was that ever mentioned?

You DO realize SNL skits are not real life right?

How many CEO types are now unemployed for squeezing a little? Quite a few.

Offline mirraflake

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,199
  • Gender: Male
Go read his boast idiot.  You're nothing more than an enabler, somebody who perpetuates sexual assault and the abuse of women.  Just like in the days of yore, when rapists were routinely exonerated because "they liked it".


"I just start kissing them.  It’s like a magnet. Just kiss.  I don't even wait."
“Grab them by the p---y,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”
Those statements necessarily connote action taken without regard for whether the target has consented or not.  That is sexual assault.
And that is what Trump did to Jill Harth, as alleged in a lawsuit against Trump, a lawsuit which he settled rather than try to refute the allegations.  Considering how doggedly he pursues people who utter what he believes is libel - untrue statements against him - it flies in the face of reason to think that he would not do everything he could to refute allegations of sexual assault if he believed they were untrue.

“And when you’re a star, they let you do it,” Trump says.

@Oceander

Oceander

  • Guest
I did read and hear it. He said the women allowed it. Women allow rich/wealthy handsome/famous and alpha men to do stuff to them us mere mortal men would never get away with. Go watch the SNL Tom Brady skit..in brief at work a fat ugly man ask his female coworker out on  a date. She says get away from me sicko and calls company security. Later  a very handsome man ask her out and she says ok and he squeezes her tity  as he walks away and she laughs.

You are the one making stuff up- like he had them against the wall. were was that ever mentioned?

No, he did not say the women allowed him to do it, he said he could get away with it because he's a star.  Again, you are regurgitating the old canard about how a woman must have consented to sex with her rapist because she didn't fight him tooth and nail at the risk of her own life.

Tell you what, why don't you go spend some time in private with a few of the gents in a supermax prison for violent felons, and then come back and tell us all about whether you consented to sex with your new "boyfriends."  If you didn't end up in the infirmary with life-threatening injuries from fighting back, then we'll just have to presume that you liked it, and thus it wasn't violent assault but rather you enjoyed being everybody's new "girlfriend."

Offline Norm Lenhart

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,773
“And when you’re a star, they let you do it,” Trump says.

@Oceander

Oh so he said it. It's OK then.

Everyone go home folks. Trump Said it. so sexual assault is now the law of the land. Be sure to leave da' bitchZ at the door.

Offline mirraflake

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,199
  • Gender: Male
You DO realize SNL skits are not real life right?

How many CEO types are now unemployed for squeezing a little? Quite a few.

Because that is how it is in real life. The skit was popular because it was portraying real life. Women allow handsome men to get away with raunchy jokes etc regular men can not do. One of my fraternity brothers was a very attractive man and I saw what he got away with that you and  I would have been told off by women.

Oceander

  • Guest
I did read and hear it. He said the women allowed it. Women allow rich/wealthy handsome/famous and alpha men to do stuff to them us mere mortal men would never get away with. Go watch the SNL Tom Brady skit..in brief at work a fat ugly man ask his female coworker out on  a date. She says get away from me sicko and calls company security. Later  a very handsome man ask her out and she says ok and he squeezes her tity  as he walks away and she laughs.

Your hatred of Trump is making you make  stuff up- like he had them against the wall. Where was that ever mentioned?

@Oceander

Hatred?  No.  Fear?  Yes.  I fear letting an admitted rapist into the Oval Office.  I don't think a criminal like that should be allowed any where near the reins of power.  I fear Trump the way I would fear a raving drunk standing in the middle of the street and waving a fully loaded submachine gun around in the air.  I fear Trump the way I would fear a great white shark in the middle of a feeding frenzy.

Offline LMAO

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,743
  • Gender: Male
If I was being judged by Schwarzenegger when it comes to morality, I wouldn't feel too bad
I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them.

Barry Goldwater

http://www.usdebtclock.org

My Avatar is my adult autistic son Tommy

Offline Norm Lenhart

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,773
Because that is how it is in real life. The skit was popular because it was portraying real life. Women allow handsome men to get away with raunchy jokes etc regular men can not do. One of my fraternity brothers was a very attractive man and I saw what he got away with that you and  I would have been told off by women.

Then please explain all the guys fired for the behavior. Thats the way real life WAS 40 years ago. MAYBE 30. It's not today without putting your career and your 'out of jail' time at serious risk whether you flip burgers, houses or diamond mines.

Offline mirraflake

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,199
  • Gender: Male
Then please explain all the guys fired for the behavior. Thats the way real life WAS 40 years ago. MAYBE 30. It's not today without putting your career and your 'out of jail' time at serious risk whether you flip burgers, houses or diamond mines.

Attractive, hot men are still getting away with it because women allow it.  Regular joes who do it are the ones fired and fined.

Again the SNL skit was so popular because deep down everyone knows it portrayed real life.

@Norm Lenhart
« Last Edit: October 11, 2016, 03:25:49 pm by mirraflake »

Offline Norm Lenhart

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,773
Attractive, hot men are still getting away with it because women allow it.

And they are getting thrown in jail and/or fired too. Just depends. But money and power no longer matter. SOME women allow it. And only a bloody moron is gonna chance it today. If their ego is that in control of their Johnson, thats exactly what I DO NOT WANT in power over me.

Now if I could wave a wand and put trump in charge of every Trump supporter's wife and daughters, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

They shouldn't mind right? Hes an Alpha and he can do as he will with them, right?

Offline Longmire

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,262
@Oceander

Here are some recent quotes from Jill Harth...before the Billy Bush tape surfaced.

"Hi Donald," "You are doing a tremendous job shaking things up ... I am definitely on TEAM TRUMP."

"I also want to put it out there that I would be willing to say at a rally or somewhere how DJT helped me with my self-confidence and all positive things about how he is with women to counter any negativity that may come out at some point in the campaign."


Offline Longmire

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,262
Attractive, hot men are still getting away with it because women allow it.

Not all the time and some women are turned off by overly assertive guys.

In Trump's case it sounds more like a man making a pass at a woman rather than sexually assaulting them.

It takes a special kind of progressive mind set to make this stuff out as criminal behavior.

Offline Norm Lenhart

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,773
Not all the time and some women are turned off by overly assertive guys.

In Trump's case it sounds more like a man making a pass at a woman rather than sexually assaulting them.

It takes a special kind of progressive mind set to make this stuff out as criminal behavior.

Takes a normal kind of progressive mind to make excuses for a sexual predator.

Oceander

  • Guest
People v. Iniguez, 7 Cal. 4th 897 (Cal. 1994)

Quote
People v. Iniguez, 7 Cal. 4th 897 (Cal. 1994)

Quote
People v. Iniguez (1994) 7 Cal.4th 847 , 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 258; 872 P.2d 1183

[No. S030379. May 23, 1994.]

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HECTOR GUILLERMO INIGUEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

(Superior Court of San Diego County, No. CR-116663, William J. Howatt, Judge.)

(Opinion by Arabian, J., with Lucas, C. J., Mosk, Kennard, Baxter and George, JJ., and Spencer, J., fn. * concurring.)


COUNSEL

Russell S. Babcock for Defendant and Appellant.

Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Robert M. Foster, Raquel M. Gonzalez, Leslie B. Fleming and Keith I. Motley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


OPINION

ARABIAN, J.

Defendant Hector Guillermo Iniguez admitted that on the night before Mercy P.'s wedding, he approached her as she slept on the living room floor, removed her pants, fondled her buttocks, and had sexual intercourse with her. He further conceded that he had met Mercy for the first time that night, and that Mercy did not consent to any sexual contact or [7 Cal.4th 851] intercourse. The Court of Appeal reversed defendant's conviction for rape on the grounds that the evidence of force or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury was insufficient. We granted review to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict, and to delineate the relationship between evidence of fear and the requirement under Penal Code section 261, subdivision (a)(2), that the sexual intercourse be "accomplished against a person's will," in a case where lack of consent is not disputed. We reverse the Court of Appeal.


I. Facts and Procedural Background

On June 15, 1990, the eve of her wedding, at approximately 8:30 p.m., 22-year-old Mercy P. arrived at the home of Sandra S., a close family friend whom Mercy had known for at least 12 years and considered an aunt. Sandra had sewn Mercy's wedding dress, and was to stand in at the wedding the next day for Mercy's mother who was unable to attend. Mercy was planning to spend the night at her home.

Mercy met defendant, Sandra's fiancé, for the first time that evening. Defendant was scheduled to stand in for Mercy's father during the wedding.

Mercy noticed that defendant was somewhat "tipsy" when he arrived. He had consumed a couple of beers and a pint of Southern Comfort before arriving at Sandra's. Mercy, Sandra, and defendant celebrated Mercy's impending wedding by having dinner and drinking some wine. There was no flirtation or any remarks of a sexual nature between defendant and Mercy at any time during the evening.

Around 11:30 p.m., Mercy went to bed in the living room. She slept on top of her sleeping bag. She was wearing pants with an attached skirt, and a shirt. She fell asleep at approximately midnight.

Mercy was awakened between 1:00 and 2:00 a.m. when she heard some movements behind her. She was lying on her stomach, and saw defendant, who was naked, approach her from behind. Without saying anything, defendant pulled down her pants, fondled her buttocks, and inserted his penis inside her. Mercy weighed 105 pounds. Defendant weighed approximately 205 pounds. Mercy "was afraid, so I just laid there." "You didn't try to resist or escape or anything of that nature because of your fear?" "Right." Mercy further explained that she "didn't know how it was at first, and just want[ed] to get on with my wedding plans the next day." Less than a minute later, [7 Cal.4th 852] defendant ejaculated, got off her, and walked back to the bedroom. Mercy had not consented to any sexual contact.

Officer Fragoso, who interviewed Mercy several days after the attack, testified that she told him she had not resisted defendant's sexual assault because, "She said she knew that the man had been drinking. She hadn't met him before; he was a complete stranger to her. When she realized what was going on, she said she panicked, she froze. She was afraid that if she said or did anything, his reaction could be of a violent nature. So she decided just to lay still, wait until it was over with and then get out of the house as quickly as she could and get to her fiancee [sic] and tell him what happened."

Mercy immediately telephoned her fiancé Gary and left a message for him. She then telephoned her best friend Pam, who testified that Mercy was so distraught she was barely comprehensible. Mercy asked Pam to pick her up, grabbed her purse and shoes, and ran out of the apartment. Mercy hid in the bushes outside the house for approximately half an hour while waiting for Pam because she was terrified defendant would look for her.

Pam arrived about 30 minutes later, and drove Mercy to Pam's house. Mercy sat on Pam's kitchen floor, her back to the wall, and asked Pam, "[D]o I look like the word 'rape' [is] written on [my] face?" Mercy wanted to take a shower because she felt dirty, but was dissuaded by Pam. Pam telephoned Gary, who called the police.

Gary and his best man then drove Mercy to the hospital, where a "rape examination" was performed. Patricia Aiko Lawson, a blood typing and serology expert, testified that there was a large amount of semen present in Mercy's vagina and on the crotch area of her underpants. A deep vaginal swab revealed that many sperm were whole, indicating intercourse had occurred within a few hours prior to the rape examination. ABO blood group, blood type B, which was consistent with defendant's, but not Gary's or Mercy's blood type, was found on the internal and external vaginal swabs and on the underpants.

The following day, Mercy and Gary married. Gary picked up the wedding dress from Sandra while Mercy waited in the car. Neither Sandra nor defendant participated in the wedding.

Defendant was arrested the same day. When asked by the arresting officer if he had had sexual intercourse with Mercy, defendant replied, "I guess I did, yes." [7 Cal.4th 853]

Dr. Charles Nelson, a psychologist, testified as an expert on "rape trauma syndrome." He stated that victims respond in a variety of ways to the trauma of being raped. Some try to flee, and others are paralyzed by fear. This latter response he termed "frozen fright."

Defendant conceded at trial that the sexual intercourse was nonconsensual. Defendant testified that he fondled Mercy without her consent, pulled down her pants, had sexual intercourse, and thereafter ejaculated. However, defense counsel argued that the element of force or fear was absent. "So if he was doing anything, it wasn't force or fear .... It's a situation where it looks to him like he can get away with it and a situation where his judgment is flown out the window .... He keeps doing it, probably without giving much thought to it, but certainly there is nothing there to indicate using fear ever entered his mind. What he was doing was taking advantage, in a drunken way, of a situation where somebody appeared to be out of it."

The jury was instructed on both rape pursuant to then Penal Code fn. 1 section 261, subdivision (2), and sexual battery. fn. 2 Upon the jury's request for further instruction on the definition of fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury, the court instructed in relevant part, " '[F]ear' means, a feeling of alarm or disquiet caused by the expectation of danger, pain, disaster or the like." "Verbal threats are not critical to a finding of fear of unlawful injury, threats can be implied from the circumstances or inferred from the assailant's conduct. A victim may entertain a reasonable fear even where the assailant does not threaten by words or deed."

The jury found defendant guilty of rape. He was sentenced to state prison for the midterm of six years.

The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that there was insufficient evidence that the act of sexual intercourse was accomplished by means of force or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury. On the issue of fear, the court stated: "While the [defendant] was admittedly much larger than the small victim, he did nothing to suggest that he intended to injure her. No [7 Cal.4th 854] coarse or sexually suggestive conversation had taken place. Nothing of an abusive or threatening nature had occurred. The victim was sleeping in her aunt's house, in which screams presumably would have raised the aunt and interrupted the intercourse. Although the assailant was a stranger to the victim, she knew nothing about him which would suggest that he was violent. [The] event of intercourse is singularly unusual in terms of its ease of facilitation, causing no struggle, no injury, no abrasions or other marks, and lasting, as the victim testified, " 'maybe a minute.' " The court modified the judgment, reducing defendant's conviction of rape under section 261, former subdivision 2, to the offense of sexual battery under section 243.4, subdivision (a), and remanded for resentencing.

We granted the Attorney General's petition for review.


II. Discussion

[1] The test on appeal for determining if substantial evidence supports a conviction is whether " 'a reasonable trier of fact could have found the prosecution sustained its burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.' " (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576 [162 Cal.Rptr. 431, 606 P.2d 738, 16 A.L.R.4th 1255].) In making this determination, we " 'must view the evidence in a light most favorable to respondent and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.' " (Ibid.)

Prior to 1980, section 261, subdivisions 2 and 3 "defined rape as an act of sexual intercourse under circumstances where the person resists, but where 'resistance is overcome by force or violence' or where 'a person is prevented from resisting by threats of great and immediate bodily harm, accompanied by apparent power of execution ....' " (People v. Barnes (1986) 42 Cal.3d 284, 292 [228 Cal.Rptr. 228, 721 P.2d 110] [Barnes]; Stats. 1979, ch. 994, § 1, p. 3383.) Under the former law, a person was required to either resist or be prevented from resisting because of threats. (Barnes, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 295.)

Section 261 was amended in 1980 to eliminate both the resistance requirement and the requirement that the threat of immediate bodily harm be accompanied by an apparent power to inflict the harm. fn. 3 (See Barnes, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 302; Enrolled Bill Rep., Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, 3d reading analysis of Assem. Bill No. 2899 (1979-1980 Reg. [7 Cal.4th 855] Sess.) July 9, 1980 [Enrolled Bill Rep.].) As the legislative history explains, "threat is eliminated and the victim need only fear harm. The standard for injury is reduced from great and immediate bodily harm to immediate and unlawful bodily injury." (Enrolled Bill Rep., supra, at p. 2.)

In discussing the significance of the 1980 amendments in Barnes, we noted that "studies have demonstrated that while some women respond to sexual assault with active resistance, others 'freeze,' " and "become helpless from panic and numbing fear." (Barnes, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 299.) In response to this information, "For the first time, the Legislature has assigned the decision as to whether a sexual assault should be resisted to the realm of personal choice." (Id. at p. 301.) "By removing resistance as a prerequisite to a rape conviction, the Legislature has brought the law of rape into conformity with other crimes such as robbery, kidnapping and assault, which require force, fear, and nonconsent to convict. In these crimes, the law does not expect falsity from the complainant who alleges their commission and thus demand resistance as a corroboration and predicate to conviction." (Id. at p. 302.)

At the time of the crime in this case, section 261, subdivision (2), provided, "Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following circumstances: ... [¶] (2) Where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of force, violence, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another." fn. 4 [2] The deletion of the resistance language from section 261 by the 1980 amendments thus effected a change in the purpose of evidence of fear of immediate and unlawful injury. Prior to 1980, evidence of fear was directly linked to resistance; the prosecution was required to demonstrate that a person's resistance had been overcome by force, or that a person was prevented from resisting by threats of great and immediate bodily harm. (See Barnes, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 297 ["In our state, it had long been the rule that the resistance required by former section 261, subdivision 2, was only that which would reasonably manifest refusal to [7 Cal.4th 856] consent to the act of sexual intercourse."]; see People v. Newlan (1959) 173 Cal.App.2d 579, 581 [343 P.2d 618].) As a result of the amendments, evidence of fear is now directly linked to the overbearing of a victim's will; the prosecution is required to demonstrate that the act of sexual intercourse was accomplished against the person's will by means of force, violence, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury.

[3] In Barnes, we then addressed the question of the role of force or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury in the absence of a resistance requirement. We stated that "[a]lthough resistance is no longer the touchstone of the element of force, the reviewing court still looks to the circumstances of the case, including the presence of verbal or nonverbal threats, or the kind of force that might reasonably induce fear in the mind of the victim, to ascertain sufficiency of the evidence of a conviction under section 261, subdivision (2)." (Barnes, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 304.) "Additionally, the complainant's conduct must be measured against the degree of force manifested or in light of whether her fears were genuine and reasonably grounded." (Ibid.) "In some circumstances, even a complainant's unreasonable fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury may suffice to sustain a conviction under section 261, subdivision (2), if the accused knowingly takes advantage of that fear in order to accomplish sexual intercourse." (Id. at p. 304, fn. 20.) "[T]he trier of fact 'should be permitted to measure consent by weighing both the acts of the alleged attacker and the response of the alleged victim, rather than being required to focus on one or the other.' " (Id. at p. 304.) We concluded that "in light of the totality of [the] circumstances" in that case, "a reasonable juror could have found that [the victim's] subsequent compliance with" defendant's insistence on sexual intercourse "was induced either by force, fear, or both, and, in any case, fell short of a consensual act." fn. 5 (Id. at p. 305.)

[4] Thus, the element of fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury has two components, one subjective and one objective. The subjective component asks whether a victim genuinely entertained a fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury sufficient to induce her to submit to sexual intercourse against her will. In order to satisfy this component, the extent or seriousness of the injury feared is immaterial. (See People v. Harris (1951) 108 Cal.App.2d 84, 89 [238 P.2d 158], cited with approval in Barnes, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 304 ["[t]he kind of physical force that may induce fear in the mind of a woman is immaterial ... it may consist in the taking of indecent liberties or of embracing and kissing her against her will"].) [7 Cal.4th 857]

In addition, the prosecution must satisfy the objective component, which asks whether the victim's fear was reasonable under the circumstances, or, if unreasonable, whether the perpetrator knew of the victim's subjective fear and took advantage of it. (See Barnes, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 304, & fn. 20.) The particular means by which fear is imparted is not an element of rape. (Cf. In re Michael L. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 81, 88 [216 Cal.Rptr. 140, 702 P.2d 222] [robbery].)

[5a] Applying these principles, we conclude that the evidence that the sexual intercourse was accomplished against Mercy's will by means of fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury was sufficient to support the verdict in this case. First, there was substantial evidence that Mercy genuinely feared immediate and unlawful bodily injury. Mercy testified that she froze because she was afraid, and the investigating police officer testified that she told him she did not move because she feared defendant would do something violent.

The Court of Appeal stated, however, "But most importantly, the victim was unable to articulate an experience of fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury." This statement ignores the officer's testimony as to Mercy's state of mind. Moreover, even absent the officer's testimony, the prosecution was not required to elicit from Mercy testimony regarding what precisely she feared. "Fear" may be inferred from the circumstances despite even superficially contrary testimony of the victim. (See People v. Renteria (1964) 61 Cal.2d 497, 499 [39 Cal.Rptr. 213, 393 P.2d 413] [in robbery prosecution, People not bound by clerk's testimony that he was not in fear, since there was other evidence to support conclusion "that he acted in fear and would not have disgorged the contents of his employer's till except in fear of the harm which might come to him or his employer if he failed to comply with defendant's demands"]; People v. Borra (1932) 123 Cal.App. 482, 484-485 [11 P.2d 403] [not necessary that there be proof of actual fear, as fear may be presumed where there is just cause for it, and thus "In spite of the bravado of the merchant in declaring that he was not much afraid, we are inclined to believe he meant he was not afraid of receiving bodily harm so long as he complied with the demands of the robber"]; see also People v. Brew (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 99, 104 [2 Cal.Rptr.2d 851] [cashier in retail store robbed when defendant, considerably larger than she, with alcohol on his breath, stood close to her, without barrier or counter between them, causing cashier to step back from cash register drawer in fear]; People v. Franklin (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 797, 798 [19 Cal.Rptr. 645] [although no testimony by checker that she handed over money because she was afraid, evidence sufficient to show that taking was by means of force or fear].)

In addition, immediately after the attack, Mercy was so distraught her friend Pam could barely understand her. Mercy hid in the bushes outside the [7 Cal.4th 858] house waiting for Pam to pick her up because she was terrified defendant would find her; she subsequently asked Pam if the word "rape" was written on her forehead, and had to be dissuaded from bathing prior to going to the hospital. (See People v. Bledsoe (1984) 36 Cal.3d 236, 251 [203 Cal.Rptr. 450, 681 P.2d 291].)

Second, there was substantial evidence that Mercy's fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury was reasonable. The Court of Appeal's statements that defendant "did nothing to suggest that he intended to injure" Mercy, and that '[a]lthough the assailant was a stranger to the victim, she knew nothing about him which would suggest that he was violent" ignores the import of the undisputed facts. Defendant, who weighed twice as much as Mercy, accosted her while she slept in the home of a close friend, thus violating the victim's enhanced level of security and privacy. (Cf. People v. Jackson (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1190 [8 Cal.Rptr.2d 239] ["A person inside a private residence, whether it be their own or that of an acquaintance, feels a sense of privacy and security not felt when outside or in a semipublic structure.... providing the [attacker] with the advantages of shock and surprise which may incapacitate the victim(s)."].)

Defendant, who was naked, then removed Mercy's pants, fondled her buttocks, and inserted his penis into her vagina for approximately one minute, without warning, without her consent, and without a reasonable belief of consent. Any man or woman awakening to find himself or herself in this situation could reasonably react with fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury. Sudden, unconsented-to groping, disrobing, and ensuing sexual intercourse while one appears to lie sleeping is an appalling and intolerable invasion of one's personal autonomy that, in and of itself, would reasonably cause one to react with fear. (See People v. Bermudez (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 619, 624-625 [203 Cal.Rptr. 728] [evidence of fear sufficient where victim assaulted in her own home by a stranger]; cf. § 263 ["The essential guilt of rape consists in the outrage to the person and feelings of the victim of the rape."].)

[6] The Court of Appeal's suggestion that Mercy could have stopped the sexual assault by screaming and thus eliciting Sandra S.'s help, disregards both the Legislature's 1980 elimination of the resistance requirement and our express language in Barnes upholding that amendment. (Barnes, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 302.) It effectively guarantees an attacker freedom to intimidate his victim and exploit any resulting reasonable fear so long as she neither struggles nor cries out. (See People v. Bermudez, supra, 157 Cal.App.3d at p. 624 ["The law has outgrown the resistance concept; a person demanding sexual favors can no longer rely on a position of strength which draws no [7 Cal.4th 859] physical or verbal protest."]; Estrich, Real Rape (1987) p. 69.) There is no requirement that the victim say, "I am afraid, please stop," when it is the defendant who has created the circumstances that have so paralyzed the victim in fear and thereby submission. fn. 6 (See People v. Bermudez, supra, 157 Cal.App.3d at p. 622 [a criminal invasion of sexual privacy does not become a nonrape merely because the victim is too fearful or hesitant to say, "I guess you know I dont want you to do this."].) Moreover, it is sheer speculation that Mercy's assailant would have responded to screams by desisting the attack, and not by causing her further injury or death.

[5b] The jury could reasonably have concluded that under the totality of the circumstances, this scenario, instigated and choreographed by defendant, created a situation in which Mercy genuinely and reasonably responded with fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury, and that such fear allowed him to accomplish sexual intercourse with Mercy against her will. fn. 7


Conclusion

The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Lucas, C. J., Mosk, J., Kennard, J., Baxter, J., George, J., and Spencer, J., fn. * concurred.

­FN *. Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division One, assigned by the Acting Chairperson of the Judicial Council.

­FN 1. All statutory references contained herein are to the California Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

­FN 2. Sexual battery is defined in section 243.4, which at the time of the crime provided in relevant part:

"(a) Any person who touches an intimate part of another person while that person is unlawfully restrained by the accused or an accomplice, and if the touching is against the will of the person touched and is for the purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse, is guilty of sexual battery....

"(f)(2) 'Sexual battery' does not include the crimes defined in Section 261 ...."

­FN 3. As amended in 1980, section 261, subdivision 2, provided: "Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following circumstances: ... [¶] 2 Where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of force or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another." (Stats. 1980, ch. 587, § 1, p. 1595.)

­FN 4. In 1990, the Legislature amended section 261, subdivision (2), to add duress and menace, and added subdivisions (b) and (c) to define these terms. In addition, the Legislature added subdivision designation (a), and redesignated former subdivisions (1)-(7) to be subdivisions (a)(1)-(a)(7). All relevant parts of section 261 remain substantively identical. Section 261, subdivision (a)(2), currently provides:

"(a) Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following circumstances:

"(2) Where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another."

­FN 5. "Consent" currently is, and was at the time of the crime, defined for purposes of rape prosecutions as "positive cooperation in act or attitude pursuant to an exercise of free will. The person must act freely and voluntarily and have knowledge of the nature of the act or transaction involved." (§ 261.6.)

­FN 6. No defense of reasonable and good faith but mistaken belief in consent was raised by the defendant, and we therefore express no opinion on the appropriateness of such a theory under the circumstances of this case. (See People v. Williams (1992) 4 Cal.4th 354, 362, 364 [14 Cal.Rptr.2d 441, 841 P.2d 961].)

­FN 7. In light of our disposition on the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence of fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury, it is unnecessary for us to address the issue of whether the evidence of force was also sufficient to support the verdict.

­FN *. Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division One, assigned by the Acting Chairperson of the Judicial Council.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2016, 04:24:13 pm by Oceander »

Offline Longmire

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,262
Takes a normal kind of progressive mind to make excuses for a sexual predator.

Trump didn't force himself on anyone and having a healthy libido isn't against the law.

This is much ado about nothing from the beta wing of the GOP.

Wingnut

  • Guest
Trump didn't force himself on anyone and having a healthy libido isn't against the law.

This is much ado about nothing from the beta wing of the GOP.

Why is you Trump supporters always put 10 dollars worth of thought into a 2 dollar problem. 


HonestJohn

  • Guest
I did read and hear it. He said the women allowed it. Women allow rich/wealthy handsome/famous and alpha men to do stuff to them us mere mortal men would never get away with. Go watch the SNL Tom Brady skit..in brief at work a fat ugly man ask his female coworker out on  a date. She says get away from me sicko and calls company security. Later  a very handsome man ask her out and she says ok and he squeezes her tity  as he walks away and she laughs.

Your hatred of Trump is making you make  stuff up- like he had them against the wall. Where was that ever mentioned?

@Oceander

"Allow" is "consent" in your world?

Oceander

  • Guest
Trump didn't force himself on anyone and having a healthy libido isn't against the law.

This is much ado about nothing from the beta wing of the GOP.

Actually, he did.  He just kisses them.  He doesn't wait for them to consent, he just goes for it.  That's an assault.

Oceander

  • Guest
Trump didn't force himself on anyone and having a healthy libido isn't against the law.

This is much ado about nothing from the beta wing of the GOP.

Sez the omega dog, who needs a blowhard bully of a lecher to reinforce his "manhood."

Offline Longmire

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,262
Why is you Trump supporters always put 10 dollars worth of thought into a 2 dollar problem.

Our brains are bigger than yours...among other things.  :police:

Offline dfwgator

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,488
Meanwhile, look who is appearing on stage today with Hillary.

Two More Massage Therapists Accuse Al Gore of Sexual Assault

http://www.businessinsider.com/two-more-women-accuse-al-gore-of-assault-2010-7

Offline mirraflake

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,199
  • Gender: Male


It takes a special kind of progressive mind set to make this stuff out as criminal behavior.

Third wave progressive feminism.  Soon, men will have to give a woman a permission slip for her to sign before he  ask her out on a date.

@Longmire